Evidence of the flood

Has it perhaps occurred to you that your many one-liner replies like this do nothing to support your monotonous claims of substantive posts?Anyway, you quote nothing from Edge's Message 535, but I'm guessing you want him to prove that dust and ash layers are found throughout the geologic column. This is incredibly odd thing to ask given how common ash is in the geologic column. Why you insist on displaying your ignorance so prominently and so frequently is beyond me. You can find the details at the Wikipedia article on Tephra. Ash is the smallest classification of tephra.--Percy

To avoid confusion of columns of strata with the geologic timescale I'll instead use the term stratigraphic column.The only thing what you say makes clear is that you don't know what a stratigraphic column is. Certainly it consists of strata that formed from gradually accumulating sediments, but strata formed from sediments deposited at any rate are included too, as well of volcanic deposits, and igneous and metamorphic rock.--Percy

Best of luck unsticking your capslock key soon!As I said earlier, the issue is one of definitions. The geologic column, or more precisely the stratigraphic column at any point in the world, begins where your feet touch the ground. It is not buried beneath the soil. The soil is part of the stratigraphic column - it is the very top of the stratigraphic column.Anything that deposits atop the stratigraphic column adds to it and is continuous with it, and unwarranted and unsupported protestations in all caps cannot change that.--Percy

How dare I? You mean how dare I accurately describe your rude and insulting behavior? If you don't like being called out on it then I suggest you stop doing it.There's a discussion trying to take place in this thread that deserves far better than one-liner responses in all caps. It deserves careful thought and investigation, and the people you're discussing with deserve your respect and consideration.--Percy

You seem to be the one with a problem. I hope you're able to calm down soon and begin some kind of discussion that goes beyond redeclaring your basic positions from their starting points, and that isn't just meaningless one-liners.--Percy

Keep what up? Describing how sediments are being deposited throughout most of the world? Okay, sure.The sediments are not being deposited "here and there". The sediments are being deposited throughout most of the world. Sediments come to rest at the lowest local point, and the lowest local points are mostly in lake and sea beds, though some are on land. Ocean covers around 3/4 of the world, so at least 3/4 of the world is acquiring sedimentary deposits. Any region that is an area of net deposition will acquire sediments atop the stratigraphic column at that location, thereby adding themselves to that column.Did you get that "3/4 of the world" part? Do you understand now that sediments are not being deposited "here and there"?Or by keeping it up did you mean the part where I noted how obvious it is that you're not reading the rebuttals, that you're not only ignorant of facts but even of the very discussion you're trying to participate in.--Percy

Well, so much for your claim of substantive posts. With each reply you're just reinforcing and providing more examples of the very immaturity, rudeness and lack of respect that causes you so much difficulty. Certainly you're not giving anyone else a chance to win the "worst contributor ever to this board" award.This is a discussion board, not a Twitter feed. Please stop with the one-liners and begin discussing.--Percy

This makes no sense because it isn't a reply to anything I said. You don't quote anything from my post, so I have no idea what you're referring to. Let's try again.Granting, in just this post and just for the sake of making an argument, that the Flood was an actual event, there had to have been a topmost layer deposited by the flood. After the flood there would be places in the world where there was net sedimentation. These sediments were deposited atop the topmost Flood layer and were therefore continuous with it. Nothing else is possible. This must be true by definition.And the deposits on top of those first deposits on the topmost Flood layer are in turn continuous, and the deposits above those, and the ones above those, and so on right up to the current day.You are therefore wrong to state that "current deposits are not continuous with the deposits of that one-time event" and will have to rethink your position.--Percy

Really? You could not care less that your one-liner messages are bringing down the quality of discussion and making discussion very difficult? You find offensive my feelings about the insulting and disrespectful way you're treating the board and this thread's participants?Maybe you need to take a break.--Percy

Oh, gee, what a shocker, Faith is abandoning a thread again.What you call "the usual insane disconnect" is your own fault. It started with your false claims of having already proved your points, extended into your refusals to address almost any of the rebuttals, and the end became inevitable when you dropped into one-liner mode.It is not a "paradigm problem." You don't have a paradigm, you have a religion. You're trying to shoehorn reality into your own eclectic interpretation of the Bible.--Percy

That the sediments being deposited all around the world are continuous with the stratigraphic columns at each location is not something that requires proof. If is something that is self-evident. Nothing else is possible.Let me ask you this question: If current sedimentary deposits are somehow separated from the older sedimentary deposits below them (you can think of them as being from the Flood if you like), if they are not continuous with the rest of the stratigraphic column, then what is it that's keeping them separate?If there were something keeping the current sediments that lie on top separate from the rest of the stratigraphic column that lies below, then presumably we could dig down and discover what that is. Since humans have dug literally millions of holes in the ground (wells, mines, building foundations, subways, tunnels, cores, etc.), we should have found this "thing" keeping current sediments separate from the older sediments. Where is this "thing" that separates? We've never found it. Because it doesn't exist.Therefore current sediments are continuous with the older sediments that lie below them.--Percy

Well, clearly declarations that you're abandoning the thread are just as reliable as all your other statements. Does it never occur to you that developing credibility requires doing what you say you will do and saying things that are true. This current post of yours is just as poorly thought out as all the rest. But they are. Except for not being lithified (by virtue of being recent and unburied) they are identical to the rest of the strata. Sedimentary deposits along the coastline are unlithified sandstone. Those further offshore are unlithified slate or shale. Those ever further offshore are unlithified limestone. Those in the deep ocean are unlithified pelagic sediments.This is why we say the present is the key to the past. The sedimentary layers we see forming today are identical to those more deeply buried that have already been turned to rock. Except for not being compressed by the lithification process, they are as "FLAT FLAT FLAT' as the more ancient strata, which are not all that flat. When examined closeup the flatness of the boundaries between strata disappears, and of course the strata certainly aren't level since that wouldn't be possible given that the thicknesses of the strata vary. Sediments occur on lake bottoms just as on sea bottoms. This is just a bald declaration with no supporting evidence. First, there is no evidence of the Flood in the Green River Formation. Second, the evidence of the varves themselves indicate they were deposited by "annual twos". Third, the radiometric, paleomagnetic and fossil evidence all indicate that the varves of the Green River Formation were laid down over several million years around 50 million years ago.--Percy

It isn't possible that strata that have already been deposited, buried and lithified could later have the effects of surface erosion, volcanism and your brand of plate tectonics imposed upon them. We have examples of surface erosion on deeply buried layers, which create unconformities. There are examples of this at your favorite geologic location, because the the Wikipedia article on the Geology of the Grand Canyon area states, "There are at least 14 known unconformities in the geologic record found in the Grand Canyon."An example of strata being eroded away after plate tectonics is also at the Grand Canyon, as represented by the Great Unconformity. You can see how the blocks of the Grand Canyon supergroup have been tilted, and then the tops have been eroded away to be (mostly) level with the landscape at the time: Examples of volcanism in the stratigraphic record abound. There are magma intrusions and lava layers. Magma intrusions can be been in the above diagram.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Clarify.

My, did we ever wake up on the shrill side of the bed today!You can pretty much throw out your entire tirade because you evidently lost the plot on what had been said. I warned you of the dangers of one-liner mode. Your posts were averaging, what, maybe six words each? Ironic that the person who got the most confused was you.You didn't follow what Edge was saying, which was who you were replying to in your Message 658. In his Message 651 he replied to you like this (I quoted all this in my earlier message, too): In case the plain English escapes you, let me explain at greater length. Edge is pointing out that stratigraphic columns all around the world include layers that show erosion, volcanism and plate tectonics that were not laid down in "rapid succession" but that could only have occurred in a succession of both depositional and erosional events.So, would you care to revise your answer?Responding to a few of the things you say: Of course we understand your Grand Canyon scenario. That's how we were able to rebut it so thoroughly. Edge was talking about unconformities. As the Wikipedia article on the Geology of the Grand Canyon area states, "There are at least 14 known unconformities in the geologic record found in the Grand Canyon." This cross section is not a complete inventory of magma intrusions, but in any case the magma intrusion at Brian's head goes very nearly to the top, and the ones at the Grand Canyon Supergroup do not. It's also been thoroughly rebutted in great detail, time and again. Take a pile of plywood sheets. Rotate the bottom four sheets upward about 30 degrees. How'd that work out for you?Your problem is that you haven't got a lick of common sense about the way things work in the real world, and so you come up with ideas that are patently impossible. They aren't invisible, and so what that you reject the whole idea? You reject lots of evidence. It's what makes you you. Your inability to incorporate evidence into your scenarios is why they're so wildly impossible. You're making bald declarations with no evidence again. Do you have any reason to think this? That Wikipedia article I referenced above says, "Geologists do know that deep channels were carved on the top of the Muav Limestone during this time." These deep channels were carved while the Muav Limestone was exposed to erosion at the surface. It represents an unconformity between it and the Redwall Limestone above. By the way, note that the boundary between the Muav Limestone and the Redwall Limestone isn't anywhere close to flat. But there was no need to reexplain what you've explained before, and I keep asking you to stop doing it. We already understand your position. You've repeated it endlessly and we're tired of hearing it. What we'd like to see is responses to the rebuttals that consist of more than simple denials of evidence. We show you an unconformity and you stare at it and state, "That's not an unconformity," with no evidence or argument whatsoever. You're not God making pronouncements from on high. Your delusions of inerrancy are not shared by anyone else, and are in fact belied by your inability to get through a sentence, let alone an entire paragraph, without making blunders. You have to make your case from evidence and argument and things that are true, just like everyone else. Ya think? Maybe if you're done with one-liner mode you could drop the all-caps now? You're the joke at EvC.By the way, what's the Faith Thread Abandonment Probability Index today?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.Edited by Percy, : Clarify.

Little of what you've said in the present or past makes any sense, so there's not much value to it, plus it's extremely repetitive.So does this mean you're abandoning the thread again?--Percy