Summations Only

quote:

---

Yes there are some time periods that are marked by more than one layer, and some of the layers are mixtures but not many

---

I think you must be taking a simplified view as fact. That is certainly not the impression I get from reading up on the geology of the Grand Canyon.

quote:

---

the overall fact remains that the geologic column is characterized by discreet separate sediments, each time period marked by its own sediment or sediments, and that is what makes no sense.

---

It isn't a fact. And if your imaginings make no sense, that is hardly a problem for those who disagree with you.

The entire stack of strata wherever they are found is evidence for the global Flood, and their fossil contents clinch it as the killer of all living things it aimed to be.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It is not nit-picking to point out that your claims are false and in fact unfounded.

Simply declaring yourself right - when even you should be able to see that you are wrong - is hardly contributing to discussion. It's just a display of arrogance.

The nitpicking nonsense on this thread is getting out of control. I don't see any reason to continue this travesty unless somebody comes up with something meaningful. But Science at EvC appears to be a very silly manipulative thing - in debates with creationists that is -- so I'm not holding my breath.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Let's try small baby steps.

First, do you think a flood like one of the flood tales in the Bible happened?

but what interested me was whether there was any place on earth where strata didn't form at all and I didn't find any, though my research was not exhaustive.

I don't know what your definition of strata is, but the crust of the earth is made of strata, so how could there be a place where there is no strata? What else would be there?

There's been a great deal of brevity at the expense of clarity recently. Where it appeared a message was misunderstood I offer my interpretation or ask for clarification:

Faith in Message 115 writes: Why should there be time periods at all, let alone time periods marked by a particular kind of sediment with a particular kind of fossil contents? That alone makes no sense. You are NOT going to get anything like that out of the era WE live in. Look at the current surface of the earth. It is NOT going to flatten down to a slab of some particular kind of sediment that spans the world EVER.

Faith is repeating her belief that some sedimentary layers span the entire world, and argues that since it is obvious that the world of today could never erode down to a single sedimentary layer of one type that this never happened in the past, either. Dr Adequate tries to explain that Faith's take on geology is wrong, and Faith responds in a way that makes clear she understands what geology actually says, but is unable to accept it:

Faith in Message 163 writes: Yes there are some time periods that are marked by more than one layer, and some of the layers are mixtures but not many, and the overall fact remains that the geologic column is characterized by discreet separate sediments, each time period marked by its own sediment or sediments, and that is what makes no sense.

Faith can confirm, but I think Faith says this makes no sense because she rejects the possibility of sedimentary layers forming as a result of anything but a flood. She rejects the possibility of contemporary sedimentary layers forming in fresh water and marine environments, such as off coastlines, in shallow seas, and in the deep ocean.

Dr Adequate responds:

Dr Adequate in Message 164 writes: The reason it makes no sense is that you made it up. Things that you make up usually make no sense.

I don't know why Dr Adequate is saying that Faith made it up. Unless one is being pedantic it looks like a pretty fair summary of how geology interprets the geologic column. PaulK appears to concur in Message 166. If Faith's description is wrong then it isn't clear to me how. Some clarification is needed.

Faith in Message 169 writes: The nitpicking nonsense on this thread is getting out of control. I don't see any reason to continue this travesty unless somebody comes up with something meaningful. But Science at EvC appears to be a very silly manipulative thing - in debates with creationists that is -- so I'm not holding my breath.

Faith isn't replying to a specific post, but I think she's having as much trouble as me understanding Dr Adequate's and PaulK's objections. Again, some clarification please?

jar in Message 170 writes: First, do you think a flood like one of the flood tales in the Bible happened?

Faith has spelled out many details of how she thinks the flood happened - there's no need for going over old and very familiar ground. Jar, this is your thread. Faith has already stated she has no answer for your first question. If you have no "next question" then this thread should enter summation mode.

Admin writes: Faith has spelled out many details of how she thinks the flood happened - there's no need for going over old and very familiar ground. Jar, this is your thread. Faith has already stated she has no answer for your first question. If you have no "next question" then this thread should enter summation mode.

I did ask follow up questions and to try to step through those in a slow, gradual progression to try to avoid many of the issues you outline above.

She rejects the possibility of contemporary sedimentary layers forming in fresh water and marine environments, such as off coastlines, in shallow seas, and in the deep ocean.

Just to clarify, I don't reject the fact that these things are occurring, I reject the claim that they in any way represent how the Geologic column was built.

I have been too busy to read this thread until this morning and it took a while, but I wanted to comment on a couple things from yesterday.

Faith writes: Jar keeps saying I don't have a model. The fact is I do, and that's all I'm required to answer at this point.

You don't have a valid model, one that works. As soon as we start nitpicking, the objections to your model build up.

Faith writes: But when you say it has to be tested against reality, I will for the umpteen jillionth time say that what you regard as reality is really just OE/evolutionist interpretation of reality, not reality itself.

Well, interestingly, we go out and study rocks as they are today (reality) and we observe and note their appearance and composition and the ordering of the layers at different points around the globe. We can observe fossils and their ordering in the layers around the globe. Making those observations requires no knowledge about the age of the earth or dating. Observing the occurrence of fossils around the globe requires no knowledge of evolutionary biology.

We can predict that the layers would look a certain way if there was a 1 year long global flood. We can predict how the fossils would be deposited in a global flood. The Earth has a flood that covers approximately 85% of the surface right now. We can watch what happens in floods of high velocity, high volume water all the way to quiet steady rise in depth.

Being a global flood does not mean that WE cannot construct a model that accurately describes what kind of evidence it would leave.

Your model does not fit the reality of our observations. Saying this is like no other flood is just empty bluster.

Faith writes: I say the strata and their fossil contents are excellent evidence for a worldwide Flood and they are, just on the face of it they are, and the idea that a miles-deep stack of straight flat slabs of rock of different kinds of sediments could possibly represent the surface of this earth at different time periods is nutty, Coyote, just nutty.

Your model cannot explain why there are multiple layers, or why we can see obvious erosional features in the surfaces of layers that are overlain by marine layers. Your model cannot explain why we see marine layers that are under aeolian layers, that are under more marine layers.

Faith writes: The only way anyone could hold onto that idea is by just not thinking about it, keeping their focus on the details and missing the big picture.

The whole picture, fine details, and global scale are explained by the science of Geology. That's the interesting thing, Faith, Geology has a model that explains everything, every single solitary observation fits into the theory. All those pesky details that you cannot explain, well we can. There are whole libraries of explanations and none of those explanations support your model. Your model is made up of only two things, water and dirt, the rest is holes where nothing fits.

Faith writes: Why should there be time periods at all, let alone time periods marked by a particular kind of sediment with a particular kind of fossil contents? That alone makes no sense.

Well, of course, that alone makes no sense, but it is not alone. We have a planet and libraries full of observations about it, and when we take account of vast stretches of time, it ALL makes perfect sense. It all fits together perfectly. There is no place on Earth that you can point to that contradicts the science of Geology.

Faith writes: You are NOT going to get anything like that out of the era WE live in. Look at the current surface of the earth. It is NOT going to flatten down to a slab of some particular kind of sediment that spans the world EVER.

The processes that formed the layers we see in the Grand Canyon and around the planet are still going on. The places above sea level (land) are eroding and the resulting sediment is being deposited in the oceans around the land. Deposits of dead organisms are accumulating in marine environments and all this will continue in the future.

Once again, erosion and deposition over vast amounts of time explains exactly what we see and your model does not.

Faith writes: And no other "time period" ever did so either. The idea is nutty nutty nutty.

What is really nutty, is insisting on a model loosely based on a myth, while denying that the single, simple fact of geological processes acting over vast amounts of time explains EVERYTHING we see, without a single piece of contradictory evidence.

Faith writes: Just because years of piling on assumption after assumption after interpretation after interpretation seems to "prove" YOUR model by sheer accumulation of same doesn't make it so.

All the evidence from all the natural sciences leads to the single inevitable conclusion that the Earth is very old and taking that factor into account makes everything fit together perfectly.

Your tiresome lecture about your own point of view is not what is needed here. "You're wrong because science says so" is ridiculous since that's what I'm answering. You haven't addressed anything I've said or tried for half a second to see how it makes sense, you've merely invoked your own belief system, sung the praises of the evo-OE creed.

This thread is a joke.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Do you need me to post some of the hundreds of charts of the geologic column to prove I didn't make it up?

If you can find even one chart of the geologic column that proves that each geological period exhibits only one sort of sediment worldwide, I shall eat my hat, my pants and a small Early Perpendicular cathedral.

Faith writes: Your tiresome lecture about your own point of view is not what is needed here. "You're wrong because science says so" is ridiculous since that's what I'm answering.

Well, except that your answers are water and dirt. You never have answers for any of the details. Your "big Picture" is water and dirt. That's it. No physics, no chemistry, no geology.

Faith writes: You haven't addressed anything I've said or tried for half a second to see how it makes sense

Sure, we've thought about it, you have been repeating it for years. That's the point, it doesn't make any sense. The holes in your model are glaringly obvious, everyone can see it.

Faith writes: This thread is a joke.

Watching you try to shoehorn your myth into a discussion about the geology by ignoring all the evidence is pretty humorous.

You claim everyone else is nutty, when you are the one who said your mythical flood story is absolutely correct, even if the evidence shows it is not. So far no converts.

No appreciation for the immense implications of the "water and dirt" you address so slightingly. No you have NOT thought about it, don't fool yourself.

The sooner this shameful excuse for a debate thread is put out of its misery and given a decent burial the better.

Let's give this another try. In this I will begin by postulating Faith's Young Earth time line.

Begin with small baby steps.

Faith, do you think a flood like one of the flood tales in the Bible happened?