Faith in
another thread makes the assertion that the modern geologic concept of the deposition of strata makes no sense:
quote:
But the idea that the strata could have built up over billions of years is ridiculous on the face of it. A few feet of perfectly horizontal evenly deposited sediments is supposed to have occurred over a few million years? What, at a rate of a millimeter a century? No rain, no wind, no flooding, no erosion, no earthquakes, no disturbances? Over huge swaths of planet earth? In all the mountains that were pushed up after it formed, in all the deserts, everywhere one looks? Then precisely sharply demarcated from another similar formation of a different kind of material equally homogeneous and neatly laid down bit by tiny bit for another umpteen million years with another neat horizontal demarcation and so on and so forth and that's taken as real?
I don't understand their objections, for two reasons:
1) The strata
do show indications of all of the above processes occuring, and yet, there they are. And of course, the strata are neither perfectly homogenous, nor perfectly horizontal. Nor is the column the exact same over all of Planet Earth. So clearly a number of her objections stem from the fact that she clearly doesn't know what the geologic column
is.
2) It's your assertion that flooding, among other things, would have prevented strata from forming; your alternate model, therefore, is that the geologic strata were laid down...
by a flood? Did that make sense to you when you came up with it?
Like I said, I don't understand these objections. I hope Faith will join us here to elaborate on them. The only things that seem ridiculous on the face of it, to me, are her ill-conceived objections.