Growing the Geologic Column

I know the answer to that one!

Which would be better than implausibilities. That's weird logic. Why would Percy think of anything that would happen during the fludde? Isn't that your job, to describe such events? How do you know that? What scale are you working with? Actually, I'm betting that some are larger. Just look at the continental shelf of North America. What do you think will happen according to Walther's Law when sea level rises? What do you think the Sahara Desert will look like in the geological record? And what about the Great Barrier Reef? And you never did address the late Triassic limestone formations that run from Alaska to Peru, all deposited after major volcanic events.I know... details, details... But you never explain where that water came from or where it went. You never explain how limestone would be deposited during such a flood event. You never explain how evaporites were deposited in the middle of a global flood, or how dinosaurs flourished during the flood. You mean you are comparing a global flood with a glass of water??

Not with intrusive rocks and not where there are no relative age relationships. I have given you real-life examples.If the mapping is good enough and you have coordinated relative dates, absolute ages may not be necessary. In fact with just sedimentary rocks we often don't have dates anyway.On the other hand, as you go back into the Precambrian absolute ages become more important.

Actually, it was tested by radiometric dating, and guess what...The (relatively) older rocks had older absolute dates. Except when they are. Radiometric dates can be tested a couple of easy ways. One is by repeated testing. The other is testing by other methods.I suppose that, to you, concordance of dates is just a coincidence... You mean like evaporite deposits, dinosaur tracks, fossil forests, subaerial volcanism, eolian sands? Stuff like that? Yes, old ages at work producing many fossils over many great ages. And in a well-defined order.If this is so glaringly obvious, why not explain some of the features that I have just mentioned.At present, the only thing that is glaring is the fact that you cannot address these issues.

Heh, heh...What's strange to me is how God usually manages to do whatever fundamentalists want him to do.Where does God say that the earth is 6ky old, for instance? Other than the fact that those guesses are supported by evidence, such as concordant radiometric dates. Then you explain the concordance of dating by different methods. You explain why radiometric dates confirm the relative order of geological events. Could be. So, what is it? Can you? You mean that you are just guessing? Well, track it down for us. Support your statements. You mean the forests of Carboniferous age? The ones with completely different plant life? This is an example of how YECs take an unrelated factoid and turn it into a theory. Yes, salts are leached from the rocks. But then they end up in the oceans and lakes. Those bodies of water evaporate. Into the atmosphere.And your answer is that "the salts are leached out of the rock". Please address the deposition, not the source. For terrestrial fossils, yes. However, marine fossils, particularly microfossils, are not that uncommon.But, once again, you avoid the details. Why is there a such a rigid order of fossil sorting in the fossil record? How is that? Why do we have fossils forming today? Please explain why this is not possible in mainstream geology.There are too many misconceptions here. What is 'rapid burial'? Why do we need 'great pressure'? Why are such conditions 'rare'? Again you take a skeleton of irrelevant and misconstrued factoids and cover them with a tissue of disjointed YEC logic and come up with a Yexplanation that defies the evidence. Why are there no flowering plants or mammals in the Cambrian System?

Please provide documentation. What cross-section shows this? Why is that?Because, in some contortionist logic, it fits the Faith model. If it is easily explained, please do so. This is bizarre. In on instance, you claim we don't have a source for all of the sediments found in the geological reocrd, and in practically the next post, you claim that we don't have a place to deposit all of that sediment. And erosion explains that.

Your say-so is not evidence. All you need is evidence. Right now, you've got nothing.

But we do provide evidence such as radiometric dating ifnormation. On the other hand, all we have from you is personal credence. "It just looks that way"...

Just for the record, I"m stating that, "Just look!" is not evidence.Furthermore, wrong. We do look at what you are saying and it never changes. It's all nonsense.

This is just one more bizarre statement from you. You do realize, don't you, that we can see an angular unconformity forming today? We have a pretty good idea how they form and what they look like in the geological record.Your statement is very much like saying we don't actually know how tracks were made in the mud.

In fact, there is a whole family of faults that controlled the boundaries of an evaporite basin. Those faults had to be there to create a closed basin in which salt could be deposited.The diagram also shows folding in the Paleozoic basement that does not extend into the overlying Mesozoic and Tertiray rocks; so they were deformed before the Mesozoic.The jagged lines are erosional surfaces, i.e. unconformities.

This is the only really viable explanation.One thing to keep in mind, and it used to always boggle my mind, is that a 50 million year gap does not mean that there was erosion for that length of time, only that the rock record for that period is missing.Good analysis. Should make sense to lay people.

I know this will be difficult for you because it depicts a process that is only in progress and not complete.However, my favorite example would be the Valley and Ridge Province in Pennsylvania.Would you agree that these rocks are folded?Woudl you agree that they are also presently being eroded?Would you not agree that if this landscape were inundated by the sea that it would begin to received sediments that would eventually bury the shown topography?Would that not create an angular unconformity? We live on an unconformity. It may be one of the largest in geological history. In some places the rocks at the surface are folded and when they are reburied, it will present an angular unconformity.Here is a close-up of an angular unconformity in the process of forming. In this case a soil has developed on top of the folded rocks.

But not by all of the tectonism. The deeper rocks are more affected and the uppermost rocks are least affected. In fact, the data show that some of the faults do not even project upward into the Albian rocks on the right side of the diagram.There is no other viable interpretation than that some deformation has been occurring at the location throughout geological time. You do realize that you just contradicted your whole premise here? So the Tertiary was not affected by many of the faults? How do you explain this? Why this qualification? It is pretty clear that the younger rocks are nowhere nearly as deformed as the Paleozoic, and it's pretty clear that the deformation decreases upward. Horizontality was probably the case, but that's irrelevant right now. Exactly. The shallower rocks are less deformed. As we have been saying all along.

Yes, well-supported interpretations. Do you have a problem with that? And just where is your supporting evidence?For instance, I have just given you evidence that angular unconformities exist in the present and that we have a pretty good idea how they form, by direct observation.Now, please provide us with evidence for your explanation of angular unconformities.