Summations Only

I can see that an illustration is not a photograph. But now you've left me more confused than I started. What are you saying? Is this what you want to persuade me science communicators should be doing? Confusing people with ambiguity? I don't think that's an improvement. Yes. The stuff that is presented for the layperson's consumption - at their leisure (hardly being nagged) - generally follows the scientists producing the evidence and the communicators trying to translate that into language a layperson can easily relate to without requiring a degree. I already provided a few papers and more technical descriptions for how the general climate of the Jurassic was inferred based on mineral deposits and the flora and fauna. That stuff comes first.The stuff in the Nat Geo is the stuff that's so well established and has been for so long its utterly uncontroversial. Occasionally a magazine will run a story about a newer, more speculative set of ideas - but a good magazine will indicate its a more tentative position.So - erm - I guess you aren't going to show me an example of it being done right? In history, science, mathematics, flood geology or anything? I can't agree with your thesis if I don't know what your target level of detail actually looks like.

She did give her reference.

quote:

---

After all the flat layers are deposited at sea level, there was a major uplift, event called the Laramide Orogeny, which lifted these rocks without tilting them - still flat - lifted them up to higher elevations.

---

Source: Karl Karlstrom at 13:40 in the video I posted in Message 147 that Faith was referencing when she said 'And I also mentioned in Message 156, a real bona fide official certified geologist's comment that the Laramide Orogeny lifted the land without tilting the strata. '

What about salt flats, like in Utah?

They are so flat you can travel 400 mph in a land vehicle across them. Visible ups and downs over a few yards would make this impossible. Is the stratigraphy considerably flatter than this? Do you have measurements? You are engaged in mystification through pontification here.But you tell me - what happens when you squash something?a) it gets flatter
b) it gets less flatWhat would be the effect of piling rock and earth onto something so it squashes it so much it becomes rock?a) it gets flatter
b) it gets less flat
c) no impact Is a lakebed or river remnants NOT water deposited strata somehow?Also - does that mean this coal seam was deposited by water? How does that happen? So water deposited sediments and volcanic...that covers a lot of stratigraphy doesn't it? But we're talking about lakebeds which sometimes dry out to leave a salt flat or alkali flat. Flat is quite common with these in any case - in contrast to your statement that lakebeds aren't all that flat. How many strata are all that flat?May I ask about Valles Marineris? It's a much bigger canyon than the Grand Canyon. Was this caused by a divine flood too?

How flat is that flat? Does this apply to lake beds that are squashed by millions of tonnes of material? Just looking only gets us so far, we need to apply reason and reference actual measurements. Salt flats - which are former lakebeds - certainly pass your yardstick challenge for how flat they are.I'm afraid yelling at me isn't persuasive. I thought you were protesting "a flat {haha, a retrospective pun - mod} assertion of what purports to be fact" but here you are making 'pontifical declaration of dogma.'So if it wasn't caused by a large pool of water slowly draining or evaporating away, and then being buried under tonnes of rock - since that would not cause it to be that flat (although you don't seem to want to explain how you know this nor do you seem willing to provide measurements for how flat it is)...what was it that caused it?

Mountains, dead animals/plants, volcanoes.... Bits of rock, animals/plants and rock. On top. So the volcanic ash goes on top of the ground which is the current top layer. Same with the bits of dead organisms. How flat is the strata in that hill? How much weight is squashing down on it? Ah. Hey, I'm just trying to understand things. I'm not pontificating so much as trying to figure out how these straight lines form in your opinion and how that differs from geologists. I dunno, the geologists seem to have quite a bit.

I can't. I'm going to need some measurements to confirm. Sorry, I thought you were arguing that points were being made as if they were fact without explaining how the conclusion was reached. Well we're talking wet sediments being squashed by tonnes of other wet sediments. I'm pretty sure I can make wet clay pretty flat with just the pressure from my hands. Not necessarily, but certainly sometimes. And the weight distribution would be even.

I'm responding to your claim about lakebeds. Whether those lakebeds would go on to form limestone rock or whatever seems immaterial to the point. How have you concluded this? Wow. OK. The Grand Canyon wasn't caused by the flood. We agree!