Growing the Geologic Column

You are not in a position to tell me what contradicts God. Don't go there.

I'd know you were lying or deluded.

As I keep trying to get across to you, the speculations about HOW the Flood happened are not given by divine revelation so yes I can come to see that a particular interpretation isn't going to work, though you can bet I'm going to give it a long run first. What is NOT in doubt is that there WAS such an event, whether we know how it played out or not. And too much of your geology contradicts that one simple revelation.

The Bible isn't that hard to understand on the issues that matter. All you have to do is be honest and believe what it says. The parts that are problematic require consulting commentaries or leaving them until God gives you understanding of them. Yes you can know and understand the Bible but you have to be willing to accept what it actually says as the truth. The problem is too many people balk at it where it contradicts human wisdom and try to make it fit such things as humanly created science and then they go very very wrong.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Anyone who can't see the evidence for the Flood in the miles-deep sedimentary strata and their fossil contents has no appreciation of what evidence is. Or the rest of the ravaged planet we live on for that matter.Yes the Bible is dogma. That's what God's revelation is. It's the only information we MUST believe because He gave it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Thank you for your very predictable periodic reminder of the Correct Opinion.

That's just a weird misrepresentation of the facts. Note that I said "the issues that matter," and the vast majority of all those denominations agree on those. The differences are on minor points, points of organization usually. Debunkers like to make this statistic sound like something it's not. It would be nice if you'd respect that I'm being serious and remarks like that are out of order. But the fact is that you are misinterpreting the evidence when it comes to the events of the past. Of course. It's calculated from the ages of the Patriarchs in Genesis 5, other genealogies and other clues in the text, plus historical facts apart from the Bible such as the known reign of some kings. Fallen human nature is geared to contradicting God. That's why He gave us the Bible. A Bible believer then looks for other explanations. Such as that they leached out of the rocks after they were deposited, which looks to me like it fits the known facts of what happens where there are salt deposits. But that's why I'm looking for information about other parts of the world in the cross sections I've been collecting. Getting a good collection isn't easy. Other languages, inferior diagrams, stuff too small to read clearly, and the basic problem of how complicated the geology is elsewhere, the enormous amount of faulting for instance. I believe I can reconstruct the original situation through all that but I don't know if I could convince you. I do think you must have been convinced by me about the "quiescent" Grand Canyon during the Paleozoic (really the Phanerozoic), since I've never encountered that idea anywhere else. I'm sure you'll deny it but oh well. Anyway maybe there's hope for convincing you of a few other things.

Isn't it clear yet? You misunderstand the evidence.

There never was another "apologetics," that was just someone's made-up accusation. And this isn't apologetics either, I'm getting interrogated so I'm answering the questions I'm asked. Maybe if I answer them enough they'll stop asking them. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You are missing 90% of what I said that you think you are answering and I'm too tired right now to deal with it properly. So all I'll do here is ask you to supply the time periods for the events on your chart. I really can't go research all that, though I did for JonF's similar presentation. Too much, sorry. Later or tomorrow I'll try to answer the post itself.

Would have thought that evidence is simply anything that evidently would have been caused by the event it evidences. Strata and fossils on the scale they in fact exist would evidently have been the result of a worldwide Flood. Raising objections to parts of it is simply another subject.

'Every single time?" Wow.

Bizarre non sequitur there. I'm sure you pride yourself on your logical mind but this hardly justifies such pride."The vast majority" must certainly exclude some from the category of "those who agree on the issues that matter." With this hint I'll trust you to draw the appropriate conclusion. So you wish to persist in the idea that the RC Church is just one of the denominations? Well, it's not, I don't include it among those many denominations, it's the False Church. The Reformation made that quite clear to those who are paying attention. Which isn't many, most are fogged out on the subject, but the facts are there for those who want to know. And may I ask what wars you could possibly be talking about? WWI? WWII? Vietnam? The American Civil War? The Napoleonic Wars? The Bolshevik Revolution? I've given you my provisional hypothesis a few times already. Strange thinking there, obviously misunderstanding something or other. You just don't like the facts I focus on but I've pointed to plenty of facts. And isn't it time the barbarian internet learned a little civility? Why should Science need barbarian tactics? Would have thought it obvious in the context of this side trip on this thread, that wherever you or any scientist interprets the evidence in terms of billions of years of Earth history, and when you interpret the strata and the fossils to exclude the obvious explanation of the Flood, you are misinterpreting. You do seem to be suffering from some sort of mental infirmity to say such a thing. No, readers do, you can. The facts are there, the calculations can be done. Can you read, edge? We're ALL fallen, naturally geared to contradicting God, as you just quoted me saying, that's why God gave us the Bible, so we don't have to go on staggering blindly in the dark. I trust the Bible as God's word and try to follow where it leads because God's truth is the only cure for my fallenness. Of course if you prefer your fallen condition and ignore the Bible there's no remedy. Why shouldn't there be underground lakes? Good grief man, I've never presented myself as knowledgeable about such things, my job here is to try to see things normally seen from the OE and Evo perspective from the Creationist and Floodist perspective, coming up with alternative views, and proving such views is a slow process of acquiring the necessary information. For me here but Creationism itself is really in the beginning stage. Why do you demand perfection of an enterprise that is only in its beginnings? Well I think I have done so. Sorry you don't see it. Yes my model is very simple minded. That's a virtue in this case. But no, it's complicated because the geology itself is complicated. There's very little out there that shows the neat undisturbed accumulation of the strata as the Grand Canyon area does. To reconstruct the original neat undisturbed strata requires undoing the knots in it brought about mostly by faulting. Here's a cute one for example, not terribly hard to interpret but riddled with faults: And this one's nice too: I showed it from the cross section. Sad but true.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But my point was that you are missing the forest for the trees. The big picture is that the strata and the fossils are OBVIOUSLY excellent evidence for a worldwide Flood.

Let's get something in perspective here. The interspersed layers do not meet the original conditions.All this stuff about the igneous rocks came up way back when I said they aren't part of the geologic column as I envision it and that when they are seen there it is as intrusives, or dikes and sills. This started a flurry of efforts to prove me wrong, and you know what, in an important sense I don't think any of them have succeeded (except the Cardenas) because none of them are about the geologic column as I envision it. Such as shown in the walls of the Grand Canyon. The thick strata that span continents. I thought I'd been pretty clear about this but maybe not clear enough.

• So then we get a layer that does look like a layer but turns out to be a sill when I research it. That's way back on the former thread by now. Confirms what I said about sills within the geo column.
• And we get layers that are layers of all volcanic material rather than a layer between the sedimentary rocks of the Geo Column. Ascension Island, Black Rock escarpment, Siberian Traps, and one of those pictures JonF posted in Message 214 which at first appeared to be a volcanic layer between sedimentary rocks but then was revealed to be between volcanic rocks. These do not fit the requirement to be a layer among the sedimentary layers of the geo column.
• And we get the effects of volcanic layering on top of the sedimentary rocks which is also not a layer between the rocks. Percy example of Yellowstone I think. (Forgot: I meant to research the Siberian Traps more but didn't get to it, because on something I saw it looks like that enormous amount of volcanic rock is piled on top of sedimentary strata. Well, maybe I'll eventually get beck to it).
• And we get the sedimentary layers between the igneous layers of the Deccan Traps, which is the closest anyone has come to making the case, but that also is not what I originally described: a volcanic layer among sedimentary layers. It's something entirely different that I would like to think about more when I can get to it.
• And then there are these examples of interspersed volcanic and sedimentary rock JonF and HBD put up, which are also not the same thing I was asking for but nevertheless do purport to show volcanism during a period I was saying it didn't occur so that also needs to be thought about. But interspersed layers like that are something different from what I originally described too: a clear nonintrusive layer within a stack of sedimentary layers.
• That leaves the Cardenas Basalt as the only genuine example of what I said I'd never seen, if edge is right about it. ONE example.

Now everybody keeps saying I've been shown I'm wrong but if you consider my original frame of reference that really is not the case because the examples given don't meet the conditions of the geologic column as I was describing it. Except for the Cardenas layer. This is not moving goalposts, this is simply trying to keep the original context in mind.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : add link to message