Summations Only

Faith has also suggested, IIRC, that geology has ended. When the flood retreated, we no longer have geological processes except erosion, I guess.

Golly gosh it's amazing what people think you said even when you've said something entirely different a hundred times. The Flood would be dramatically different from local floods is all I've ever said about that, because, well golly gee, it covered every scrap of land on earth while local floods just relocate some mud.And geology has ended? Amazing. I believe what I said was that the GEOLOGICAL COLUMN was finished when the Flood ended. I know there are sedimentary deposits still going on in odd places but they aren't the Geologic Column. That I believe is all I ever said that you might have misconstrued.But this is way off topic. The Martian strata are not the result of a flood. How about responding to the conclusion I came to that they are the result of a volcanic eruption?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But you have said that strata are no longer being deposited and that no fossils are being formed today.Did I read that wrongly? So, the 'geological column' is over, kaput? Not according to the title, but I will gladly defer to Percy on that. It looks wrong from my experience. Some of them look more eolian, but the nice evenly layered stuff looks more sedimentary.And if there is one thing I DO know volcanic rocks. Nevertheless, I don't do geology from pictures taken in an alien environment millions of miles away.By the way, how do you know that they are strata 'AFD' (According to Faith's Definition)?Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Fraid so. You may be getting some limited areas of strata but they are not the Geologic Column. You are probably getting some fossils here and there but they are certainly not fossils building on top of the Holocene Period or whatever is the last one in the Geo Column, say as found in the Grand Staircase. Probably quite a motley crew as a matter of fact. Yup. The Flood made it so when the Flood ended so did the Geo Column. It stands as a memorial to that event and a record of the living things that existed in the pre-Flood world.As for the Martian strata, I've said my bit. I guess you and Percy can continue it as you like.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Then I stand by my earlier comment that Faith has foretold the end of geology.

Can't be the end of geology. You still have gold to find, (maybe even) oil to find though you haven't proved this yet. How about all the other precious stones and metals on the earth? Isn't that something you guys do? How about studying volcanoes? I think there's lots for geology to dol, and in fact I don't think you've ever needed OE dates or used them as you think. And as a matter of fact how about studying what the Flood did and how it did it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The end of new geology. But it's like going to the library with no new books.Okay, so I'm dramatizing. But my point remains. But you say that they are no longer forming.That's no fun. Just hang-overs from the flood, no doubt. Aftershocks, if you will. Actually, I have used absolute dates in oil exploration. I mentioned this earlier.

I suppose that could be true, the Flood is boring compared to the vast scope of imagination the OE vision provides. However, if there is really no utility to the dates, which I'm afraid still seems to stand unanswered, then it's really not all that fun anyway. And I've acknowledged that you probably do use those dates, but nevertheless you haven't said anything about how they are necessary, what they actually tell you that you can't find out from relative dating and seismic imaging. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Actually, I did. In so many words, anyway.Radiometric dates help determine the thermal history of a basin and when/where oil might be generated. If a date is too old, the oil might have already formed and migrated, or the heat from an intrusive might be too old to have affected a source rock.This kind of information is used as a filter to set priorities for maintaining a land position or when to drill a target.However, what you say is that all intrusive rocks are of the same age. That really doesn't fly in any kind of exploration.In some mineral exploration, age dates are critical in determining targets and prioritizing them. Too old or too young in the Rocky Mountains and no one wants to spend money on them.

Can someone remind me what the counter to the flood 'geology' dating problem is - if the geological column was created all at the same time any/all of our normal dating methods would produce the same result for each layer.And if the YEC ideas were correct, they would all read <10,000.If you believe that the dating methods are broken - for whatever daft reason - they would each have to be broken in different ways for them to read different dates from the same age rocks.

Yeah, just magic.

Not sure what your question is, but sure, just as there is a pattern of life forms in the geological record, there is a pattern of age determinations. And just as YEC cannot explain the fossils they cannot explain (actually, they ignore) the pattern of radiometric dates. That would be a logical conclusion from what little we know of 'flood geology'. And again, the fossils should show no preference for any age of rocks. YECs have a real problem with the concordance of independent dating methods. You are exactly correct. They would all have to be broken in diverse ways to all be corrected back to a 6ka planet.Nevertheless, YECs present the argument that ages are based on 'assumptions', as though that is a bad thing in the real world. They ignore (once again) the fact that some assumptions are well-founded on experience, observations and testing. But, this notion still provides them with a flimsy grain of doubt that they can ride indefinitely through forums such as this. And the best part is that this argument appeals to those untrained in the sciences.

This would be an opportune time to describe your evidence for the different things a global flood would do, as opposed to local floods. What physical laws come into play that cause floods to have greater sorting and organizing power as they grow larger? Why do the largest floods carve canyons instead of spreading out across a landscape like smaller floods, and what is the evidence that this has happened? Since oceans cover nearly 3/4 of the world, how does our evidence of what oceans do support what a global flood would do? Since gravity plus the simple physical laws behind erosion and transport seem to require that sediments be deposited at the lowest elevations almost everywhere (basins, lakes and oceans, more than 3/4 of the world), what is your evidence that sedimentary deposits are only occurring in "odd places"? From the Wikipedia article Composition of Mars:

quote:

---

Layered sedimentary deposits are widespread on Mars.

---

You've often said that sedimentary deposits can only result from a planet-wide flood, and you say here that, "The Martian strata are not the result of a flood," so how did those layers that are sedimentary arise? Upon what evidence are you basing your claims?You can respond to this message, though I won't be participating in the discussion.Edited by Admin, : Clarify my first response.

It would be helpful to clearly identify those assumptions.

True. YECS would like us to think that these assumptions are somehow hidden from the public. However, all of these assumptions ARE clearly stated in every textbook that I have ever seen, along with the reasons that they are accepted; even at the high school level.There are two basic assumptions:The isotopic ratios have not altered, andThe decay rates have not changed.Other assumptions are minor, such as, 'we can get a meaningful sample', and that it can be collected, prepared and analyzed correctly.Basically, radio decay is a clock and has to be treated properly. YECS have no.problem that I'm aware of with clocks, but those also require some assumptions.