Summations Only

So if I were to identify the thinking of YEC 'theory' as being schizophrenic, then that would not imply anything personal? Good to know.

If you understood how it applies to the thinking, it would not be personal. The original statement in the article about psychology nobody took as personal. He was demonstrating hidden conflicts in the theory or theories that nobody had recognized.

The chalk is a layer like all the layers laid down in the Flood. It extends from the UK to the Middle East.

Are you keeping in mind that this all has to become a stack of rocks? I gather that at least the upper sediment of landscape#1 is not yet rock, and now we have ocean starting to move in on top of it?I'm wondering among other things how the extensive straight flat surface at the contact between the strata could be formed under such circumstances. How can this be? Picture the surface of this huge flat rock all this is playing out on, even if it isn't rock yet. What forms on top of it has to be a rock too, all one sediment being the usual case. You can't have two sediments side by side forming on this rock. I don't think I've ever seen such a situation in the strata anywhere. If you still have "terrestrial" sediment accumulating it would have to be accumulating IN the ocean water too -- what would prevent that? It deposited at that same location before, why would it stop? In any case, you have two different "environments" side by side, which doesn't happen. You have to end up with your terrestrial rock on the bottom and a different rock on top of it formed by the ocean transgression.If you have a different vision of this please explain. Again, apparently beside, or next to, the terrestrial sediment rather than on top of it? The "rock" being landscape #1? If so you seem to be differentiating it from the sediments that have been accumulating above it. Yes? Here it's one on top of the other. But... This is the "terrestrial sediment" or what? Side by side with the encroaching ocean? Remember, the ocean-formed rock has to end up on top of the terrestrial rock. Am I right that you have two different environments or landscapes side by side?As for the "happy" creatures, this is an intermediate stage where they can go on living in their own habitats. But these environments have to become rock, one on top of the other, at which point the environments will no longer exist and this is when we have to ask where the creatures went. I don't know if we're ready to discuss this, however.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

From encyclopedia.com. Just a moment...

OK, I've been using it sloppily. But the particular sequence isn't important for my purposes. The fact that rising sea level deposits a series of different sediments is the important thing for me, because I didn't know anything like that happened until somebody posted the information about Walther's Law here. That fact alone is very useful for understanding how the Flood could have created stacks of sediments, whatever their sequence.Since I have often supposed that the Flood probably wasn't laid down in a smooth continuous rising but punctuated by many breaks, which could be the result of simple wave action, or long tides, Walther's Law wouldn't apply, but the laying down of series of different sediments should still apply, right?I'm glad you posted that but the Flood is supposed to be off topic in this thread.ABE: Occurred to me maybe you were responding to the "side by side" descriptions I was finding in Stile's post. That would probably take some discussion.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I believe that Edge's point is, that when you say:

quote:

---

What forms on top of it has to be a rock too, all one sediment being the usual case. You can't have two sediments side by side forming on this rock. I don't think I've ever seen such a situation in the strata anywhere.

---

You are flatly denying Walther's Law.It should be quite obvious that Walther's law does describe different sorts of sediment being deposited side by side. And it should not take much thought to see that the divisions between these sediments will move inland during a transgression and back out during a regression.

I'm not "flatly denying" anything and you are having one of your typical conniption fits over nothing, just out of this tremendous need you have to find fault with me even if you have to invent it, which of course you usually do.The situation Stile and I are addressing has to do with a stratigraphic column which as far as I've ever seen is a vertical stack of different sediments, and that is the foundation for this discussion, the vertical strata and nothing else. I've recognized the lateral aspect of Walther's Law in the abstract but not known how to apply it. However, nothing in the discussion here has had anything to do with Walther's Law at all, and I'm quite sure that Stile was not applying Walther's Law but let's see what he says.ABE: I realized that the situation Stile is describing has nothing to do with Walther's Law anyway, since that applies to sediments deposited by changing sea levels. He is talking about ocean transgressing over, or into, a sedimentary accumulation that was deposited by terrestrial means.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I'm not "flatly denying" anything and you are having one of your typical conniption fits over nothing, just out of this tremendous need you have to find fault with me even if you have to invent it, which of course you usually do

---

Your dislike of criticism is no justification for false accusations.

quote:

---

The situation Stile and I are addressing has to do with a stratigraphic column which as far as I've ever seen is a vertical stack of different sediments, and that is the foundation for this discussion, the vertical strata and nothing else.

---

Since I was explaining why your objection to Stile was wrong it is rather hard to imagine that it is irrelevant to your discussion.

quote:

---

ABE: I realized that the situation Stile is describing has nothing to do with Walther's Law anyway, since that applies to sediments deposited by rising water. He is talking about ocean transgressing over, or into, a sedimentary accumulation that was deposited by terrestrial means.

---

And thus you prove me right, by explicitly denying that Walther's Law applies4 to a transgression.

Yes, we know that you make such claims but you never seem to be able to provide any support for those assertions and of course reality shows that you are once again wrong.We know the origins of chalk and what it is made from and it would be impossible even in your fantasy world before the flood to create such massive columns of chalk in the few years you allow before the flood and certainly impossible to create such massive columns in the year of the flood. In addition, the thousands of years of sea erosion since the flood has not been able to move the chalk deposits anywhere.No Faith, the Biblical Flood stories cannot explain the chalk deposits.So once again:How does your flood explain vertical stacks of millions of alternating light colored and dark colored, fine grained the coarse grained layers?How does your flood explain the biological sampling found in reality?How does your flood explain the White Cliffs of Dover or the other British Chalk deposits?How does your flood explain cross bedded sand dunes?

The chalk cliffs are a huge flat layer like all the strata.

And missed South Africa. So much for being global.

So much for being global? My my. I don't think there's a single stratigraphic column sedimentary layer that is literally global. Why should there be? Just one of the usual nonsensical notions people come up with to try to debunk the Flood. Pathetic really.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, of course reality shows that not all strata are flat layers but the chalk cliffs generally are. And while there is no flood mechanism that can explain such nice flat layers without the micro layering seen in other big flat layers such as salt beds (yet another thing the Biblical floods cannot explain) the Biblical flood once again fails miserably as an explanation. In fact it is absolutely impossible for a one year even like the picayune Biblical flood stories describe to produce anything like the chalk deposits.However the conventional geological and biological theories do explain the chalk beds.So once again:How does your flood explain vertical stacks of millions of alternating light colored and dark colored, fine grained the coarse grained layers?How does your flood explain the biological sampling found in reality?How does your flood explain the White Cliffs of Dover or the other British Chalk deposits?How does your flood explain cross bedded sand dunes?

You're starting to get it, Faith. There's is not even one stratigraphic column that's is literally global. In fact, all stratigraphic columns are different every few metres. It seems as if you're starting to get to it. That's basic geology. Really? How so? The stratigraphic columns to the south of my house are completely different from the ones to the north of my house.(To the geologists here; my house is built on the northward facing slopes of hills formed by the upper quartzites of the Transvaal Sequence, dipping south, while the contact between the Transvaal Sequence and the Bushveld Igneous Complex runs east-west around 50 to 100 m north of my house).Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.