I'm thinking of old threads particularly about the Grand Canyon where I showed that the strata are continuous up through the Grand Staircase without any of the kind of erosion that would show time at the surface of the earth, which would be needed to demonstrate the Time Scale, and which is always claimed to be there even though it can't be seen between any of the layers anywhere.
What would you expect the strata to look like if science's old earth time scales were correct?
and really, the answer is that I wouldn't expect any strata at all to have anything to do with it.
Okay, so what would have something to do with it?
Geology has cobbled together all kinds of rationalizations for the water including a series of six shallow seas. But given the great expanse of the strata across the land they have no way of showing how anything lived then anyway, or stayed living if they ever did. Yes even marine life. All that sediment in the water would kill them too. And did, judging by the fossil contents found in the rocks.
So if there were a series inland seas like the scientific explanation says, then what would you expect the geography to look like?
There shouldn't be a series of any sort at all, there shouldn't be stratified sedimentary rocks at all.
At best maybe in one time period perhaps, as a sort of fluke, and then I'd expect it to be part of an extinction event;
I'm not sure what you mean; Can you describe what you would expect the geography would look like?
The eras should be continuous one from another, not flat and straight but lumpy and hilly and blended together.
What makes you think that? Don't forget about compaction...
Also, sedimentation "runs downhill", so the valleys would get filled in from the lumps and things would get smoothed out even before compaction.
ABE: There is no way strata make sense at all on the Time Scale theory but at the very least they should not be flat and straight AT ALL, they should show hills and valleys and gorges and canyons and eroded fields between layers, and they don't.
I think you are missing some steps in your mental picture of how erosion and sedimentation works.
You'd never get a complex landscape "frozen" in place as-is with hills and valleys and gorges and canyons all present in the resulting stratum. Everything is going to get flattened out and smooshed down during the process.
The cross section(s) and the map along with tons of other eivdences of the same sort ARE evidence that shows the Time Scale couldn't possibly be true.
I reject that statement.
If anyone would just stop and think, really, just think for a change, you'd have to recognize that layers of sediment cannot possibly represent time periods of millions of years.
They absolutely can, and do.
The diagrams show that the layers were all deposited first, all of them, every last one of them, from Precambrian to Holocene/Eocene, one after another, nothing in between, and in fact nothing coujld possibly have lived when the layers were being deposited, just think for pete's sake, and after all were laid down, all of them, THEN AND ONLY THEN were they tilted and eroded and otherwise deformed.
When you get to the point where everybody seems to be unable to get a very simple point that you are trying to make, then it's time to look towards your point, itself, and see if maybe it isn't accually accurate or correct.
Animals can live on surfaces that are getting deposited onto, and after those surface are depositted on through sedimentary processes, they get compacted and smooshed down into their present state. They did not look like they do today when they were on the surface in the past.
Really, all it takes is some honesty and clear thought. But as I said I know it isn't going to happen. You won't think about it, you just won't.
We do; we have thought about it and it just turns out that you are blatanly wrong.
Anybody here ever going to wake up and see the truth?
We already have, and we're waiting on you to join us.
Re: Time Scale is Disproved, Flood is Well Supported, Summary Statement
The rocks exist, there is no denying them. Life can't live on a rock, and it can't live where enormous amounts of sediment are getting deposited. Despite what you think is OTHER evidence for your theory, these two facts I'm discussing here show to it to be absolutely impossible.
1. It wasn't rock when it was on the surface. 2. Life can live where sediments are being deposited. It is happening right now as I type - all over the place.
Your vision of sedimentary processes is extremely incorrect - and your argument that is based on that vision is fatally flawed.