Summations Only

Actually it's not such a high level. As I just said to edge last night, all that's missing is a brief sentence about how the particular climate attributed to the time period was determined by the presence of salts in the Jurassic rocks, and maybe a reference to a source discussing it. That would be a lot better than just having to swallow the conclusion that a time hundreds of millions of years ago that lasted fifty million years is known to have had that particular climate. That is mystification, it's not the basic science everybody is claiming it is. Well, I qualify, had basic science courses in both high school and university, enjoyed it, was good at it; but you don't really mean that, you mean that I still believe what I was taught in the classes about evolution, and of course I no longer do.ABE: I don't have a problem understanding at all. I just don't any longer believe what you believe.I used to have a rather idealistic feeling about science, including evolution. Thought of it as progress in knowledge, etc. Held onto books on the subject almost as if they were on the level of the Bible, about which I knew nothing at the time. I have no lack of understanding, I just changed my mind.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

1. Constructive discussion.Ha ha. Couldn't it be that it's impossible to have a constructive discussion on this subject in this place? Ha ha, of course not, has to be a fault of mine.2. How to anchor views in facts.No point in answering such accusations.3. Subordinating everything to the Bible is not science.If you mean subordinating relevant facts to the Bible, sure it is.4.Math.Yes I'm bad at math.5. Physics.This I know I'm good at.6. Walther's Law.I don't know if I misunderstand it or not, I may very well understand it just fine, though I couldn't trust you to recognize that. In any case as I've many times said, the only thing that interests me about Walther's Law is the fact that rising sea water lays down layers of sediments.7. That the strata of the Grand Canyon formed through Walther's Law, except the Coconino.RAZD showed that Walther's Law explains it, and it must also explain the Coconino whether you like it or not.8. The claim that no terrestrial landscape is as straight and flat as strata is false.The claim is true and the efforts to prove it false are so beyond idiotic, in an atmosphere where the physics-challenged Boss disagrees and I have nobody to agree with me we're talking about a really weird setup that has nothing to do with science.9. Strata are not as flat and straight as Faith thinks, even at the Grand Canyon.They are exactly as flat and straight as I think, only you have a problem seeing it.10. Strata are rarely uniform with regard to sediment type.A major stupid nitpick. It's utterly irrelevant that there are small imperfections since to the naked eye they are almost perfectly uniform and science calls them by their sedimentary names. What kind of flimflam are you trying to pull here? I'm talking about the ones that ARE called by the sedimentary names, the limestones, the sandstones, the chalks, the mustones and so on.11. Life in the past lived and died and sometimes became entombed just as it does today, above, atop and beneath surfaces of terrestrial, marine or lacustrine sediment, not on flat slabs of rock.In other words I must completely abandon what I know to be true and just accept the establishment view. That is science to you. Wowsie wow. The rate at which that scenario happens in the present is ludicrous as an explanation for the abundance of fossils. Blech. Here I am having to deal with this crazy list of denigrations of my abilities just because the Boss can't think straight.12. Most strata are marine. While terrestrial landscapes can become strata, they usually don't.Navajo Sandstone isn't a stratum, Moenkapi isn't a stratum, all the cliffs of the Grand Staircase aren't strata. What a revelation.13. Lithified soil is called a paleosol.Golly gosh another amazing revelation.14. Rocks do not form by drying but by diagenesis.Actually somebody here corrected you on that years ago and even put up a link showing that simple compaction/drying out does form some rocks. But I never made that claim anyway, all I ever said was that compaction hardens them enough to hold their shape during various kinds of erosion, even the cutting of the Grand Canyon. Have you ever worked with clay?15. There are no underground rivers and streams eroding buried strata (karst structures are a different matter).There is absolutely no reason why not, it's perfectly reasonable that after the Flood water running between layers would erode away some of them.l In some situations such stream erosion would form what are really karsts in effect. Too bad you have no ability to visualize the physical world.16. Buried strata cannot tilt without affecting surrounding strata.Well it usually does knock them around quite a bit, leaving only a layer or two in many cases, but it left the whole stack in at least one case I know of. And actually it DID "affect" the surrounding strata, it pushed them up and created the Kaibab Uplift and slid them horizontally a quarter of a mile. Fair amount of effect there.17. Angular unconformities happen when sediment is deposited atop tilted strata, such as at Welcombe Mouth Beach.Gosh you are sure the champion of the Status Quo, no imagination. That beach is a ridiculous example anyway. 18. Accelerated continental drift with the attendant accelerated creation of sea floor at mid-oceanic ridges would release enough heat to boil the oceans. This is even without taking into account the heat from friction and subduction.Righto. It must be that I don't "understand" these things, can't be that I disagree with them. That's all this ridiculous list is about.19. In the oceans, sea floor sediment depth increases with increasing distance from mid-oceanic ridges where the sea floor forms. Sea floor near mid-oceanic ridges is young and has little time to accumulate sediments, while that far from mid-oceanic ridges is much older and has had much time to accumulate sediments.
The sediments comprising strata were always deposited during a particular time period, whether the millions of years of geology or the year of the Flood.In the year of the Flood there was only one continent and no Atlantic Ocean. In fact even according to your establishment explanation the Atlantic Ocean didn't begin to form until, what was it, the Jurassic Period?20. Stratigraphic columns continue to grow today, mostly at low points such as lake and sea bottom.There is absolutely no stratification happening today anywhere that is a continuation of the Geological Column or even like it.21. Fossil abundance varies widely among strata.So?22. Life buried today could eventually become fossils.I guess, just nowhere near the rate necessary to account for the abundance in the Geological Column.23. Speciation does not take millions of years.That's for sure. What's your point?24. Old evidence is still evidence. Evidence has no expiration date.Gosh a Sturdy Fact if there ever was one. It's point, however, eludes me.25. Vegetation and trees did not keep buried sediments loose so that the 40 days and nights of rain could wash them into the ocean.Eh? Roots and especially the deep roots of tall trees do indeed keep soil loose. Look it up.26. The dog does not have enormous genetic diversity compared to other species today. It can be no more genetically diverse than the gray wolf from which it is descended.I include the wolf with the whole collection of dog breeds, but if all the dogs descended from the wolf they would have left the wolf with less genetic diversity.27. A definition of kind that is different for each kind is not a definition.But of course I never said anything of the sort. I was looking for the best way to define the kind morphologically and it worked for some species but not others.Well, I lost one somewhere along the way. Not going to try to correct it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

SO WHAT? Why are you giving this list? Do these magazines present characteristics imputed to time periods without any clue to the evidence for their wild interpretations? That's the question, why don't you answer it?

Yes I'm sure magazines print what they think represents science at the appropriate level. Unfortunately in the case of the Geological Time Scale that turns out to be pure mystification and unfair to the public.Got a popular Geology magazine that isn't too expensive I could consider getting?And why do you enjoy your straw man stuff so much> No I do NOT accept "evolution" by which any reasonable person would know I meant the THEORY OF EVOLUTION. Of course I accept MICROevolution.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This isn't about ordinary reasonable magazine publication standards, this is about preventing the reader from understanding something that would be easy enough to rectify. I don't think they are intentionally doing this, I just think they assume the information is as good as fact, as historical geology does anyway, and that nobody should complain.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's not about their audience, it's about how the whole scientific community presents this stuff to the public, as if it were set in stone that the Jurassic period existed and had such characteristics, as if this were revealed to them from heaven. It's typical and it has nothing to do with the audience as you all keep trying to claim. It's just typical historical science mystification: we say it, therefore it's absolutely true, therefore you must believe it.

They are a science magazine.They are doing what the science does, pretending they know things they don't and presenting their information in such a way that nobody can raise a question about it.

I don't, but it's true anyway. I wouldn't exactly "disregard" it but I would regard it as confirmation of the silly methods of historical geology. It would just be nice to see it acknowledged instead of covered up in favor of a dogmatic pronouncement of fake facts about a fake landscape. But of COURSE, I take it for granted here that everything is my own fault. There is no doubt in my mind that if I said the sky is blue today I'd be told I'm so wrong I shouldn't be allowed to breathe.

Actually I do. Wherever it is mentioned it is always described as a complete entity just as I describe it. All this other hooha doesn't enter into it. And wherever it is found it is quite clearly a stack of similarly formed rocks, while all the nonsense you try to palm off as part of it is nothing like them in shape or size or location.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Collecting some definitions and statements for possible reference on this thread, here's a definition of Evolution I'd like to get opinions on since I'd rather not make use of it and find out later nobody here accepts it.From Live Science, What Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution?And from the same site, a summary: SO: Is all this acceptable as a definition of the Theory of Evolution? Any objections?Thank you.

As usual you have a bunch of straw man misrepresentations of my arguments plus the usual idea that if I don't accept the establishment point of view I don't "understand" anything, since all you are doing is regurgitating tha status quo as usual. That's kind of the theme song here in general. The idea that I lack scientific knowledge simply means my refusal to accept evolution and the Old Earth.And you're the one who doesn't understand physics, but of course fat chance anyone will ever acknowledge that in Percy Land.So you insist that Walther's Law is about slow movement across "depositional environments." Well, I deny depositional environments, and the rule covers the scenario of a faster rising sea just fine, as moose agreed a while back. Perhaps he's changed his mind by now, but it's true no matter who agrees with it. I also deny the ridiculous idea that there were a number of sea transgressions and regressions. You think it impossible to account for one worldwide Flood and yet you have, what, six?Why don't you just put a banner up at the top of EvC sayingCREATIONISTS NOT WELCOME HERE.That would be a lot more honest than "Understanding through discussion." Don't you think it's time to come out from behind that curtain?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Thanks to RAZD and PaulK for explaining how the definition of evolution I posted in Message 80 is not acceptable. I'm certainly glad I asked.May I now ask how it can be that a source that calls itself scientific can give an unacceptable definition of evolution?

Those sedimentary rocks are Paleozoic strata same as those above the Supergroup, which are divided from the lower rocks by the Great Unconformity. My guess is that it's to be explained the same way: horizontal movement at the contact at the same time as the faulting occurred.Interestingly the Paleozoic layers also curve up and over the lower rift just as they do over the Supergroup forming the Kaibab Uplift, showing that they were already there when the faulting occurred, exactly as the same phenomenon in the GC does.Oddly, other cross sections show the strata curving down in a hammock shape instead of up. I wonder which is correct. However, either curve shows the strata were already there and likely still rather damp and malleable because all this was occurring just as the Flood was starting to recede.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I would direct you to those curved meanders at the east end of the canyon Note that the overall depth is much shallower here and the upper part of the walls exposed because obviously the level of the water has dropped, and you can see the gradation from the wider upper walls down through the progressively lower narrower walls, which would have been formed in the way I derscribe for the canyon: the first volume of water to begin to trace the meander was as wide as the uppermost walls, and as the water receded and its level dropped the width of the walls it cut narrowed.In fact I'd suggest that this obvious progression from a greater volume of water down to a smaller volume which would have formed the gradation of wider upper to narrower lower walls, is a good model for how the canyon itself was formed along the lines I suggested: great folume cutting wider upper walls, cutting narrower walls as the water level lowers as the Flood is receding. Yeah but that part is obvious and well known. Erosion would form those shapes after the basic width of the canyon was cut.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Oh I've explained that many many times. The cutting of the canyon began at the point the Flood started to recede, and so did the cutting of the Grand Staircase. The uppermost strata broke up over the canyon area and washed away, which I've often explained as due to the strain caused by the Kaibab uplift which was pushed up at the same time due to the tectonic pressure beneath that area which tilted the Supergroup and moved the quartzite boulder and so on and so forth, and a lot of the broken upper strata washed into the cracks the uplift oened up that became the canyon, a lot breaking off the cliffs that became the Grand Staircase. The Kaibab plateau was the point where the breaking up stopped and it was scoured off to the level plateau by the receding of the water full of tons of debris.It is the Kaibab Plateau that the meanders are cut into, far east of the Grand Canyon proper, and meanders begin with sheets of water running across flat areas and then forming curves that cut into the surface. So this was a lot of water and it cut a pretty wide meander at first. Looks like the water level must have fairly rapidly dropped because of the shape of the walls, apparently reaching a longer lasting level where you see the vertical narrower walls, before it eventually dropped to its current little river.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.