Summations Only

Back to the surface of what and from what? I have no idea what you are talking about. Jar was talking about the Vishnu schist at the bottom of the Grand Canyon. I added a remark about the granite that is also there. There is a volcano beneath the canyon, and diagrams show magma intruding into the schist. It is perfectly reasonable to explain its formation by the volcanic heat and the pressure of a two mile deep stack of sediments above.

I have NO idea what you are talking about. Again, I am responding to a particular shallenge about Vishnu schist. Period. Yes, the geological column all over the world had to have been formed by the Flood.

Well I'm very glad to hear that at least in principle I'm making some sense. Feel free to add all the tectonic stress you want as that is considered by many creationists to have occurred somewhere after or in the later stages of the Flood, and it seems to have occurred in conjunction with volcanic activity as well. A volcano did erupt beneath the canyon, partly spilling over the canyon walls in one place, and I believe there is also a large pluton beneath the canyon which may explain why that area has a mounded appearance. A mound into which the canyon was cut. But I understand that there are other possible explanations for the lifting of the land there.Exposed granite? Formed deep in the earth of course, pushed up by tectonic forces?

Remember the volcano beneath as well as the layers above. And remember also that those were very very wet sediments. Adds a bit of weight.

People are always trying to explain SOME of the layers, or just one, as formed by the Flood and the others by other means. There is no difference in their appearance one from another when you see a deep stack of them, such as in the Grand Canyon especially where the stack is a mile deep (it is clear that originally there was at least another mile of strata above that originally). Different mechanisms for the formation of identical layers makes no sense. Also, the extent of the layers horizontally with such flatness doesn't fit anything that occurs now that I'm aware of. Besides, the scale of a worldwide Flood requires such evidence, WORLDwide.There's no reason to believe the Flood was violent in itself, though tumbling land mass would certainly have been pretty violent -- that dinosaur bed in --Colorado? Wyoming? Somewhere up there -- makes it look like those creatures took quite a beating as they tumbled around in the mud. But I see no problem with some creatures being preserved quite intact, depending on accidental factors. Some things could simply have been rapidly buried in the mudslides. And who said anything was floating around for a year? Why do you assume it would have been buried as a skeleton rather than as the whole creature? The deposition of sediments could have begun fairly soon in the Flood. This part I don't know a lot about, but maybe the Biblical Geology guy does. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You are pretty much asking me to take a course that I don't have time for at the moment. Perhaps tomorrow I can put some time in on it.

FEY there is no way you can possibly get me to give up the Biblical time scale of the Flood and I'm very sorry that you gave it up, if in fact you really had a grip on it. I may be wrong about some particulars but so far my view of it continues to make sense to me and even gets stronger the more I learn about geology. Your attacks are just the speculations of a geology student and your visualizations of the Flood are not very good. Sorry. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It would show that there had been water to some depth there if so but I looked at pictures of Mars a while back and saw no strata.

4300 years AGO, or about 2300 BC, I said it wrong once. It's derived from the ages of the patriarchs up to Noah.

Let's get one thing straight. I believe the Bible is the word of God who made you, me and this entire Creation. His word has been understood for centuries by people just as "expert" as all you scientists, to show that He brought a great Flood on the earth to punish the sins of humanity and that this occurred about 4300 years ago. I do not feel I'm being arrogant in my pursuit of this because my aim is to serve Him, my Master, my Creator, and to be true to His word, and in fact if there's any arrogance in this project it's on the side of those who have the effrontery to tell God He's wrong. THAT is REAL arrogance.I'll try to get back tomorrow to answer your question.

You have abandoned God's word for the vaporings of men.

That Black Sea stuff is an accommodation to the OE paradigm. The Bible SAYS "the whole world," that MEANS the WHOLE WORLD. You've bought the OE. You'd be a lot better off if you just gave up the Bible, because it's a great sin to try to conform it to such nonsense. Go whole hog and become a secular geologist, you'll be a lot safer. Maybe later on if there's still time you can rethink it all and come back to the Bible. A compromised Bible is worse than no Bible.

I don't understand your question still. This rock forms very deep in the earth. Who said it had anything to do with the Flood? What is the usual idea about how it came to the surface? I don't get the question.

Oh for pete's sake, I know the layers are all different sediments, for crying out loud.What I'm saying is that their general APPEARANCE, their CONDITION, is identical. There is not one iota of an appearance of difference to account for millions of years of age difference among them.Really, this is ridiculous.

The Catholic Church murdered some 67 million "heretics" over a six-century period of the Inquisition, most of which were Bible-believing Christians.I can hardly think of Protestants doing anything remotely similar. Calvin having Servetus executed? The political uprising in Germany? The Salem witch trials that took 19 lives before the hysteria was stopped by the Protestant clergy? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.