Summations Only

quote:

---

The reason the massive erosion is an issue is that it only happened since all the strata were in place.

---

That will be true if any erosion going on now. So why is it an issue?

quote:

---

If it only happened after all were in place, in "recent time" that is, then nothing like that happened ever before during the laying down of all those strata

---

You need to look at the evidence a bit more before concluding that. Also it needs to be pointed out that if that is just a statement about those localities it can't demonstrate anything about the wider world. If it is intended to be about the wider world, you need to look at a lot more sites, over a larger geographic range.

quote:

---

That's a few hundred million years when no such massive erosion occurred, and by massive erosion what I mean is no canyon cutting, no cliffs as in the Staircase area, no monuments as in Monument Valley, and there would have been about a mile's depth of strata that just washed away in those areas too, leaving those formations.

---

I'm not convinced that that is true, but even if it is why would it be a serious problem if it just applied to those locations ? Again, you need more evidence and explanation.And of course the time required to deposit the rock and for this massive erosion to occur are valid issues that must be resolved. What if they turn out to be consistent with the Old Earth and not the Flood ? Wouldn't the evidence then support an Old Earth and contradict the Flood ?

quote:

---

...we simply live in a time of active erosion that never happened before. Perfectly sensible, takes care of that. End of subject.

---

In other words you take your view of what happened at three locations - chosen because they are currently undergoing massive erosion - as describing the situation world wide. Need I point out that such an inference is not at all justified ?

quote:

---

Then there are the Precambrian rocks which also keep being brought up. Seems to me that the hundreds of millions of years that occurred "since" then ought to call the OE into question all by itself, but obviously it doesn't

---

Why should it? Especially when we have solid evidence for it ?

quote:

---

Of course you all know how those rocks were formed, by the usual interpretive method, which, although it is nothing more than hypothesis-formation, is somehow capable of arriving at incontrovertible knowledge just as the real scientific method is

---

If you are going to seriously discuss the issues then this really has no place, especially as it is far more true of your own arguments, as I point out above.Again, if you engaged in more serious discussion and dropped the nastiness you would do a lot better here. As it is your problems are very much of your own making,.Edited by PaulK, : Correct autocorrect

Losing in debates is not a good excuse for bad behaviour. But if you're not even trying to produce serious arguments now, why get so angry when they don't work ?

There's a lot wrong with your arguments. And your "telling it like it is" looks a lot like attempting to suppress the truth by bullying people into silence.

I didn't say it worked. But yes, you frequently get abusive to people who dare to say truths that you don't like.

Faith maybe you ought to consider just how often something g that seems obviously true to you seems obviously false to other people. And what the honest and fair way of resolving the difference would be.

You're fond of saying that ideas you don't like are "nuts" or that any rational person would reject them. But you never provide any rational reason for doing so.Why for instance would anyone reject the idea that sediments take time to deposit ? It seems obviously true to me. But once we accept that then it is obvious that there is a sense in which the sediment bed represents the period of time during which it was deposited. But you disagree ? Why ?

quote:

---

Exactly. The Claron is part of the Geo Time Scale, the other location is not. It would have to deposit ON the Claron to be that.

---

Are you really claiming that only places where the Claron Formation exists are part of the Geological time scale ? If not, what DO you mean ?

quote:

---

No, the Claron was just the example on the table at the moment of an actual formation that is part of the Geological Time Scale, so that to continue the time scale would require building the next layer on top of it.

---

So, according to you, every "elsewhere" where deposition is occurring will not have underlying sedimentary rocks of equivalent age to the Claron formation or older?If so, can you please explain how you could know such a thing. If not, we're back to what DO you mean ?

quote:

---

Show me where anything like the strata of the Geological Column are now depositing on top of the layers called "Recent" time

---

"Like" in what way?

quote:

---

The depositions now going on are willy-nilly, not depositing the way the strata obviously did, one on top of another so that time periods could be assigned to them

---

That's an odd thing to say. Please explain why you believe this.

quote:

---

Not in incredibly thick layers that span states and continents /abe. if the erosion going on now is collecting in piles or talus at the foot of eroding formations, it is NOT collecting on top of the Geologic Column as a layer of that column.

---

This seems to make no sense to me. Anywhere sediment is deposited must be on top of the local geological column by definition.

quote:

---

If it is collecting at the bottom of the sea it is NOT collecting on top of the existing Geological Column. Sure it must be collecting on whatever there is of the column here and there but not as part of the column. I just think this is obvious.

---

Well obviously it is being deposited where it is being deposited and not where it is not. But that is as far as I can get with that statement. Why is being deposited on top of the local geological column insufficient ?

quote:

---

I'm also responding not just to my own observations but to the claims that the sedimentation is no longer continuing on the Geologic Column but at the bottom of the sea, in river deltas and so on.

---

I'm pretty sure that you're badly misunderstanding everything. Especially as the last sentence would be better written as "...sedimentation is still continuing in basins, river deltas and the sea, just as it did in the distant past"

The Grand Canyon area is not evidence at all. Of course it's suffering net erosion, that's expected. It's simply irrelevant. Choosing that site rather than sites where deposition IS going on is so absurd that it betrays - at best - gross ignorance.Now if you took a representative sample of sites where deposition is going on, explained why they don't meet your expectations (which are STILL unclear) you might have an argument. As it is, you have a confused and fallacious mess - and you complain that you aren't believed!

Actually you should pick a representative sample of sites where deposition is going on. And if you can't do that, then really you have no business claiming that you have evidence let alone that your assertions are obviously true.

quote:

---

I can't pick them because I don't think there are any that contradict my scenario.

---

You can't find the evidence because you assume you're right ?Thanks for that great example of creationist "science".

quote:

---

Point is, where would I look?

---

Changing your tune again ? I'll simply repeat if you don't know where to look for the evidence then you've got no business claiming that you are obviously right.

quote:

---

You are so sure you can prove me wrong you're the one who should produce the evidence

---

Since you won't even state your claim clearly I can't be sure about anything. And again, why should I do your work for you ?

quote:

---

Deposition in deltas, deposition in the ocean, what are you going to come up since none of that proves me wrong?

---

Doesn't it ? How do you know ?

quote:

---

And remember the Geo Column covers a lot of geography. You aren't going to find anything anywhere near that extent even if you found something that roughly approximates a Geo Column layer, which you aren't going to find anyway.

---

I'll bet that this is another example where you don't know what you are talking about.

I might consider spending the time if you can be bothered to explain yourself clearly.