Summations Only

And once again you were simply misrepresenting what others said and showing you are as ignorant of what the early geologists said as you are of what the Bible says.

I don't recall any general agreement about this at all. First, sudden shifts from one strata to another are called sharp contacts or abrupt contacts, not tight contacts. Look it up.Second, it definitely isn't true that there is no sign of erosion between most strata. Using the Grand Canyon as an example, most of the strata contacts represent unconformities, and of those unconformities most have evidence of erosion. We can go through them one by one, from bottom to top. I used Wikipedia and the USGS website for reference. Keep in mind there are two major types of contacts between strata, conformable (continuous deposition) and uncomformable (non-continuous deposition either because of erosion or a temporary cessation of deposition).

• Grand Canyon Supergroup/Tapeats Sandstone: Incredibly obvious angular unconformity created by erosion.
• Tapeats Sandstone/Bright Angel Shale: Conformable contact indicated by continuous deposition with intertonguing and both vertical and lateral transitions from brown sandstone (Tapeats) to green siltsonte (Bright Angel Shale)
• Bright Angel Shale/Muav Limestone: Conformable contact indicated by intertonguing and transitions of variable thickness.
• Muav Limestone/Temple Butte Limestone: Unconformity with deep erosional channels cut into the top of the Muav Limestone by streams.
• Temple Butte Limestone/Redwall Limestone: Unconformity with erosion channels 5-10 feet deep in the top of the Temple Butte Limestone
• Redwall Limestone/Surprise Canyon: Unconformity with much erosion. Surprise Canyon is absent throughout most of the Grand Canyon region, but where present it lies atop the Redwall Limestone. The Redwall Limestone surface is a karst topography consisting of sinks, caves, underground channels and paleovalleys filled with Surprise Canyon deposits.
• Surprise Canyon/Supai Group: Unconformity with small erosion channels cut into the Surprise Canyon layer.
• Redwall Limestone/Supai Group: Unconformity with small erosion channels cut into the Redwall Limestone layer.
• Supai Group/Hermit Shale: Unconformity with erosion channels cut into the Supai Group ranging from 10 to 130 feet deep.
• Hermit Shale/Coconino Sandstone: Unconformity most likely created by a lack of deposition and not erosion. The contact between these two layers represents a marine regression, since heavier/denser sediments (sand) overlie light sediments (silt and mud).
• Coconino Sandstone/Toroweap Formation: Unconformity indicated by truncation through erosion of the uppermost extent of the Coconino.
• Toroweap Formation/Kaibab Limestone: Contact includes both conformable and unconformable sections.
  Unconformable sections are indicated by solution erosion of Toroweaps' limestone components and by channel erosion into the Toroweaps to depths as great as 150 feet.
• Kaibab Limestone/Moenkopi Formation: Unconformity indicaates by peleovalleys as much as several hundred feet deep and karst sections later filled by Moenkopi sediments. The Moenkopi Formation is present in only one small section in the Grand Canyon, but is of course fully represented in much of the Grand Staircase region.

The above evidence shows that there are unconformities between most Grand Canyon layers, and that most of the unconformities have obvious evidence of erosion. I therefore very much doubt your statement that there was ever any general agreement in this thread about the lack of evidence of erosion at unconformable contacts, and in any case the evidence says otherwise.Again, "tight contacts" may not be correct terminology. If you use Google Image and look up "tight contacts" you won't see anything like what you have in mind. If you instead type in "sharp contacts" to Google Image I think you'll see exactly the kind of thing you were thinking of. Perhaps one of the geologists can comment on the definitions of these terms. Erosion is a surface process that results from wind, rain and flowing water. Once a layer of sediments is buried there is no longer any erosion because they are completely protected from wind, rain and flowing water (the water in aquifers seeps through the interstices of rock that is porous - it doesn't flow and it doesn't cause erosion, though it will certainly dissolve minerals like iron and manganese). Limestone layers can be subject to dissolution by groundwater, but that's not erosion and it happens within a layer of limestone, not between layers, and certainly not for layers that aren't limestone.--Percy

Yet once again you are simply showing your utter ignorance since today we can see things living and living well on just about every wet sediment where we look.You really need to stop posting utterly silly things.

By definition you're speaking nonsense. Here is the geologic column, and I once again emphasize that it is a conceptual framework: The Quaternary is the last two million years. Most sea floors around the world, including the Atlantic Ocean, contain sediments from the last two million years that fit into the conceptual framework of the geologic column. Therefore your statement that "no layers of the geo column on the Atlantic floor at all" could not be more in error. By definition this is wrong. Since layers still form today, and since the geologic column extends from today back into the past, layers that fit into the conceptual framework of the geologic column are still forming today.You can believe in the flood while still learning proper geological terminology.--Percy

Good for them!

From some of your messages beginning at Message 2231: A constant stream of stuff like this is why your complaints of poor treatment are met with derision by participants and are ignored by moderators.From your Message 2266: That's as far as I've read, but I'm making a bet that you did not leave, checking now...Bingo, I win, Faith lies about leaving again.--Percy

Sure you do. But it is not and your self-delusion doesn't change that. No, you're not. The trend is in the other direction. The dating methods are being improved. Nor do we do so. When a dozen or so different dating methods all point in the same direction and agree closely we tend to think we are on the right path. When no relevant facts contradict those results were become even more confident in the results.When you bring up your imaginings all we can do is laugh.

No, he did not misuse the term. It is perfectly legitimate to discuss both my belief that a total solar eclipse last August was visible in Newberry, South Carolina, and your belief that there is mostly magma under the ocean. Such a discussion won't evaluate the patterns of thinking involved in those two statements of belief as being remotely similar, despite your inane contrary statements.It is in that light that I point out that your statement of belief, as expressed in response to Coyote is just more of your denial about evidence. When you say, for example, that the fossil evidence supports the Flood, it is only because you accept superficial portions of the evidence (Well, the Flood killed lots of animals, and there are lot of fossils) while ignoring the details and calling the illusion. In fact, there is zero physical evidence of the Flood. When I say that, I mean that there is no evidence which is consistent with the Flood and at the same time rebuts alternatives including the scientific conclusions on the subject. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This is the same deficient argument you used before. Humans and chimpanzees are far more similar than those two trilobite species.Are these the same species of halibut or different species: They're different species. The first is a Pacific halibut, the other an Atlantic.It is obvious to everyone that you just make up whatever stories are necessary to support your religiously based beliefs. It is weird that after all this time it isn't clear to you how transparent what you're doing is. In this case you're just making up stories about trilobites because it suits your purpose. There's no actual evidence behind what you're saying. Were it convenient to your purposes you would argue the opposite, and it would make no difference to you either way since none of it is underpinned by evidence. As explained several times already, the Pod Mrcaru lizards are the exact same species as the original population on Pod Kopiste. They are a different breed at best. It remains a mystery to everyone why you think incredulity and name calling like "joke" and "cartoon" and "ludicrous" carry any weight. Anyone can say such things about anything and they would be equally meaningless. Why do you not realize this, even after all this time here? This is an accurate description. There is no evidence of karst-like structures in the Muav. It's a stream channel, common at the contact between the Muave and the Temple Butte (where the Temple Butte is present - it's not present everywhere in the Grand Canyon), and with the Redwall Limestone (where the Temple Butte is not present). When you come up with a reasonable possibility supported by evidence you let us know. By definition it must be. The Wikipedia article on the Geologic Column describes it from the present all the way back to 4.6 billion years ago. The sea floor, no more than a couple hundred million years old, fits neatly into the geologic column. Even your Flood scenario where the sea floor sediments are no more than 4500 years old fits neatly into the geologic column, just at a different point. Sediments accumulate very slowly in the deep ocean, maybe an inch per thousand years. If the sea floor truly began receiving sediments only 4500 years ago then the sediment depth would only be four or five inches, and it would be roughly the same depth everywhere. Instead the Atlantic's greatest sediment depth is around a kilometer at the greatest distances from the mid-oceanic ridge, while the Pacific's is around half a kilometer. Sediment depths near mid-oceanic ridges are negligible, which makes sense since that sea floor is relatively new and has had little time to accumulate sediments.This difference in sediment depth between Atlantic and Pacific might seem unexpected given the greater size of the Pacific, but the rate of sea floor spreading is more rapid in the Pacific, and so there is less time in the Pacific for sediments to accumulate on the sea floor before they are subducted and disappear into the Earth's interior. By definition you are wrong. All sedimentary deposits from the beginning of time until today fit into the geologic column. Look it up. The Earth's past includes multiple episodes of continents splitting apart, but I assume you're referring to the splitting up of the most recent supercontinent, Pangaea. Evidence indicates it began breaking up around 175 million years ago during the Jurassic. No Holocene deposits existed at that time. Before you transform this fiction into reality I think you need to find some actual geological errors as well as some evidence supporting your views. So far you have none of either. There's ton's of information on the web about the age of sea floor cores. This one's from the Encyclopedia Britannica's article on Marine Sediment:

quote:

---

The sedimentary core samples recovered by the Glomar Challenger strongly support the seafloor-spreading hypothesis. No deep-sea sediments older than 150,000,000 years were discovered, indicating that the seafloor is relatively young. Furthermore, the sediments become progressively older and thicker with increasing distance from the ridge crests.

---

Here's another about short cores (because they were looking for climate information over only the last 100,000 years) from the Atlantic deep ocean, Atlantic Deep-Sea Sediment Cores:

quote:

---

Variations in the planktonic Foraminifera in 108 of the cores and extrapolation of rates of sediment accumulation determined by 37 radiocarbon dates in 10 cores show that the last period of climate comparable with the present ended about 60,000 years ago.

---

But you wanted information about deep sea cores for the Jurassic, so take a look at Studies in Geophysics: Climate in Earth History: The Jurassic Climate. In this quote, they bemoan the lack of data for the Jurassic:

quote:

---

For the Jurassic, we are denied the excellent information of oceanic surface-and bottom-water temperatures obtained from oxygen isotope analysis of microfossils in deep-sea drilling cores of Cretaceous and Cenozoic strata. Furthermore, Jurassic fossils have been extinct too long to have close modern relatives whose climatic tolerances are precisely known. In the following sections of this paper the principal climatic criteria are briefly outlined and the evidence for climatic changes through space and time discussed.
...
Unfortunately, there is only a negligible record of Jurassic microfossils in deep-sea drilling cores, from which one might expect to obtain more reliable results.

---

In other words, though much data for the Cenozoic and Cretaceous was found in deep-sea drilling cores, not much was found for the older Jurassic. Apparently the oldest sea floor is not 200 million years as I thought but only about 150 million years old, which is about the time the Jurassic was ending.But obviously deep-sea drilling cores have revealed sediments from as much as 150 million years ago. Yes, of course. You're not saying anything that everyone else didn't already know. Why do you think there is something special about the Pacific?About earthquake evidence in the Navajo sandstone, you don't really have a serious response, but I see PaulK responded already in Message 2286.--Percy

Every valid dating method shows that the Earth is older than YEC says.The radiometric dating methods all have a solid basis in science - that even you would call science. There is no sensible reason to think that any one of them would regularly produce the vastly-inflated dates that YECs must assume it does. And if it did, that it would do produce dates consistent with the expectations of geologists is less likely still. In itself that possibility is hardly worth considering. If we had only one of the various radiometric dating methods we might worry that is was not as good as we thought it was, but we would still have very, very strong grounds to reject YEC.That multiple independent radiometric dating methods should do this - and produce consistent dates - is far, far less likely.Add in the fact that other independent methods with lower ranges still show that the Earth is much older than YEC allows. And the less accurate estimates made by earlier geologists are still good enough to conclude that the Earth is old. Astronomy reveals a universe that is even older. We can safely say that it is virtually impossible that the Earth is young. As a scientific conclusion that is as firm as anything you will find.There is no reasonable evidence that the Earth is young. There is no reasonable possibility that the Earth is young. Based on dating methods alone.

You seem to be responding to my Message 2282. The fountains of the deep are your idea - do you have any idea what they look like? Volcanos? Really? Looking this up I see that water vapor is the most common volcanic gas. Is that what you're claiming, that water vapor emitted during the simultaneous eruption of many undersea volcanos created the water for the Flood? Wouldn't that cook the planet? Is there any evidence of the simultaneous eruption of many undersea volcanos about 4500 years ago? What you're saying isn't really clear, but sedimentary layers on land can be miles deep, and plant life on the surface won't have any effect beyond a depth of maybe 10 feet at most. Speculating about vegetation doesn't buy you anything. Where sediments on land were buried to any significant depth they would have been lithified and incapable of being washed away by a flow of water. Anywhere sediments on the sea floor were buried to any significant extent they would have been lithified and incapable of being broken up into tiny sediments again. Plus there isn't much sand in the ocean - that's a coastal phenomenon, or did you miss that in all the discussion of Walther's Law? Plus mudstone, siltstone, shale and slate are near shore deposits, so there isn't much of those in the ocean either. This means there would have been insufficient sand and shale in the ocean to create the extent of these deposits on land that we see today.And where would all the limestone come from in the mere couple thousand years since the creation of the world? Accelerated life along with accelerated deposition? Were all calcareous deposits scoured from the sea floor with none remaining? Most of the sea floor is pelagic deposits, and there are very few pelagic strata on land. Were pelagic deposits left behind while calcareous deposits were scoured away? How did this happen? Where are the pelagic deposits that were left behind?This means that your ideas won't work whether the source of your sediments was land or sea. If the sediment source was land then under great depth they would have lithified and remained there no matter how much it rained. And if the sediment source were the ocean then there were insufficient amounts of sand and shale to create the sand and shale strata we see today, there was insufficient time to create the amount of calcareous material, and we should see much more pelagic material than we do. Walther's Law applies to slowly transgressing or regressing seas, not to sudden incursions of water onto land. Water possesses no magical sorting properties, not even during a flood. The sedimentary sequences resulting from Walther's Law are caused by distance from shore, and that distance has to be maintained for a long time in order to produce sediments of significant depth. If you don't want your behavior commented upon, behave like an adult. As I've pointed out, they start with you. Do you think it says anything about you that the way you treat others is done with malice and forethought? How far inland does each wave or tide go (I'll just call them waves from now on)? You should be able to learn this through examination of the strata, since each wave leaves "new layers of slick wet sediment behind," but only as far as that wave went. That means there should be an edge of sediment at the limit of each wave.And how deep a load of sediment does each wave deposit? Shouldn't you be able to tell by examination of the strata?So I'm looking for two pieces of information:

• How far inland does each wave go?
• How deep a load of sediment does each wave deposit?

Then I can consider a region like that around Brian Head, which has a couple miles of sediment lying beneath it, and get a feel for how it might have happened. For example, let's say you tell me that each wave went a mile, and that the depth of sediment deposited was 10 feet (If you don't like the mile of travel and 10 feet of sediment for each wave then just plug in your own numbers). I can then consider the scenario where the rising waters of the ocean are within a mile of where Brian Head is today, but they haven't gotten there yet. This raises the question, "How will that next mile be deposited?"Will it be like this:

• First the first 10 feet of the Tapeats Sandstone will be deposited. Let's say the total thickness of the Tapeats will eventually be 200 feet, so it will take 20 waves. The first wave sweeps a mile across the landscape and deposits 10 feet of sand, then recedes. At the edge of that mile the sand is now 10 feet higher than the land beyond it.
• Now the next wave of Tapeats sand rolls a mile across the landscape and deposits another 10 feet of sand, then recedes. At the edge of that mile the sand will now be 20 feet higher than the land beyond.
• Successive waves roll inland a mile and each deposits 10 feet of Tapeats sand and then recedes. When the Tapeats is completely deposited the sand will be 200 feet higher than the land beyond.
• Now the first wave of mud/silt for the Bright Angel Shale layer rolls a mile across the landscape, deposits 10 feet of mud and silt, then recedes. This happens 30 more times for a total depth of Bright Angel Shale sediments of 300 feet. The total height of sediments at the edge of that mile is now 500 feet higher than the land beyond.
• Now the waves calcareous sediments for the Muav Limestone begin rolling across that mile of landscape, depositing their sediments to a depth of 10 feet, then receding. When all is done the thickness of the Muav Limestone sediments is 400 feet, and the total height of sediments at the edge of that mile is now 900 feet higher than the land beyond.
• Then the waves for the Temple Butte Limestone and the Redwall Limestone and the Supai Group and the Hermit Shale and all the rest up to the Claron roll across that mile of landscape, deposit their sediments, and recede. The total height of sediments at the edge of that mile of landscape is a couple miles higher than the land beyond. We have reached Brian Head and the ocean is lapping at its door.
• Now the next mile beyond Brian Head will be deposited, again beginning with the first 10 feet of the Tapeats. A wave containing a load of Tapeats Sand is just beginning to roll past Brian Head. But there's a problem. The land beyond Brian Head is now a couple miles lower than Brian Head. Instead of rolling across the landscape beyond Brian Head the wave instead pours over the edge of the 2 mile height of sediments like a giant waterfall.

Well, that can't be right. Even if you plug in much bigger numbers, like a hundred miles of travel across the landscape for each wave and 100 feet of sediment delivered, because at the end of that hundred miles after all the strata are deposited you'll still have a 2 mile waterfall. And such huge waves don't give your animals any chance to leave footprints and dig burrows on the mudflats.So how does this work? Until the water arrives, how do they know to leave their habitat? Isn't it already too late? Not having that kind of reasoning ability, how do the "surviving animals" know which way to go to stay ahead of the water? Why is it even necessary to your scenario that any of the animals in flooded territory survive, since there are still plenty of animals in regions not yet flooded. Is it because you need footprints and burrows? Well, sure, in massive chaos all things possible could happen. So some are caught up in the water but don't drown, and then instead of being drawn out to sea in the receding water they escape and leave tracks. Is this when the chipmunks dig burrows? How about the worms? No need to admit it, we already know. Strata contain the record of what lived upon and above its original sediments. Have you forgotten that you have no facts? The only facts belong to geology, and those facts say that the world of the past was much like the world of today. Sure the continents were different and the life was different and the oceans were different, but what we see in the strata was that there was still land and rivers and life and so on. You're misinterpreting what I said. You were accusing us of absurdly believing that life in the past lived on a slab of rock. I was only explaining that we do not believe that. This was part of the explanation. We don't believe that life in the past lived on a slab of rock because a sedimentary layer could only turn to rock after being deeply buried. While still at the surface a layer of sediments would provide a suitable landscape for life. I wasn't providing an explanation that required an answer. You were accusing us of believing something absurd that we obviously don't believe, and since it isn't supported by the evidence of course we wouldn't believe it. I was just explaining what we do actually believe and the evidence behind it. And that explanation has been provided to you a gazillion times. What is your problem? Get it right. If you think life living on a slab of rock is an inevitable consequence of something we've said then that's something you've got to explain. You're misinterpreting what I said again. I was explaining the evidence behind why we do not believe there was ever a thousand-mile wide beach (meaning extending a thousand miles inland). If you think a thousand-mile wide beach is an inevitable consequence of something we've said then that's something you've got to explain.--Percy

Even some non-valid methods show the earth to be older than YEC tells us.

I don't know if you missed my Message 2320 or just don't consider it worth answering, but this is in case you missed it and want to answer it.

Pretty much the latter.I wrote the post late, for me, and couldn't figure out a way to word it better for the layman. I actually tried.When I saw that you didn't get my point, I just blew it off. There isn't much point in continuing a conversation with someone who is in such deep denial. If there is one thing I know, it's structural geology, and continuing to argue it with someone who basically has no conscience is fruitless.

Perhaps you missed this from Moose's Message 2306? I'm sorry you find me so difficult but besides your death grip on the status quo theories and inability to grasp a different point of view, your attitude makes me even less interested in trying to deal with anything you post.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.