Growing the Geologic Column

God, now I'm 180 messages behind! I'll try to reply to fewer messages, but it's hard. You keep saying this but never explain in what way we're misunderstanding the evidence, while we've explained our interpretation of the evidence many times. All you do is offer arguments empty of any evidence, or explanations contradicted by the evidence or in violation of the known laws of physics. The indication that evidence supports a hypothesis is that it follows known physical laws, and that the rationale makes sense to more people than just you.I don't think anyone understands why your failure to convince a single soul isn't telling you you're adrift in a sea of illogic. Almost anyone else, even those with no scientific background, understand the illogic of a flood sorting fossils by how different they are from modern forms, or the illogic of a flood transporting footprints, burrows and nests whole and undisturbed into layers where they fit in perfectly. Would in fact be embarrassed to be associated with such a views. But not you. Why? It can't be because the Bible tells you so, because not only does it say no such thing, even if it did you've already conceded that you're fallible and that therefore your interpretation of the Bible isn't necessarily correct. First, from a scientific standpoint, you have no evidence the Bible is correct. If you're going to continue trying to make valid scientific points then you have to stop invoking the fallacy of argument from authority by no longer citing the Bible.Second, you're again claiming infallibility in interpreting the Bible. But your fallen nature means you could be wrong about which parts of the Bible were intended to be interpreted objectively, and again, there's no scientific evidence the Bible is correct. If we're doing science here, and that's what you keep claiming you're trying to do with regard to the Flood, then you have to stop citing the Bible.--Percy

I don't think it's a good idea for you to invent your own definitions of terms that already have firm definitions within scientific disciplines like geology. When you do this it just invites argument and confusion. Most volcanic deposits do not appear as layers because most volcanic deposits are local. Occasionally (in geologic terms) volcanic eruptions are widespread and extensive and create a substantial layer in the geologic column of a region (the Cardenas or the Siberian Traps), but much more often the lava and ash they leave behind is local to a small area (Mount St. Helens). In such cases they would be appear as a little piece of a sedimentary layer.Also, as I think HBD mentioned earlier, it takes pressure for magma to push its way to the surface and form a volcano, and this pressure creates uplift. Uplifted regions are subject to net erosion, not deposition, and so volcanic deposits are often doomed to be eroded away, causing their underrepresentation in any region's geologic column.Nonetheless, volcanic deposits and layers can be found in geologic columns around the world, and we've provided many examples. If your criteria are anything other than scientific then they have no place in this thread.--Percy

It is the opposite that is true. The strata and fossils rule out any possibility for a global flood 4300 years ago. Such a hypothesis stands in opposition to all evidence, and the necessary sorting of fossils, nests, burrows, footprints and radiometric material goes against the laws of nature. No, we are not reinterpreting anything to suit ourselves. Please stop casting accusations. We are interpreting ancient evidence in light of the processes we see taking place on the Earth today. It is obvious that the stratigraphic layers of geologic columns all around the world represent the lithified ancestors of layers we can see forming today. Yes, most sedimentary layers are marine, but the scale is the same as what we see taking place today. Here again is the image of kilometers-deep sedimentary layers forming today. I know the first time I posted this you replied that it doesn't show sedimentary layers forming today, but this is the Gulf of Mexico off the Texas/Louisiana coast, and it is well know that sediments are accumulating at a rapid rate in the Gulf. The Mississippi dumps into it after all, the Gulf is where all that sediment goes, plus there's all the runoff from land: Except that instead of a random distribution the fossils are sorted by difference from modern forms, and appear in sedimentary contexts consistent with their type instead of being the jumbled mess a flood would produce. Except that we can explain the evidence in terms of geological processes known to be at work on the planet today, and consistent with the known physical laws of the universe. You can't.--Percy

Evidence can only be reinterpreted in light of new insights or new evidence. You have neither.--Percy

If I understand the point you're trying to make, Message 372 is better.Don't know why you said "#381". Saying "[msg=381]" will create a message link.--Percy

Again, it really causes a lot of problems when people try to invent their own personal definitions of terms that have already been defined within scientific specialties. The geologic column already has a definition. Are you skipping posts again? See Message 372 for a bunch of examples.Why do you keep saying the same wrong things over and over again, forcing people to present the same rebuttals over and over again. I do see now that you did eventually reply to Message 372, several hours after this message. Maybe you're reading the thread out of order?--Percy

To paraphrase what PaulK so aptly said, you spend all your time asserting your positions and none defending them.No, Faith, they are not what only the Flood could produce. In fact, they must be some of the least likely things a flood could produce.You are queen of the pronouns (sometimes I have to go back several paragraphs to figure out what "it" refers to) and of the one-sentence-response-with-no-quote, so let me clarify for everyone that you were referring to the strata and fossils of the geologic column.--Percy

In case we're unsuccessful in convincing you to stop inventing your own definitions for terms already defined, it would be helpful if you could from time to time repeat your definition. Now would be a good time for me for seeing your definition of the geologic column. I'm still way behind in the messages, but I'll catch up eventually. They aren't our definitions, either. They're the definitions of the field of geology, which we've all adopted because we're interested in communicating clearly. If we disagree with any terminology (for example, HBD and I would prefer that the definition of the geologic column include intrusions, but it doesn't, so too bad for us) we don't go around changing the definitions.It is readily apparent that you're changing existing definitions so that you can then claim the world can only work the way your definitions say it can work. Better would be to simply figure out how the world really works.--Percy

Can you explain this in a way we can understand? In the way you've stated it here it sounds like you're saying that your own personal definition of the geologic column excludes tuffs, so that if we bring you evidence of tuffs in the geologic column then because your definition excludes tuffs that therefore those tuffs are not really there.Which makes no sense, of course, so what is it you're really trying to say? The tuffs are there, deposited at the same time as the sediments they lie with, following the Law of Superposition, and in concordance with the geologic timescale. How could they not be part of the geologic column? What feels nitpicky is your definition of the geologic column. It seems designed to provide the support for your views that the evidence doesn't provide.In scientific fields we invent terms to describe the objects and processes we observe. You seem to be defining the geologic column in a way that doesn't accurately describe anything in the real world.--Percy

Faith, please, enough with the Bible. Citing the Bible is just the fallacy of argument from authority. You need evidence. Where the Bible is true the evidence will attest. Where the Bible is false the evidence will also attest. The Bible doesn't need you torturing definitions and evidence in its defense. It's perfectly capable of defending itself. The Bible speaks to people ready to hear its message, and it isn't one of fossils and strata.In this thread, a science thread, we should keep our focus on the evidence and on the arguments, hypotheses and theories constructed around that evidence. Edge was only rhetorically asking why you want to rely on myth. At heart it was a plea to please focus on the evidence.--Percy

Faith is defining the geologic column in a way that is consistent with biblical beliefs (or her interpretation of them).She can't use the standard definition as that leads to contradictions between the evidence and her beliefs. So, she magics away anything she doesn't like and then all is well.Wish I could do that with bills and taxes and such. Too bad that technique doesn't work in the real world.Edited by Coyote, : typpo

"Can you explain this in a way we can understand? In the way you've stated it here it sounds like you're saying that your own personal definition of the geologic column excludes tuffs, so that if we bring you evidence of tuffs in the geologic column then because your definition excludes tuffs that therefore those tuffs are not really there."That’s exactly what she means. Remember that she doesn't acknowledge any requirement to make sense. She did acknowledge that tuffs need some thought but hasn't addressed them otherwise. Of course some time to think would be reasonable but we know what she will really do.

Good grief, if they are actually there then they are there, I can't make them disappear, I just have to figure out how they fit into the Flood.

That diagram shows the usual time periods of the Geo Time Scale, indicating that those layers have been there some time, so where are the new accumulating sediments you are talking about?

Abrasion with the upper layer as it tilted and slid beneath it.Quartzite layer protruding upward simply too hard to erode so it must have cut into the sandstone.