Growing the Geologic Column

That's convenient. I wouldn't dig too deeply. This way, you can make up whatever you want. Why? The evidence does not support a truly global flood. That is, unless you would consider today's oceans as a global flood as well. There is no evidence out there that is diagnostic of a global flood. You are describing dogma. A belief system not supported by facts and yet unquestionable. It would seem to me that such an event would have ample evidence, and yet I see nothing of the kind.

And yet, you can say that you know God's mind on this. Why are you not deluded? Are you not a fallible human?

Is that why there are several hundred Christian denominations? Ah, I see, it's that easy. Kind of like the internet. That's what I do with evidence. And the evidence says nothing about a truly global flood. To me, that means the story is allegory. You mean the human wisdom is correct only when it agrees with the Bible.So, where does the Bible say that the planet is 6ky old? Why should it be that difficult?Common sense tells me that evaporites should not be deposited in a flood. It also tells me that while the Grand Canyon area was relatively quiescent during the Paleozoic, there was a lot going on elsewhere in the world. The fact that you have to confine yourself to isolated locations and times to support your viewpoint suggests to me that you are making stuff up.

So, how is that different from the modern understanding of geology?What is your evidence? Ravaged? You'll have to ask God why the evidence does not support that position.

Seems to me that you are telling us what the 'correct opinion' is. You know, the dogma. Coyote is just stating facts that you have failed to refute.

But you fail to make that case.Could it not be you who misunderstands the evidence? Are you not fallible?

So, you agree with RC church on evolution and old ages? But it appears a great enough difference to break away and then to fight wars over... Give us a reason to take your scenario seriously. Show us now evaporites formed during the fludde. Show us how dinosaurs proliferate in the middle of the greatest disaster to ever occur on earth. Show us why radiometric dates confirm relative ages.Science is not 'nice'. And discussion boards are even less nice. If you cannot support your position, you should go somewhere and learn some facts. Then show me where I did so. AFAICS, this is just another assertion that you cannot support. The Bible does this calculation? So, the Bible does not actually say that the earth is 6ky old, right? It's all calculated. So, you are not fallen? It seems to me that you are evading here. Are you indeed infallible? Okay, what is the mechanism for this? How do you get pure salts? How do you get precipitation patterns and geometries that look like lakes?You keep making these assertions but never provide evidence or explanations. You understand why it is complicated, don't you? It's because your model is so simple minded. It's all relative, but I would agree that the sediments were deposited in a location that was on the stable continental platform. But this is news?? Well, you haven't come close yet.

OKay, I've located my Historical Geology textbook with hundreds of summary 'geological columns' and quite a few of them show volcanics interlayered with sedimentary rocks. These include the Valmy Formation in Nevada and the Hazleton Group of British Columbia and many others. I will present a few of these later when I have a little time.

Well, I'm not sure how many examples you need. It would seem that one would refute your argument, but since you want to move the goal posts, I will show a few other examples of volcanic rocks deposited in sequence with sedimentary units.How about the Paterson Volcanics of NSW, upper Carboniferous rhyolites underlain by the Mount Johnstone Formation sandstones and conglomerates and overlain by the Seaham Formation conglomerates?Or maybe you would prefer the Nikolai Greenstone, Permian/Triassic andesites and basalts overlain by various limestone units such as the Chitistone in southern Alaska.And then there is one of our favorites, the Ordovician Valmy Formation in Nevada which is described here (Valmy) in part: And, And then, more recently, the Sonoma Volcanics north of San Francisco where they are overlain by Pliocene-Pleistocene lake/river sediments.Here is an example of a volcanic rock (Talkeetna Formation) that was emplaced, then eroded to form cobbles in the sedimentary Naknek Formation in southern Alaska. How many of these examples do you need?

Irrelevant. You said that volcanism only occurred after the entire stratigraphic section in the world was deposited. As we have shown, this is not that case. There are numerous examples of volcanism being followed by continued sedimentation in rocks that date well within your flood time frame.To deny the time scale here is not relevant to the discussion but only serves to divert the argument. Yes, one that occurs within the time frame you are discussing. Yes, in the Grand Canyon.Let's just leave the rest of the world out of it, right? If you are only going to talk about local rocks, we should be also talking about a local flood. That's been done. And, frankly, I've done some of it... Don't equivocate, you are not 'pretty sure', you are 'certain'. That is the nature of dogma.Your post is so loaded with errors that it boggles the mind.

Upper Permian to Triassic. This is Wrangellian Terrane. As this quote from the abstract states, it is a composite terrane, consisting of mulitiple volcanic island arcs capped by a limestone sequence of late Triassic age. Wrangellian rocks extend from south central Alasks, intermittently to central Chile, so it is truly an intercontiental deposit. Note that it is mostly composed of volcanic rocks and is overlain by the limestone, as well as younger JUrassic and Cretaceous sediments: So, sedimentation continued into the Cretaceous, after deformation and erosion of the Wrangellia.If you will notice in the cross section, there are granitic cobbles dated at 153ma in these later siliciclastics. Those would be Jurassic granites eroded and redeposited in Cretaceous sediments. That means three things:1.) There was an igneous event prior to the Cretaceous, possibly related to the older island arcs,2.) The unconformity is erosional and not a tectonic contact, and3.) Sedimentation occurred after several periods of volcanilsm and intrusion, and after deformation and erosion of the Wrangellian rocks.The diagram does, in fact show an unconformity at the top of the TrPu sequence. Wrangellia is mostly volcanic and the picture shows this. I would include the overlying carbonates (exemplified by the Chitistone Formation that I reported in an earlier post) as part of Wrangellia, since it represents a temporary end to island arc development and subsidence in the latest Triassic. Not really. As the picture shows, the fault is terminated upward and overlapped by Jurassic/Cretaceous sedimentary and volcanic rocks.Whether unfortunate or not, you have chosen one of the most structurally complex areas in North America to attempt to make your point.

Nonsense, I have given you several more examples of various ages within your flood time frame. Actually, it is. They are volcanic rocks erupted onto the surface of the earth. Effectively, they are no different from volcanic flows. Good luck.

I will say it as long as the evidence says that I am right. If you have another interpretation, this would be an excellent time to present it. Of course you can't fathom it. You want to fit it all into your little biblical myth. They make sense if you really understand geological principles and actually study the rocks. Actually, there is no evidence of a flood. Why would I accept a mythical story when the data are readily explained by known phenomena? Negative. You do not see all of the evidence and actually reject a major portion of it.

It has already taken me years of thought. When you catch up, let me know.

I think this is important.If we see rocks in the geological record that can easily be explained by mainstream geology and observable processes, why would we rely on a myth (at least partly supernatural) and never-observed processes for an accepted explanation?Edited by edge, : No reason given.