Growing the Geologic Column

You just declared that sedimentary rocks are volcanic when you want them to be. Message 672: No, the whole formation does not appear to be of volcanic origin. The tuffs are volcanic, the sedimentary rocks are sedimentary. That's why they are labeled as sedimentary. It's because they are sedimentary. In case you haven't figured it out yet, sedimentary rocks are sedimentary, and geologists can tell that they are sedimentary.You don't get to re-define "sedimentary" as "volcanic" when it's convenient, which is what you are obviously trying to do to avoid the fatal flaws in your fantasies.And since you claim that the interspersed sedimentary rocks are not sedimentary, it's obvious that to you "sedimentary" and "volcanic" make no reference to the nature of the rocks, you just label them as whatever type you want them to be. Therefore when we consider "Paleozoic sedimentary rocks overlain by Permian/Triassic volcanics, in turn overlain by Jurassic and Cretaceous sediments" you think you can just label the overlying sediments as volcanic and avoid the problem.You can't.

Her's some stratigraphy from the Lake Turkana region that is clearer on the nature of the sedimentary rocks. From ANU ANNUAL REPORT 2001: Stratigraphic sections and placement of hominid specimens in the Lomekwi drainage, west of Lake Turkana, northern Kenya. Reproduced from Leakey et al. (Nature, 410, 433-440, 2001)From Stratigraphic placement and age of modern humans from Kibish, Ethiopia (all but the abstract is paywalled): From Initiation of the western branch of the East African Rift coeval with the eastern branch (again paywalled except for the abstract): Faith, do you really think that mudstone, claystone, sandstone, and conglomerate are volcanic when it suits you? 'Cause that's what you said.

I didn't mean to say that they are volcanic, but that they are connected with volcanism. But as I also keep saying I HAVEN'T SPENT TIMNE ON THIS YET, so there's no point in tyring to pin me down on something I haven't thought aqbout.

You did say that they are volcanic. Precision is important in science. But they are not connected with vulcanism, either, other than being deposited on top of volcanic deposits. They are connected with sedimentary deposition, most of it under water. You have to explain many regressions and returns of the fludde waters over a year all over the world. That's not a global fludde.You really should say that you have no idea how to accommodate the facts into your fantasy, rather than just making up ridiculous ideas.

So then, you admit that there was active volcanism going back into the Paleozoic and the Precambrian. Now we are getting someplace. Would you agree that volcanoes are often related to faults?

Isn't that exactly what we see with the Great Unconformity in the Grand Canyon?What you seem to be asking for are "anticlines", of which there are tons of examples. For example: "Aerial view of the Chenareh anticline partly covered by a giant landslide derived from the backlimb of the Kabir Kuh anticline to the south"
http://www.ija.csic.es/gt/gdl/Zagros/GDL-Objectives.htmThat distorted fold continues under the horizontally deposited sediments on either side of the exposed anticline.A google image search turns up more examples, like this one: Forbidden

blah blah blah science this and science that. The thing is if you don't know by now that I wouldn't confuse sedimentary with volcanic, and treat it as a simple misspeaking, but in fact ridicule me as if I could really make such a mistake, you are not worth talking to. This kind of thing is all too common in this madhouse. That and a dozen other abuses of logic, reason, sanity and civility I could probably list.

Yup, can't address the fatal flaw, one of many, with your fantasy. You'll be much happier in an echo chamber by yourself.

The greater question is how you can confuse a geologic record strewn with multiple volcanic layers with a geologic record with no volcanic layers. Had you never heard of tuffs, flood basalts, or lahars?

Is this all you've got left? The problem is that all of these misspeaks start to form a pattern, Faith. You make up all these ad hoc explanations and eventually, something has to go haywire. Being constrained by evidence keeps this from happening. You were so determined that having volcanic rocks in the Phanerozoic section was impossible that you created a blunder. You simply could not accept these data points, and simply vanished them away with a casual, thoughtless remark. Faith, realistically, what have you done around here to get respect? You've treated everyone her with disrespect and towering arrogance. Maybe this all has more to do with your attitude and less with everyone else in the forum. Please do so. I would love to see such a list. We could address them one by one.

Mud, mud, mud, muddy mud, Faith. Not sandstone or limestone or any of the other types of sedimentary rocks. Just mud. If your scenario is correct, we should see a thick layer of mud, everywhere on the earth and all the dead things killed in the flood would be buried in that layer.That's what I have tried to get across to you; find one layer,just one layer, that is consistent with a massive flood that is distributed throughout the world and that can be correlated to the same relative time period. THIS would be strong evidence for a global flood. But how does your mud observations translate into what we observe in the geological column. You can always retreat to this position when you can't provide any support for your assertions. But you just described in detail what we would see in a great flood. But that doesn't match up with what we observe, does it? Your scenario requires the flood waters to grind up rock into tiny bits of sand, (some rounded, some sharp), millions of cubic miles of rock. And to produce huge amounts of calcium carbonate shaped like little sea creatures and then to do this over and over, in various parts of the world and various times, in precise patterns; and do all this in a year.And we are all too dense to see this as a possibility?HBD

Excellent point RAZD. Layers are not as simple as "a thick slab of sandstone."But these conditions are not visible from a computer screen or a generalized cross section.HBD

They also aren't CALLED Multiple Layers, they're called SANDSTONE and LIMESTONE etc. But that doesn't matter to you. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It STARTS with mud, what happens after that is how it becomes separated sediments. Which you might know if you stopped to think at all, but like everybody else here you don't. You are willing to take the latest thing I say and make it stand for all the arguments I've ever made here. That's underhanded and it's stupid. And there is a distinction between the sciences of the unwitnessed past and the real sciences that anyone with an IQ of 80 ought to be able to figure out.lEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

Just another abusive post from one of the knowitall Evos.