Summations Only

Also:* Historical Geology/Walther's principle - Wikibooks, open books for an open world
* Historical Geology/Sea level variations - Wikibooks, open books for an open world

The wikibook Historical Geology derived from the thread has fewer typos / errors and is generally an improvement.

Well clearly that was caused by one of those global floods we've been having lately.

The angle is altered on the surface, but not in the buried layers. The action of water on aeolian sand would flatten the top but leave the lower laminae at the same angle.

Fraud? Yes, OK, you got us bang to rights. For example, I personally manufactured the Ordovician Period. And I would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for you meddling kids.

You posted a bit of batshit nonsense which we laughed at until we had to hold our kidneys in because our sides were so split, so now you want to declare it off limits for discussion. As you did in the last thread where we mentioned the Great Unconformity. We must all be forever silent about that, because you once said something dumb about it.

You just declared it off-limits without discussing it. Unless claiming Fluddidit is considered a "discussion" nowadays.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Wait, I've lost track of what you're trying to be wrong about.Can you try again?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Apart from the fact that it requires zillions of tons of rock to conveniently vanish into nothing, violating the law of conservation of matter.This has been brought to your attention before. We're talking about many cubic kilometers of rock, they can't just be hiding behind a tree.

... that fossils were arranged by "the principles of hydraulic sorting".

But Faith, don't you see that this is what's wrong with your whole argument? You want a single explanation for the whole of geology. But then you won't look at anything but the G.C, and when we indulge you by talking about that, you won't look at anything below the Great Unconformity, and when we draw your attention to the fossils and the footprints lying above it, you say you don't have the time to look at it in detail ... everything is too much for you to look at except the one single fact you think proves you right.Now we are not like that. We can say: pick any spot on the face of the Earth, and let's talk about the rocks and the fossils there, and we'll show you how this can be explained in terms of real geology. You say: let's look at just one place, and just look at some facts but not others, and let's only look at the rocks in that location above a certain arbitrary point, and if we restrict ourselves only to the facts that you want us to look at they'll prove how right you are.Well on that basis you could implore us to only look at ostriches while considering your position that no birds can fly.Geologists ask me to look at the whole of geology, at all the rocks available. You beg us to focus on a few facts about one portion of the rocks in one location. Who is more likely to be right about geology?

"I know birds can't fly and the ostrich shows the ridiculousness of Ornithologist explanations. All other birds would also be flightless but it would be harder answering all the Zoology objections."If anything, this analogy favors you, because we have shown extensive evidence that the G.C. strata weren't produced by a single flood. Ideally, your model would fit all of them. That was my point. At the very least you should consider a wide range of phenomena; and you should try to keep an open mind on the subject of whether completely different geological features were all produced by exactly the same process. You might find --- who knows? --- that the different features are best explained by the diverse known geological processes that perfectly explain them.

If your point is that strata are only eroded after they've been deposited, this is equally consistent with real geology as with Flood geology or indeed with magic-strata-pixies geology. The only thing it's inconsistent with is time running backwards. It's kind of ... y'know ... logically inevitable.

In order for something to be eroded, it must first be present.What else do you have as evidence for the Flood? All the ingredients of my dinner were grown before they were cooked! How do you explain that, evolutionists!

Well, I am reading it. You write (for example): "This is true of the Grand Canyon where all the strata are there from Tapeats to Kaibab before the canyon itself was cut." Well, yes. This is because in order for a canyon to cut through strata, the strata have to be there before it cuts through them. If they weren't there, it couldn't have cut through them. If the canyon had been cut and then the Coconino Sandstone, for example, had been added afterwards, then if we briefly overlook the gross structural difficulties that this would involve, it would also be true just as a matter of logic that the canyon would not have been cut through it.