"The Flood" deposits as a sea transgressive/regressive sequence ("Walther's Law")

Strictly speaking you are right but the sequences associated with transgresssion and regression are a paradigmatic example, and the terminology has been used loosely in past discussions.My understanding of those sequences is that they are primarily produced by the sediments typically available in the environment - it is essentially a gradual process. This would not apply in a model of rapid deposition produced by a flood. Especially when we take the fact that the boundary moves with time - and does so for both cases.In the case of rapid deposition by flood the sediment carried by the water should only change due to larger and heavier material dropping out - and even that would probably need to be associated with a loss of energy to permit finer material to be deposited.I don't doubt that an ad hoc scenario could be invented to explain it - at the usual level of discussion here (I am far from certain that it would hold up to a detailed examination) and I have severe doubts about the idea that such a scenario should be a common event in the geological record.

Omphalism is a whole different question from what the Flood would be expected to do. The first presumes ex nihilo creation, or something close to it, while the second assumes the natural consequences of the Flood. So that is really a new topic altogether.To try to keep to the topic I cannot see any reason why the specific sequences associated with transgression and regression need to be seen at all if the rocks were created rather than forming naturally.

quote:

---

The Flood would have been basically the ocean rising over the land, the rising of which is the cause of the sedimentary deposits according to Walther's Law, although in a different time frame.

---

To stick to the topic, perhaps you can explain how the Flood would frequently mimic the sequences produced by much slower transgression and regression.

quote:

---

What I see in the geological record is one major tectonic upheaval, which seems to correspond to the timing of the end of the Flood as I suggest, and accounts for things like the upending of the entire Stratigraphic Column of Britain, which had to occur all at one time, and accounts for the massive erosion in the Grand Staircase/Grand Canyon area.

---

But Faith that isn't what you really see. It's what you decided to see - as you have made quite obvious by dismissing all the contrary evidence.And this, I think is one of the major problems you have here. You "see" things you made up and expect everyone else to "see" them too - even though anyone who really looks will see that you are wrong.

quote:

---

NO, I ACTUALLY SEE IT, AND I'VE POINTED IT OUT ON MANY CROSS SECTIONS.

---

On many cross sections where it is obviously not visible.

quote:

---

I COULDN'T POSSIBLY JUST "DECIDE" TO SEE ANYTHING,

---

Not consciously, but you made up your mind that that's the way it happened and thus you "see" it.

quote:

---

I ACTUALLY SEE IT AND I'VE SHOWN THAT IT IS THERE, MANY MANY TIMES. I'VE INDICATED IT ON THE CROSS SECTIONS, CLEARLY SPELLED OUT WHAT I'M LOOKING AT AND CLEARLY EXPLAINED HOW THAT EVIDENCE POINTS TO MY CONCLUSIONS.

---

You mean cherry-picking bits that fit and ignoring everything that doesn't, as you do with the Grand Canyon cross sections? That certainly can't be called "seeing". and since you are making a general claim you have to deal with all the evidence.

quote:

---

AND I DO NOT "DISMISS" THE CONTRARY EVIDENCE, I ANSWER IT.

---

Calling thoroughly established facts an "illusion" - without evidence or explanation - as you do with the order of the fossil record certainly deserves to be called a dismissal.

quote:

---

THEY ARE LOOKING THROUGH THEIR EVO-BIASED GLASSES AND SEEING THEIR OWN PARADIGM. OR IF THEY DO SEE WHAT I'M POINTING OUT THEY ARE AFRAID OF BEING AT ODDS WITH "SCIENCE" SO THEY DUCK IT. TYPICAL IN THE CASE OF A PARADIGM CLASH.

---

Of course you have to pretend that everyone else is at fault. But the reality is that even you aren't really seeing what you claim. That's an obvious fact.

quote:

---

iT'S THE THEORY THAT'S AT FAULT, THE THEORY THAT EVERYBODY NOW ACCEPTS JUST BECAUSE IT'S WHAT EVERYBODY ACCEPTS. THAT'S THE WAY WITH PARADIGMS, THEY GET ESTABLISHED, EVERYBODY BUYS INTO THEM EVEN THOUGH VERY FEW HAVE ACTUALLY CAREFULLY THOUGHT THROUGH THE EVIDENCE, THEY BELIEVE IT BECAUSE THE SCIENTIFIC ESTABLISHMENT BELIEVES IT, AND THOSE WHO DO THINK THROUGH THE EVIDENCE CAN ONLY THINK IT THROUGH ACCORDING TO THE ESTABLISHED ASSUMPTIONS, SIMPLY CANNOT SEE CONTRARY EVIDENCE.

---

If that was true it is very odd that you keep making up excuses to dismiss evidence, ignore evidence you don't like and even get upset when people look at evidence you don't want them to see.To point to just one example nobody can see that your "explanation' of angular unconformities is true. The missing material is never seen, you have no reasonable explanation for the lack of any visible effect on the strata immediately above and as for your idea that differing textures automatically have low friction - well you never offered any reason to believe that (and why has nobody else noticed it when producing bearings is a major industry ?)

quote:

---

AND YES I HAVE SEEN AND I HAVE SHOWN THE EVIDENCE. WHAT YOU CALL A FACT IS JUST YOUR OWN DELUSIONAL FAULTY SEEING. BUT THERE'S NO POINT IN KEEPING UP THIS STUPID BICKERING.

---

Yet I am the one making substantive points and you are just making assertions. Typing in all-caps hardly substitutes for that.

quote:

---

I don't dismiss or ignore evidence,

---

Really ? Then please produce a sensible reason for considering the order of the fossil record an "illusion". Bear in mind that it has been known for 200 years and YEC organisations have failed to answer it.

quote:

---

Or it's the usual changing of the subject without dealing with my evidence

---

I assume that's what you call looking at evidence you want ignored.

quote:

---

You ignore my evidence I ignore yours

---

What actual evidence have I ignored ?

In other words, you have no good reason for calling the order of the fossil record an illusion and you don't know of any evidence I'm ignoring.

Creationism is essentially an apologetic enterprise, so yes it is intended to support a conclusion decided in advance (even if less important aspects are left open).Science is primarily empirical and generally starts with observation, rather than premises, let alone conclusions.

quote:

---

That is way too simplistic. Darwin himself didn't even originate the idea of evolution, his grandfather had already thought of it. So you could say that Darwin worked from the Conclusion of evolution to come up with his theory of natural selection as the mechanism for how it could have come about.

---

Erasmus came up with a version of evolution, but it wasn't the same. Also you conveniently ignore the fact that Wallace independently came up with much the same ideas and that Charles Darwin mustered sufficient evidence to convince the scientific community.

quote:

---

That's really all creationists are doing. For instance we know there was a worldwide Flood some 4500 years ago so we think about the particulars of how it could have come about.

---

In other words you are claiming that Charles Darwin was fanatically devoted to the idea of evolution on the sole ground that his grandfather came up with a version of it. I think we can see that your argument is somewhat lacking.And, of course, you do not truly know that there was a Flood at that time. It is simply a dogmatic belief held in spite of the evidence. The difference is very, very clear.And that is before we get into the creationist habits of falsehood and misrepresentation.

quote:

---

And now all thinking on the evolution side begins with the Conclusions of Evolution and many of the tenets that support it. Or geology begins with the conclusions of the Old Earth and related tenets. All thinking is done within these established frameworks and if anyone thinks otherwise they are seriously misled

---

Both are established on the basis of the evidence. You have not even come close to matching that evidence, as proven in discussions here. The fact that you run away from so many challenges to your assertions is clear evidence of that.Is it not true that you call the order of the fossil record an"illusion" simply because it is a major problem to your arguments ? Certainly you have come up with no better reason even when asked - and you have been, many times.

quote:

---

There is nothing at all different about how creationists think.

---

And yet we see that there is. Your own argument about Darwin is so shoddy that I certainly would not make it, or anything similar.

quote:

---

We start with what we know as provided by a trustworthy source: God's word

---

What you call God's word, even though it makes no such claim for itself. And, as we know, you won't argue the theology that is the supposed basis for your position. If you can't even come up with arguments that you think good - given the obvious stinkers you have called good - for that position then it really must be indefensible.

quote:

---

The straightness and flatness of the original (not tectonically deformed) strata and the tight contacts between many of them are evidence of rapid deposition.

---

Really ? Why can't slow deposition come out flat ?

quote:

---

The fact that the Geologic (Stratigraphic) Column has in fact come to a stopping point despite strained efforts to pretend it is still ongoing, is evidence of its being pretty recent.

---

It is a genuine fact that sedimentary deposition continues, and there is no reason to assume that none of it will ever become rock.

quote:

---

ENORMOUS amounts of distorting erosion between layers, that often cuts deeply into lower layers, the sort of thing that would have occurred during millions of years at the surface of the earth.

---

Like the famous monadnocks or the buried canton ?

quote:

---

Some signs of former vegetation BETWEEN the layers too, maybe petrified downed trees; distortions in a single layer here and there because of such obstacles, instead of the remarkably conformed flatness of sediment upon sediment.

---

Wouldn't that be a sign of rapid deposition ? Given slow deposition you would find plant remains generally within layers.

quote:

---

More variety in the sediments, not any of the clear demarcation between say a limestone and a sandstone.

---

That's odd. Wouldn't a violent Flood tend to mix things up ?

quote:

---

What exists is evidence of massive water deposition, ALL the strata following the same pattern of flatness and straightness.

---

Except the ones that don't.

quote:

---

Actually, the main thing is that there isn't a sane reason at all for there even to BE any strata to "evidence long periods of deposition.

---

You say that, but it isn't as if you have any sensible alternative.

quote:

---

Why should there be ANY flat straight sedimentary rocks at all, let alone neatly stacked miles deepas we see for instance in the Grand Canyon?

---

Because a lot of deposition takes place on flat surfaces like seabeds or beaches ?

quote:

---

f you have continual deposition say from eroding mountains why should it be of any identifiable sediment rather than the tumble-down lumpy surface we see around us today?

---

You are making no sense here. Material eroded from mountains should be made out of whatever the eroded surfaces are. Why shouldn't it be "identifiable"?

quote:

---

The idea that there is eventually going to be another layer to commemorate today's "time period" with appropriate fossils is absurd, and yet that is what the standard interpretation of the Stratigraphic Column requires for its continuation to be consistent.

---

Obviously there isn't going to be one single layer, just as there isn't one single layer for any other time period. There will be layers, in areas of deposition - unless erosion removes them first. And that's the way it is for all the other time periods too.

quote:

---

and yet that is what the standard interpretation of the Stratigraphic Column requires for its continuation to be consistent.

---

And what, exactly is that ? I'd really like to know.

quote:

---

For the Geological Time Scale to be true, there should not be a Stratigraphic Column AT ALL.

---

What ? Are you saying that sedimentary rocks shouldn't exist ? If not, what DO you mean ?

I think you will find that honestly seeking the truth would be less stressful than trying to maintain a laughably false position.

quote:

---

Also where there is tectonic deformation, with the one exception of angular unconformities, the strata are defomed in a whole block of them at once. Twisted, upended, buckled, whatever, always a block of them at once.

---

Solids are pretty good at transmitting force, and the more rigid they are the better. So, in fact, we expect this. (ABE in that we expect adjacent layers to show some effect - unless they were absent at the time - rather than the effects being restricted to a single layer)

quote:

---

One would think that tectonic disturbances would have upended a layer here, and then distorted another there, bent one higher up, etc, if normal events happened over millions of years.

---

Certainly not. The idea that tectonic forces should affect one layer in isolation, leaving adjacent layers unaffected is quite bizarre.

quote:

---

Deformation in blocks means ONE TECTONIC EVENT after all the strata in the block were already in place, and still malleable too, because still damp from the Flood that laid them down.

---

No, since we have evidence to the contrary. We know that rock can be deformed even if it is hard (fossils within the rock are sometimes distorted by the pressures). And we'd expect adjacent layers to be affected - if they were present when the distortion occurred (certainly if they were soft). This is why I reject the idea that the fault in the tilted strata at the Grand Canyon occurred after the layers above were in place - neither the faulted strata nor the strata above them show any sign of being compressed by upward motion of the faulted strata.

quote:

---

The implication of all of this is obvious to any objective observation.

---

Yes. You are inventing ignorant rationalisations.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Because that best explains what is seen on the GS-GC cross section.

---

No, it doesn't. As has been shown in previous discussions. Multiple events separated by long periods of time works much better to actually explain the evidence.

If you choose to disagree with obvious truths that is up to you. But it hardly makes a convincing argument. You really would do better here if you made more of an effort to get things right.