The very existence of the strata miles deep and very nearly worldwide, ...
But they are not worldwide are they? In fact they do not correlated across oceans, but are interrupted on continents by tectonic boundaries and by erosional surfaces. So, how did that happen during a brief global flood?
... and certainly their contents of bazillions of dead creatures, are both extremely good evidence for a worldwide Flood.
So, how many creatures would you expect to see live and die in a billion years?
I still don't know how anyone can look at the walls of the Grand Canyon with their neat horizontal layers a mile deep and think each of those represents a time period of millions of years.
Who said 'each of them does'? On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that they aggregate over a billion years.
The absurdity takes my breath away. But it certainly does suggest a water event on the order of the worldwide Flood.
The deposition of some of the layers all the way across the North American continent suggests such long waves to me,
Why is that? Why do you have waves depositing evaporites and sand dunes?
It would be nice to know where these layers end, what that edge looks like.
They generally pass from on rock type to another. Sometimes they are eroded away and sometimes the end at the edges of their depositional environment.
Steve Austin's study of the nautiloid layer in the Grand Canyon also showed the direction of the flow of water that carried them along with the sediment that became the Redwall Limestone. It moved from southeast to northwest and covers about four states. Suggests waves moving onto the land from different directions.
Except that would be away from land, and it doesnt' mean 'waves'.
Don't know why you have a problem with the water's being saturated with sediments, turbidity being expected by everyone who discusses the Flood, but an enormous quantity of sediments must have been washed off the land mass into the water in the early stage, along with all the dead things that also ended up buried in the layers.
There is no problem with turbidity, per se, but the time for settling and the total amount of suspended solids. It makes no sense.
The way I see it, HBD, somebody gets all involved in trying to prove the Flood didn't happen by getting minutely scientific about how particles settle out of water, ...
Well, when we see YECs avoiding details it forces us to make a point about them.
... as if that is the only possible way the layers could have been formed by the Flood. So I just point out that settling out isn't the only way layers could have formed. Waves deposit sand on beaches, ....
Well, you might notice that even with beaches and waves any silt- or clay-sized particle stay in suspension so that they are not deposited on the beach; and on gravel beaches the effect is even more pronounced.
... there would have been waves as the land mass was exposed during the receding of the Flood.
Umm, ... Faith?
You might have noticed that there are waves on the land masses today, also.
And the next thing that happens is the subject is changed and somebody is demanding that I show how the Flood accounts for the salt beds.
Well, we were trying to figure out how waves formed salt beds, but you haven't helped us very much by just complaining about question.
But this thread was a bully swarm long before that anyway.
Yes, we have a problem with willful ignorance. It's like one of those harmful mutations...
You go from one non sequitur to another. In saying that waves would ALSO have been involved, I'm not saying they must account for any particular layer. The task is to figure out which did what where. Not that YOU care, since you're quite content to call it all hopeless on the slightest thought that crosses your mind.
Actually, I'm calling these things pretty well known. If you want to take on a task that's been done for over a century, that's fine with me.
I would still like to see someone acknowledge that to explain enormous slabs of rock of different sediments, stacked on top of one another across whole continents but not covering exactly the same area, by the theory of successive time periods of multiple millions of years, is absurd.
So, you would like to see someone agree with you.
Of course you won't and in fact your personal m.o. is just to come back at me with "why?"
Well, yes, of course. That would be me asking you to support your assertions... and you haven't done so to this point.
Saves you a lot of thought.
Believe me, I've been racking my brain trying to figure out what the heck you are trying to say. I'm afraid the brain damage is irreversible.
But this is just another complaint on your part. Why not put some effort into supporting your arguments instead of whining?
Seems to me if that's the way the history of the earth happened then we should expect our time period also to end up as a slab of rock on top of all the others, the American version on top of those spanning the North American continent, but of course you know THAT is absurd, you just won't acknowledge that the whole scenario is absurd.
Yes, I'm pretty sure that your scenario is absurd.
We've got a stack of flat rocks topped by a very lumpy hilly mountainous highly disturbed terrain with deep canyons cut in it that didn't show up in any of the early nice flat slab time periods, but none of that penetrates the consciousness of the committed Flood debunker.
Nonsense. I have drilled on either side of cliffs buried in the geological record. You are way out of line on this one.
There's no point in pondering the details of a process if you don't have the slightest clue how it fits into the Flood.
Why does it have to fit into the flood?
Isn't that kind of 'anti-science'?
Yall just assume the first thing to run through your head is sufficient and then you get into the details. . Anyway, how's about you acknowledge the absurdity of explaining the history of the earth in terms of layer upon layer of separate kinds of sedimentary rocks stacked miles deep for hundreds of millions or even billions of years up to our time when suddenly all this disturbance occurs, canyons are cut, mountains are built and so on.
Why is that absurd?
This observation kills establishment geology so of course you can't see it.
What observation is that and why do you think it's been missed for so long?
I didn't say it has to fit in the Flood, but they do, that's why they are spending all that time on particles.
Who is 'they'? What is 'it'?
This point is unintelligible.
Why absurd. Because nature doesn't sort itself into slabs of rocks containing the entire flora and fauna of an era.
What do you mean by 'nature not sorting itself'?
And why wouldn't flora and fauna of an era be found together?
Our era isn't going to be reduced to a particular sedimentary rock either.
Who said it would be?
Every time I look at the walls of the Grand Canyon I wonder how anybody can think those discrete units of rock could actually represent identifiable time periods on earth. I guess all I can say is it's obvious.
I don't see why not.
I'm sure it's obvious to you, but I don't see why. Why can't the rocks represent time periods?
Why do I think it's been missed for so long? Because you are all looking at the trees instead of the forest.
And everyone has done this for over a century?
Sorry not buying that.
Why is what you think right and everyone else wrong? What is your experience with interpreting geology?
Yes I know you can't see it. I didn't say the disturbance was occurring right now. It occurred after all the strata were in place though. I'm talking as usual about those neat layers you can see in the Grand Canyon that were laid down before the canyon was cut and all that erosion above the canyon to the Grand Staircase. And the known layers of rock that span huge areas of the North American continent. Every time I contemplate it I wonder why nobody sees what I sere in it.
Maybe you are wrong.
Ooops! Sorry, I forgot... that's not possible....
I believe this pattern is true across the globe. Wherever there's a salt layer shown in cross section you can see for instance that the layers above it sag right along with the distortion it creates. That shouldn't be so if the layers were supposedly laid down over millions of years. The more recent layers should have a flat surface. And the salt should have long since dissipated too, through the domes it makes in the layers above, if we're talking millsions upon millions of years. All this seems quite open and shut to me.
Yes: to you...
It isn't that way to many other people. I really wish you could just reject the rest of us, but that isn't how it works.
But there are places some point to that they think show disturbance during the laying down of the strata. Some of it's ambiguous, but really, there should be NO place on earth where the strata could have accumulated miles deep for thousands of square miles over multiple millions of years years without being disturbed on the order of a huge canyon's being cut into them and huge quantities of matter eroded away such as we see at the Kaibab Plateau and the stairs of the Grand Staircase.
But there are such canyons and you have been shown them.
And why can there not be some large areas where we don't see such erosion?
But oh well, I know it's always going to be rationalized away.
It would be nice, though, if somebody would look at it and see what I see.
Are you some kind of utopian or something? We should agree with Faith so everything will be perfect?
The erosion between layers you all like to make into evidence for surface exposure, is minuscule, itty bitty barely visible erosion if you're looking at the walls of the Grand Canyon for instance, ...
Yes, some are barely noticeable and others are quite extreme like the Great Unconformity.
... and that is what you are comparing with the surface of the earth now with its hills and mountains and valleys and cliffs and canyons.
Actually not. That would be you, not us. On the other hand, we do compare the Great Unconformity with modern topography and even the unconformity within the GC Supergroup.
But that doesn't create any dissonance for you. Amazing but true.I believe the sagging is caused by the loss of salt as it rises up through the layers above forming domes that eventually reach the surface. By dissipate I just mean some point must come when all the salt has risen to the top, but every cross section shows it in process. Should this take millions of years? Apparently they move and change fast enough to cause a hazard in some places. Sounds like they move a lot faster than millions of years.
I know this will come as a surprise to you but yes, some processes are slow and some are fast. Some are fast only in the geological sense and one of those would be salt domes.
I'm not sure what your problem is on this.
I believe the sagging is caused by the loss of salt as it rises up through the layers above forming domes that eventually reach the surface. By dissipate I just mean some point must come when all the salt has risen to the top, but every cross section shows it in process. Should this take millions of years? Apparently they move and change fast enough to cause a hazard in some places. Sounds like they move a lot faster than millions of years.
Well, it isn't so different. In some places we see nice flat regions and others we see rugged terrain. It was probably similar in the past.
Never mind, I KNOW you can rationalize it all away, as can edge and anybody else here. Itty bitty erosion proves it was at the surface of the earth and it isn't surprising at all that no gigantic disturbances like the Grand Canyon occurred for hundreds of millions of years, and it makes perfect sense that one era should be characterized by limestone and another by sandstone, and that each era has just those creatures that are found buried in those particular sediments and no others. Earth time isn't ongoing, it occurs in sharply demarcated time periods with sharply demarcated collections of life forms.
To me this is absurd in the extreme, but to Geology it makes perfect sense.
Yes, ancient rivers, buried rivers, buried canyons. Sigh. It's all just the effects of underground water running between the layers after the Flood. There are still underground rivers. It's all quite consistent with the Flood. Oh but we must have it all to be former landscapes. Sigh.
Well, why not? The maps you've seen look an awful lot like modern terrain, so why should its origin be different?
And underground rivers? Seriously? Don't you think there is a difference between solution-formed caves and river drainages?
How is it that layers built on top of former "landscapes" with such nice straight horizontal lines?
Because that is how valleys fill in. Have you ever seen how a lake fills in a valley? Why would sediments in the lake be any different?