Growing the Geologic Column

You asked for examples. If you are not going to pay attention, fine. I won't put so much work into providing you with information in the future.If you are just going to dismiss our posts, then you are being disrespectful and you fail to discuss in good faith. That's fine with me too, because you undermine your own arguments and everyone can see that.

Nonsense. You have said that the Bible is your guide to geological interpretation. If that is not a presuppositonal position, then there are none. More nonsense. We have shown you numerous examples where that is not the case. Then you know that it happened while the sediments were being deposited during the Paleozoic.

That's interesting.Then who wrote this?

There are a few glaringly obvious things we can take away from your posts, but this is not one of them.It is clear that you presuppose a biblical flood and then endeavor to fit all of the facts to that model.However, your contortionist logic collides with reality when we look at all of the data, not just the sedimentary sequence of just the Paleozoic rocks of just the Grand Canyon. Then, true to form, you resort to denial and YEC redefinition of terms. This does not make for a credible argument.I have always said that when a YEC declares that something is 'obvious', you should be prepared to tax your imagination, but when it is 'glaringly obvious', that sets a whole new standard for cognitive dissonance.

Message 1255
Message 1269It's amazing that you haven't figured out that when you say "I never said X" it's easy to find examples of you saying X.

Crabs. Trilobites.HAVE to be explained by something, but not by a flood.

Hi Faith,I seem to be in catch up mode. I'm replying to a message from only the day before yesterday and yet am 160 messages behind. What we actually have is evidence, and interpretation and analysis of evidence. The "plausibilities,...,suppositions, assumptions, hypotheses" stuff is all on your side of the fence.For example, we know how sand is deposited in deserts and along coastlines because we observe it happening today. And we know that the sandstone in geological layers was deposited in the same way because analysis reveals it has the same composition, structure and types of fossils as sedimentary sand deposits forming today.You, on the other hand, claim a Flood that does things that no flood anywhere has ever done, and that no one can conceive could happen using natural processes. You claim this is a Flood as has never been seen before and that it could nonetheless do these things, but now you are way beyond even "plausibilities, suppositions, assumptions, hypotheses" and into the realm of fiction. You still misunderstand Walther's Law. Walther's Law is about a depositional environment moving across a landscape. It could be the riverbank of a meandering river or the coastline of a transgressing/regressing sea. Both are examples of Walther's Law in action.If you read the Wikipedia Section on Walther's Law you'll see that it describes it as "when a depositional environment 'migrates' laterally". This could refer to a coastline that moves inland or out to sea with the depositional environments of that coastline moving with it, or to the banks of a meandering river whose depositional environments moves back and forth across the landscape with the changing course of the river.It order for a depositional environment to deposit the significant amounts of sand, silt, mud, clay, calcium carbonate remains and mid-ocean ooze that we see in the sedimentary record, that environment has to persist in one place for quite some time. That's why the transgression onto or regression from a landscape has to be gradual, otherwise there's no time for significant deposits to form. The runoff from land has to feed the depositional environments with the raw material that it sorts by density and grain size. The heaviest material, sand, can fall out of suspension in the active water of waves, and so we find sand at the interface between between land and ocean, and the activity of the waves provides additional weathering that produces more sand. A little further off the coast we find mud, silt and clay sediments that consist of smaller and lighter particles and that require quieter water to fall out of suspension. Further off the coast if the environment is suitable the carbonate skeletons of microorganisms will accumulate, and otherwise there will be only mid-ocean ooze.Walther's Law is definitely not about a flood moving across a landscape, even a global flood. Once the world is flooded no water is moving in any significant way and there are no higher elevations from which sediments can be supplied. You think the sediments would come from the scoured landscape, but floods do not scour landscapes, only fast flowing water does that, and fast flowing water only occurs in confined waterways. Floods spread out across landscapes and move slowly. But even a fast flowing tsunami does not scour a landscape, as we saw when the tsunami flooded across the Japanese landscape. About the best it did in the way of scouring was pick up a little beach sand and carry it a little bit inland. No, it is not a "matter of plausibilities. There is nothing plausible about a global flood that has no source of sediment yet not only produces copious sedimentary layers into which it inserts undisturbed footprints, burrows and nests, it sorts them by type (but without regard to density and size), by degree of difference of fossils from modern forms, and by amount of radiometric decay products. Your ideas about the Flood fail on the simplest and most fundamental levels. Au contraire, we *can* prove (that's "prove" in the scientific sense of providing evidence for one's theories) how long it would have taken because we can observe how slowly the same processes are happening today while building sedimentary layers identical in character to their lithified cousins deeper in the geologic column. In addition we have the radiometric data, and we have the fossils. Here's yet another reason you're mistaken. Sedimentary layers are everywhere around the world. If the flood had truly carried sediments from one place to be deposited in another, then the places where the sediments came from should have no material left. Yet, as I said, sedimentary layers are everywhere. There is nowhere in your scenario from which the sediments could come.Oceans cover 3/4 of the globe, which is 3/4 of a global flood. There's nothing in today's oceans remotely similar to your claim of cubic miles and miles sediments being carried from one set of places hither and yon to another set of places in short periods of time.--Percy

This is a puzzling approach. Since you're only now seeking evidence of a single event, you must have become convinced of a single event before you had evidence.One might find it a better practice to allow one's mind to become convinced of things only after evidence is identified, not before.--Percy

I can't take such specific incidentals as your idea of where crabs and trilobites should be in the stack of strata as all that damning. You keep repeating it, but there are lots of little oddnesses in the strata that one might think couldn't be explained by the Flood. But that's nothing but your subjective supposition, you don't know how things would have been sorted, it's all just interpretation you know. The big picture, the fact that the strata, their depth and worldwide occurrence, and the thickness and extent of many of the layers, and such an incredible number of dead creatures, the fossilization of which requires the very conditions only the Flood could have provided, really are amazing evidence for such an event, so that denying it just shows a mentality that can't see the forest for the trees to begin with.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But everything suggests the Flood to you. To someone else that image might suggest ancient aliens, and you have no more evidence for your Flood then they'd have for aliens.If a rapid flow had created that plateau while its sedimentary layers were in a softer state then it would be teardrop shaped. Also, as you've been informed many times, rocks do not harden by drying. Once the pressure of compaction is removed, lithification ceases. Well, since you've said this again, it bears repeating again that this is not true. This is the image of the kilometers-deep layers that have formed and still forming today in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana and Texas: --Percy

It never fails to amaze me how rare it is for anybody here ever to put a positive construction on anything I say, but always come up with the sleaziest possible interpretation.

• I HAVE tons of evidence for this order of things.
• One doesn't abandon a hypothesis the first time a knee-jerk objection comes from the opposition with a vested interest in "proving" me wrong.
• I haven't yet given the Cardenas a careful think-through; that whole bunch of rocks beneath the GC is a very complicated situation and it's going to take time to sort it all out, WHEN I'm finally able to get to it.
• And I don't ASSUME there is only one such supposed extrusive event, so far the evidence is that there is only one.

The objections I've been getting to my view of the geo column, for just the most recent example, tell me nobody cares to understand anything from my point of view, I HAVE TO accept theirs, the sooner the better, as soon as they've posted them for the very first time, or I'm being "evasive" or "lying" or "denying" or whatever. And that's all you're doing here, putting anything I think in a bad light which is all from your own assumptions. If there's one thing I've learned from EvC it's to expect a great screaming chorus of objections to ANYTHING I post, that eventually will show themselves to be irrelevant if I just take my time to think through the issues. Which of course isn't easy when you're being deluged with objections before you've even begun to grasp the particular issue.So, you think I should just fold up because the Cardenas is supposedly a killer objection. Sorry, not when I know I'm on the right track on this issue from other angles. The Cardenas will have to wait, and I expect it will eventually fall into place.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

"Than," not "then." Sorry, can't let this stand. It's my biggest pet peeve about the deterioration of English through internet use, even ahead of the rampant misuse of apostrophes. {ABE: No, just to anticipate the usual sleazy retort, I do NOT consider myself a paragon of writing perfection, I just don't make some of the worst errors and I'm open to correcting whatever I do make /ABE}You're blind to the evidence for the Flood like everybody else here who has a vested interest in denying it. And of course it starts with denying that the Bible is God's word. All the assertions that I have no evidence can easily enough be answered that I do. Might as well give it up. Gosh you must have been there and seen exactly how the water flowed around those formations, huh? The tepui are very hard rock, metamorphic, no doubt having been originally beneath the weight of a huge stack of strata above, and then the tectonic force that raised them would have also contributed to their hardening. See, I can answer your unprovable guesses with my own, and they're quite reasonable. And as you have been informed in return many times, rocks DO harden by drying, especially under compaction, which would have been the case with all the lower strata in the Geo Column as the upper strata would have been piling up for a sufficient period for that. A long time ago I posted something from a geology website that said compaction is even sufficient sometimes for lithification itself. And who says lithification ceases when it's removed? It's caused by chemicals that exist in the wet rocks and even travel from one to another. Once they are there lithification should follow naturally.ABE: Also, that diagram you keep posting does not show what you think it shows. It no more shows the accumulation of sediment on the Geo Column than the cross section of the Grand Staircase does.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So you can't explain it, right? "Little oddnesses"? That's certainly one way of describing the inconsistencies of YEC. At what point to the little oddnesses add up to an invalid theory? Or does on have to be a little odd to ignore the oddnesses? So, accepting odnesses is not subjective?Pesky details....You know, it would help your argument if you could address them.

Then what would be a big deal?What features in a geologic formation would be inconsistent with a recent global flood? What type of observations would falsify a recent global flood?

You're confusing evidence of floods (plural) with evidence of "a" flood (singular). Yes, there have been floods. But it would be difficult, if not impossible, to connect all of the flood evidence into one flood. As I've pointed out to you before, it's like trying to connect every fallen leaf to one tree. It ain't logical.