Summations Only

quote:

---

The tracks represent creatures fleeing from the Flood across the latest sediment deposit by the latest wave of the rising water,...

---

And stopping to make nests, lay eggs and for the young to hatch ?That doesn’t sound very likely.

It's a very disoriented creature that would lay eggs in a nest on a wet flat surface in the middle of a Flood. No, the nests were carried there on the water, or simply overtaken and covered by it.I've made the case and now you're all running around like madmen trying to create a distraction.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You said they don't. Just magma.Name one stratum that spans an ocean bedWhen we drill into the ocean floor we see layers of rocks.

Actually, the reality is that the Geological Column is represented in every single actual geographical areas and represents the actual rock formations during each of the Geological Eras. And every single one is different in composition.

And you have never explained how that absurdity is even possible. Or how your imaginary flood transports sand dunes. Or how your imaginary flood transports coral reefs. Or how your imaginary flood deposits iterations of millions of individual layers of finer sediment then coarser sediment.Nope, all you have is the dogma of your Cult.

quote:

---

It's a very disoriented creature that would lay eggs in a nest on a wet flat surface in the middle of a Flood. No, the nests were carried there on the water.

---

An interesting ad hoc answer, but it is just ad hoc. How did the nest manage to survive the initial stages of the Flood ? Why, other than the assumption that the Flood Did It should we prefer the simpler and far better evidenced idea that the dinosaurs were living there ?

quote:

---

I've made the case and now you're all running around like madmen trying to create a distraction.

---

Interesting that you think that real evidence is just a distraction. But then the evidence is so solidly against you it’s hardly surprising.

Yeah, the water that was wild and scouring the rocks to dust carefully picked up the nests and carried them upright for miles. None of the gigatons of sediment in the water got caught in the nest.You haven't made the case for why you claim our examples of sedimentary layers forming today are the wrong location, time, scale, and shape.

OK, so let me see if I've got this straight. The fountains of the deep are breaking up. A wave of water containing huge volumes of mud, trees, dead sinners, and so on, rushes across a family of woodchucks. They hang out for a while, wait for the sediment to settle out enough for them to walk on it, maybe dig a burrow or two, pinch a loaf, that kind of thing. Then, once things have died down a bit, they wander off - underwater of course because, mmmm, flood - looking for, oh, I don't know, maybe air or something?Good story, Faith. Couple loose ends maybe.

Since even the Bible has two different, contradictory and mutually exclusive flood stories is it fair asking Faith to get her story straight?I can see asking "How did it do dat?" about such utter absurdities and the tracks being critters fleeing from the flood but we can't really expect her to do what the Bible itself could never do like get a single account of the flood that stands up to any examination.

The 'so what' bit is that you had previously said this... ... you can't even keep track of the stuff you've made up a few posts before. You do this all the time.The thing about lying is that you have to remember the lies otherwise people notice - it's the same with inventing excuses for silly myths; you have to remember what crap you made up a minute ago to get yourself out of a previous difficulty. We notice.

You're right, since SOME of the column, at least one layer as I recall, I think the Redwall limestone, has been found on the Atlantic floor. I don't think of that as representing the column itself, and I certainly don't think that any layers deposited since the Flood are part of it. First explain why there aren't any layers building on the column on the continents. Layers LIKE THOSE IN THE COLUMN.

I wonder if it could have anything at all to do with continents being largely sites of net erosion, what with being up high?Right at this moment we’re having a bit of erosion and deposition here locally! It’s raining, and dirt is getting carried down to, say, Red Lake. That alleged lake experiences this a couple of times a year, and gains a little-bitty mini-stratum of red dirt every time. Then the water evaporates and leaves a little crust of gypsum on top. Just like the dirt/gypsum couplets for who knows how many feet beneath. A lot like the red rock/gypsum layers a few miles away that are fifty or five thousand feet below the surface! Hmmmm!

Aw aren't you cute. Breaking up? What does that mean?. Some think they were underwater volcanoes, which is possible, but I don't have any idea myself/ Something was released from the sea floor that is described as "fountains." I picture them creating a lot of turbulence, stirring up the sediments and so on. perhaps causing the water to rise, but then that would mean leaving a vauum below so I'm not sure. Perhaps that vacuum is what the Flood waters receded into after the sea floor collapsed. I dhink that's one theory but I don't know how there's any way to know even what the term means. My idea of the events goes more like this: The sea is rising, at least because of the constant worldwide rain and perhaps also the fountains of the deep, any way it's rising up onto the land, which at that time was one single continent. It was rising from all sides of course, and its waves continued, reaching onto the land and receding and returning. High tides push them up farther and so on. It takes at least forty days for the land to be covered.As it rises it deposits sediments, I figure in accordance with the order illustrated in Walther's Law. It overtakes living things that so far have survived all the rain and the dumping of sediments into the sea which are now being redeposited on the land along with sediments from the sea itself, that become limestone.The animals that are left flee the rising water. Waves start to overtake their habitat. Soon the area is already layered but some still survive, moving ever inland to avoid the rising water, getting caught at times but escaping when the waves recede. Soon there is nothing but wet sediments beneath them. They leave tracks, long strides evident as they are running, some burrow, some dinosaur nests are picked up and floated along etc. Some raindrops even leave impressions before the next wave covers them. Eventually they can't outrun the water, eventually there is no land left. They leave the tracks when the tide is out, when it returns it overtakes and buries them in the new load of sediment it's carrying.Something like that.The fact that these impressions are recorded in flat flat solid rock that covers a huge area is evidence for this sort of scenario and against the absurd idea of landscapes having occupied the rock surface. Beach? Covering that much area? Wetlands? Have you ever seen an absolutely flat expanse of sediment called a wetland?Here's the flattest kind of wetland I've been able to find, and it's not exactly bare bald flat, it's got things growing on it, tracks could not be left on its surface. I know it's awfully insulting to think scientists would get anything wrong like thinking there ever were landscapes where there are now nothing but enormously extensive flat flat solid rocks, but I can't help myself, this is just ridiculous. It's hard to account for their mental lapse on this subject.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There aren't any layers in any version of the geological column as small as your Red Lake, the layers forming in which are also no doubt not anywhere near as flat either.

None of that matters as the dating issue completely disproves YEC.You keep ignoring it, or hand-waving it away but it won't go away!Facts are pesky little things and must be dealt with, much as you may be inconvenienced by them.