Summations Only

In that case you are wrong. The Cambrian System includes the Tapeats, but the age of the Tapeats only goes from the lower Cambrian to the middle Cambrian.The entire Tonto Group was laid down before the end of the Cambrian.The problem is that Tapeats is not being deposited all over the world. And you are welcome to do so. No one forces you to be here. I don't suppose that you entertain the concept that the problem just might be yours.

I meant the same thing as "including" the Tapeats when I said "encompassing." Most of the conflict over the last few days has been about definitions. Just this level of merely semantic disagreement gets exhausting.It doesn't matter how you cut the Tapeats or the Tonto Group, it really doesn't matter. I think that marking time by rocks however you split the pie is a clue to the wackiness of historical Geology. Sorry about that, I suppose you'll defend it to the death.No, it's not my problem, in a sense it's nobody's problem. I'm defending a paradigm and so are you. I'm tired of fighting, tired of the personal attacks, on both sides, I don't care if I'm wrong about some terminology or some side issues, it's irrelevant to my basic viewpoint. I need to go work it out somewhere else. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You are making this way to complex for some people to grasp. Go slower and simplify.E.g., a layer of sediment maybe laid down over some time period (days or megayears doesn't matter right now). Let's call it 100 units of time.For one reason or another a period of time (say the Cambrian) is deemed to have started when the layer was half laid down after only 50 units have passed. So in the case that particular layer of sediment (say the coconino sandstone*) is a continuous layer of sediment is half in the pre cambrian and half in the Cambrian period of time.* I know the Coconino was much later but this is just a made up example.In your example, Edge, the Tapeats (you seem to say) started at the beginning of the Cambrian and stopped being deposited in the middle of it. That is the inverse case: this time the sediment layer is all in one time period but doen't cover all of it. In my made up example the layer was in two time periods.Actually, I had never thought of this before. I kinda always thought of a time period and some layers of sediment as being synonymous. Now I see that they might be but won't be in at least some parts of the world.Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Oh sure, you can find one exception to a rule that can be seen in hundreds of thousands of other places. But it doesn't really matter how you divide it, you've still got time stuck onto rocks no matter how they're sorted, and it's that correlation that's ridiculous and impossible

---

What correlation? What is wrong with the idea that the sediment was deposited over a period of time ? This whole argument of yours just seems crazy.

quote:

---

Still the same problem. There shouldn't be ANY rocks to identify time, period, certainly not rocks for all the time periods

---

This is just silly.
The first just doesn’t make sense. If you believe all the rocks must have appeared at the Creation just say so. If you mean something else you really need to say what it is.The second seems obviously wrong. If there was a long stretch of time when no sediment was being deposited anywhere - and no lava erupted - why should it be identified as a geological period? And why would you think such a thing was even likely ? Since you claim to be certain, please explain

Appeared at the Creation???? No, they appeared at the Flood. Do you really not know after all this time that I'm talking about the flat slabs of rock that are the strata of the geological column so clearly identified with the time periods such as Cambrian and so on, that stretch for thousands of square miles and even more across continents? This is madness. No I don't want to argue this again for the umpteen kajillionth time.There is some overlap here but not much:

quote:

---

Appeared at the Creation???? No, they appeared at the Flood.

---

But you seem to be objecting very strongly to the idea that they were deposited, so I have to ask.If you have a stratum there must be a particular period of time (in the ordinary sense) in which it was deposited. Right? There’s nothing insane about that, right?

A day will do. Argue all you want, there's no way you could get thousands of square miles of a single sediment spanning most of a continent on the Old Earth model. Not buying it.

quote:

---

A day will do

---

Which is rather ironic given your next statement.

quote:

---

Argue all you want, there's no way you could get thousands of square miles of a single sediment spanning most of a continent on the Old Earth model. Not buying it.

---

Well, now we see how confident you were in your certainty. Not only did you ignore the point in your first reply, now you are completely changing the subject. If you don’t have enough faith in your own argument to even discuss it then I can’t see how you can expect anyone else to believe it.But, since you raise the point of extent I’ll return to something Edge said. The extent of the Tapeats is partly due to the fact that it wasn’t all deposited at once. As the coastline retreated the region where the sand was being deposited moved with it. Time does contribute to the extent of at least some formations.

I had that in mind when I wrote what I wrote.

quote:

---

I had that in mind when I wrote what I wrote.

---

That’s amazingly vague.Perhaps you meant when you wrote: you knew it wouldn’t stand up to any rational discussion.Certainly the fact that you are running away so quickly suggests as much.

The "vague" remark was a response to the last paragraph about edge's Tapeats explanation. Sorry.Oh yes I'm running away from the insane miscommunication in this madhouse.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yet the fact remains that we have the fossils, we have the geology, we have the archeology, we have the paleontology, we have the radiometric samples, we have the isotope samples AND we have the models and methods and mechanisms and processes and procedures that explain what exists and is seen and those models and methods and mechanisms and processes and procedures are observed happening today.You have never presented anything but the dogma of your Cult.

Thank you Faith for once again pointing out how utterly silly Creationism, Young Earth and the Biblical Flood really are.A flood cannot create anything but a mess.Let me repeat. A flood cannot create anything but a mess.For a flood to move a whole reef system there must first have been a shallow sea and a long period of time for the corals to grow.For a flood to move sand there must first have been a mountain and then weathering and erosion to make the sand. That takes millions of years.The problem is what you market are made up stories written by ignorant people.What you face though is reality. You are trying to disprove reality and that just ain't gonna happen.

quote:

---

The "vague" remark was a response to the last paragraph about edge's Tapeats explanation. Sorry.

---

There was no way to know that.

quote:

---

Oh yes I'm running away from the insane miscommunication in this madhouse.

---

Running away from yourself is hardly likely to work.But the fact remains that if you really have an obvious truth, couching it in unclear terms, refusing to explain it and changing the subject to avoid talking about it hardly makes sense.And yet this is what you want people to believe.

The fear I expressed to Edge in my previous message has come to pass - you misinterpreted what he said. I don't know why he didn't reply, but allow me to explain. Edge isn't saying that new sediments cannot be deposited upon existing strata. He's saying that's not a requirement. In a depositional environment new sediments will be deposited upon whatever is there, which could be strata or basal igneous rock. If there are other possibilities Edge had in mind perhaps he can describe them for us. Again, all Edge is saying is that there is no requirement that new sediments must overlie existing strata - they could overlie something else like igneous rock. I'm not sure why Edge stressed what seems to be a minor point, since most new sediments will be deposited upon existing strata given that most of the Earth's surface is strata rather than igneous rock (like the Canadian Shield), but the important point here is that Edge was definitely not saying what you thought. Edge is still stressing his point that new sediments do not *have* to be deposited upon existing strata. You are correct that when new sediments are deposited upon existing strata that they add to the stratigraphic column. Two comments. First, I think Edge didn't realize you were misinterpreting what he was saying, that he didn't realize you thought he was saying that no deposition is taking place atop existing stratigraphic columns. That's not what he was saying, and deposition is definitely taking place atop existing stratigraphic columns.But second, net long term deposition is not taking place in most of North America. Being above sea level it is mostly subject to net erosion. Net deposition only occurred in parts of North America when they were near or below sea level. And of course not all parts of North America were near or below sea level at the same time. This has been explained to you many times by many people, but because you still don't accept it even after all these years this is something that you should spend some time discussing. The reality is that the sedimentary layers being deposited today precisely resemble the strata in stratigraphic columns around the world. That's how we know that a sandstone layer was once a coastal region, or that shale was once an offshore region or lagoons and swamps, or that limestone was once a warm shallow sea. You exaggerate how universally flat and straight strata boundaries are. Obviously since many strata vary in widely in thickness they cannot be any more than generally flat and straight, and the deviation from flat and straight can be quite significant. The Temple Butte limestone at the Grand Canyon varies in thickness between 0 and 1000 feet thick. Between a point where it is 0 feet thick and another point where it is a 1000 feet thick its boundaries could not possibly be flat and straight, and they are not. Here's an image you've probably seen before: The geologic column is more conceptual than physical. You should really be speaking of stratigraphic columns. Edge was not saying that stratigraphic columns ever shift to new locations. What shifts locations is where net deposition and net erosion are taking place, which depends upon elevation above or below sea level. A region beneath the sea will be one of net deposition and will accumulate more and more sediments into strata of ever greater depths. The type of strata deposited will depend upon distance from shore, which has a large influence on depositional environment. Distance from shore will vary with rising and falling sea levels. If after millions of years the region is uplifted above sea level then it will become one of net erosion. If after more millions of years the region once more descends beneath the waves then it will again become one of net deposition and sediments will resume accumulating atop the unconformity created by the earlier erosion.--Percy