Well, first, the separate "time periods" are often described in terms that imply that the fossil contents of that particular layer lived in that "time period" which is represented by particular rock. Not above/later, and not below/earlier. Yet this is nothing but a slab of rock with dead things buried in it.
To the untrained and disinterested observer, yes. Is there a point to this?
Second, as usual I'm thinking about the strata in the Grand Canyon area because I know how neatly parallel they are to a great depth, ...
This is not necessarily so. There are several unconformities in the GC and some are angular. In other words, the Vishnu is not parrallel to the Chuar which is not paralle to the Unkar which is not parallel to the Tapeats. Thinks only stabilized in the Cambrian Period.
... so that if any of those layers had been moved by tectonic force from one place to another we should expect distortion of that layer, shouldn't we?
Of course, and we do see changes. However, the changes are not necessarily movement so much as deformation, which we see, i.e. tilting of beds.
Perhaps you can elaborate on how tectonic movement created any of those tightly stacked parallel layers separately from the others?
I'm not sure what you mean by 'tightly stacked parallel layers'. Compaction and dewatering during lithification would make them 'tightly packed', I guess.
So, let me try to get this clear: what you are saying you SEE is the building of different layers by rising and falling of the sea?
No we see different layers occurring with sedimentation. As the depositional environment changed, so did the characteristic rocks of that area.
In that case you are seeing 1) something happening on a much much faster time scale than the building of the geologic column is supposed to have taken, ...
Why is that?
... which would be more consistent with something like a worldwide Flood, and 2) also on a much much smaller geographic scale: you are of course not seeing it to any greater depth than the highest tide or possibly tsunami could produce, not anything on the scale of the formation of strata to enormous thicknesses that span entire continents and even cross the ocean.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here. What is wrong with a smaller geographic area? What would the tides or tsunamis have to do with it? Why should thick bed take less time to deposit? And not the formations are not continuous across oceans.
quote:
The principles involved are there I'm sure, but the scale of the geo column is beyond anything being formed today.
You are confusing the Geological time scale with the geological column. Every point on earth has its own geological column, whereas the timetable is the same everywhere.
Alrighty, so you've got this mile deep stack of sediments now sinking into the crust, allowing the water to be as deep as needed to create the Kaibab (Permian) limestone without raising the sea level?
Rising sea level is not necessary, yes.
Okay, so does the land rise again for the deposition of land type sediments and fossils above the Permian? The Claron formation in the Grand Staircase is the uppermost sedimentary layer and it is also limestone, so did the whole stack, now over two miles deep, have to sink again for that to be formed? How deep into the crust is it possible for the land to sink?
The Mississippi Delta sedimentary package is over 7 miles deep. At this location we are not talking about much over a couple thousand feet of relief at any give time.
Anyway, it does seem like you have either sea level rising and falling or land rising and falling because of the different kinds of sediments and fossils up the column. If not, please explain.
I have not problem with that.
Also, do you or do you not regard each of the "time periods" that are attached to various levels of the strata as former landscapes during which the particular life forms fossilized in those layers dominated?
Again, your wording is fuzzy. If I understand, yes. The time periods would be approximately isochronous.
Of course, but how does such tectonic phenomena raise or lower sea level?
Several ways, but the most important are thermal fluctuations in the mantle which locally raise large parts of the crust.
There's a ton of evidence. It's called the Geologic Column.
Then you need to explain all of the things that happened during the flood, such as the entire age of the dinosaurs.
I don't get the problem. If sediments washed off the land along with all the living creatures on the land, that would all have been redeposited as strata by the Flood waters as well as the marine sediments and creatures.
How do you wash evaporites into an ocean basin? How does the age of dinosaurs fit into the middle of a flood? What about limestones? How do they form in the middle of a global flood that is washing off the continents?
™ Version 4.2
(1)