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

quote:

---

There are different portions or versions of the Stratigraphic Column in different locations, but there is still only one Stratigraphic Column, to which is attached the Geological Time Scale, illustrated thusly

---

You mistake a very simplified illustration - which was never intended to accurately depict real geology - for geological fact. And after the many discussions here you really, really ought to see that. Do you think the fact that the live pterodactyl in the diagram is meant to show that pterodactyls are still around today? Hardly a good start.

quote:

---

And by the way it goes up to the present time and it stops there with every indication that it is completed.
[

---

So it doesn't include material that will be deposited in the future. That's your argument ? The top level is the Holocene. That is now.

quote:

---

There are no other layers being added to this stack. Wherever they are being laid down it is not as a continuation of this stack.

---

That's your opinion, and you have yet to adequately support it. Even your diagram disagrees.

quote:

---

You will deny this because you must, because if it isn't continuing it proves that it was the result of the Flood. So the debate is over isn't it?

---

You know the fact that you are foolishly misinterpreting a diagram is a perfectly good reason for disagreeing with you. If you actually had a better case you could present it. Making personal attacks to try to cover your lack of a case is hardly an honest tactic.

quote:

---

And yes the claim that a stretch of desert could become strata is so ludicrous you should give it up immediately.

---

Given the fact that there are strata which show evidence of having been deserts it is hardly ludicrous to suggest that the same might happen to existing deserts.

quote:

---

Strata are FLAT, ALL of them are originally laid down FLAT and the picture I posted is a nice illustration of that.

---

Real strata are quite often not flat. And the diagram you posted is not intended to show otherwise. Although deserts are pretty flat, and the compression needed to lithify them would tend to flatten them further.

quote:

---

. It also suggests the absurdity of assigning a time period to such a formation but that also won't be obvious to you because at all costs you must not think such a thing

---

And another false personal attack to try to cover up the fact that you can't support your silly opinion. Or even really explain what you mean by it.

quote:

---

I have to argue this stuff because Geology HAS to believe it can cobble strata together out of a desert plain which is impossible. You CAN'T entertain anything else. The debate is over.

---

And another personal attack to cover up the fact you have no case. Geology looks at the actual rocks in detail and finds correspondences with features of the surface (including sea and lake and river beds). You don't. You just want to throw out all that work without even bothering to look at it. I guess you have to. You know that the evidence shows that you are wrong. You declare the debate over because you know you can't win in any honest way.

quote:

---

And yes the time it has taken to carve the hoodoos by erosion is the time since the Flood. That you have to deny as well. The debate is over.

---

And that's just an assumption. Since you can't support it you just issue another personal attack and declare the debate over.

quote:

---

But all three of those observations support the Flood and kill the Geological Time Scale. Along with all the others I've made over the last ten or so years. But it's all denied and explained away in the most ludicrous fashion.

---

Says the person who ludicrously misinterprets a diagram and thinks it a good argument. i need say no more.

The geological time scale is a timeline, a calendar of geologic history. Informations about "the stack of strata" are anotations on the geologic timeline. Divisions of the geologic timeline are chosen because of special events that happened at that time.
Major time period divisions (eg Paleozoic/Mesozoic) are based on major extinction events, more minor time period divisions are based on more minor events.The geologic timeline is open ended at the present, just like the timeline of our lives is open ended. As PaulK as already replied to you, we are living in the Holocene. The Holocene is the current open ended time period. Saying that "nothing is building on it" (aka "geologic processes have stopped") since the Holocene is like saying that nothing in our current world history has happened since the end of September (note: this message posted September 30th).And geologic processes have not stopped. The intent of this topic was to explore what sort of erosion and deposition would be expected to result from a single extreme sea transgression/recession event. I am proposing that the sedimentary deposits would be a widespread but geologically simple horizon that has (erroneously) been given the name of a "Walther's Law deposit".You are incorporating all sorts of other types of geologic processes and affects (including a wide variety of sedimentary deposits) that have absolutely no reasonable/rational connection to what would be expected from a sea transgression/regression.Moose

Yes I get it already about the Holocene, I got it long ago already. I just need a way to describe the FINISHED stack that DOES have a Holocene at the very top although it is finished. It is clearly finished and I've shown why many times.I don't care whether Walther's Law can account for all the strata seen in the Grand Canyon and Grand Staircase, but I know the Flood accounts for all of it.I've argued this a lot better in the past and no longer have the energy to keep arguing it, so I'm stopping.

It goes right up to today, and tomorrow it will go right up to then.We are in the Holocene, and material is still being added to the Holocene deposits, the Holocene era is not completed.And you are still confusing arbitrary age definitions with actual rocks. Can you identify for me which rock layers or rock formations are shown in your diagram?Curiously, seeing as we are talking about the Stratigraphic Column ... again ... you haven't yet answered my question -- where is your layer, one ... ONE →(1)← continuous world wide globe girding layer that would be deposited by a magic flying carpet world trotting flood ... where is it Faith?What layer in this column represents a single rock layer or rock formation that covers the entire globe?I can show you where the iridium layer is -- it is at the T/K boundary at 65.5 million years ago, but it is not from a flood deposit it is from deposition world wide of ash and dust, including the iridium, that was exploded into the atmosphere from the meteor impact at the Yucatan peninsula. It is identifiable as such by the material in the layer wherever it is found, on top of different rock formations around the world and under different rock formations around the world. The layers above and below this layer are composed of different rock deposits in different places around the world.It was an extinction event. Your magic flying carpet world trotting flood is purported to be an extinction event, and it would have been recognized as such ... if it had actually occurred.So where is your layer, one ... ONE →(1)← continuous world wide globe girding layer that would be deposited by a magic flying carpet world trotting flood ... where is it Faith?Enjoy

Where is your layer, one ... ONE →(1)← continuous world wide globe girding layer that would be deposited by a magic flying carpet world trotting flood ... where is it Faith?You claim many were laid down one after the other by the flood. You should be able to find at least one.Until then, the explanation of the layers of sedimentary rock is best explained by time and by known geological mechanisms like Walther's Law -- which adequately explains the different rock formations in the Grand Canyon as has been pointed out previously in Message 74This shows a pattern of marine transgression and regression a period of dry land deposition and then another marine transgression -- all according to Walther's Law.The different ages of the different formations explains the different in fossils and the difference in radioactive isotopes consistently found in the layers.But none of those layers extend around the world, heck none of them even cover North America.You have gone on and on about how your magic flying carpet world trotting flood laid down one layer after the other (while magically sorting the debris so that only certain fossils and certain radioactive isotopes are deposited in the layers) ... but you have yet to show one ... ONE →(1)← continuous world wide globe girding layer that would be deposited by a magic flying carpet world trotting flood ... where is it Faith?Inquiring minds want to know.Enjoy

I don't know why you feel the need to say this (poorly). Everyone here already understands that a stratigraphic column (not "the stratigraphic column") exists at every location around the world, each consisting of a unique and specific sequence of strata. Well, I guess no Faith post is complete without at least one completely boneheaded comment. Plus this has been explained before and not responded to, so you're obviously still not reading or not understanding or just ignoring a great deal of what is being written to you. If it's the last possibility, that you're just ignoring them, then I'd like to know why you think this kind of immature display of ire and anger has any power to convince anyone of anythingLet's assume for the sake of argument that the Flood *was* the driving force that created all the stratigraphic columns we see around the world. The surface of the Earth at each location around the world is the top of that particular stratigraphic column at that location. Erosion is ongoing, and the sedimentary particles from this erosion are being deposited wherever they happen to be carried by wind and water, but gravity means their long term tendency is to end up at the lowest elevations, wherever those may happen to be, but usually lake and sea beds.Anyway, let's take the example of a little square foot of Earth somewhere in your front yard. That little square foot of Earth represents the top of the stratigraphic column at that location. A tiny particle of sediment comes to rest on this square foot of Earth. By what logic do you conclude that this sedimentary particle is not connected to the stratigraphic column that it now lies atop?Perhaps you'll next argue that when you sprinkle fertilizer on your lawn or flower bed that the fertilizer isn't connected to the ground it lies on top of. Ah, calling people names again for simply disagreeing with you, I see. You can't argue issues on the merits, you instead have to descend to name-calling. What a marvelous example of a Christian hater you are. There is no right place for a sedimentary particle to come to rest. Wherever it comes to rest it will be atop the stratigraphic column at that location. This is true by definition. It couldn't be any other way. The size of a sedimentary deposit can vary greatly. Some sedimentary deposits are small. Some sedimentary deposits are transitory, merely temporarily coming to rest before being carried onward to an even lower spot. That's likely the case for the sedimentary particle that we had come to rest on that square foot of Earth in your front yard.But some sedimentary deposits are huge. The sedimentary layers being deposited on lake and sea beds today are enormous, thousands and thousands of miles in extent in some cases (think Pacific Ocean). Since what is being deposited atop the current stratigraphic columns (in locations where net sedimentation is taking place) are tiny particles of sediment, and since the layers of the stratigraphic columns consist of tiny particles of sediment, the new sedimentary particles are precisely like those of the stratigraphic columns. Oh, they may be of a different mineral or of a different size, but as for being sedimentary particles being deposited atop a stratigraphic column, of that there can be no doubt. That's strange that your sick of arguing this, because you haven't been arguing this at all. You've only been repeating mind-numbingly absurd statements supported by not a lick of evidence or rational thinking or even just a layman's casual understanding of the real world. I think your loss of patience has more to do with your failure to browbeat the other participants in this thread into agreement with you. You're using the wrong approach. Browbeating people with nonsense and fantasy will get you nowhere. Find some facts that support you, and argue them using logic and rational thinking. Well, there you go, calling us other participants deceitful and self-deceived again, despite the fact that the sum total of your argument is that our position is "OBVIOUSLY absurd." Well, yes, the debate *is* a sham, but that's due to you once more collapsing into a contentious black hole from which no evidence ever emerges, while at the same time descending into calling people names. You're not actually discussing anything. So far in this your latest message your arguments have been that we're deceitful and self-deceived, and our evidence and argument are "OBVIOUSLY absurd." In other words, so far your post has been content-free, pretty much par for the course for you. You keep bringing up the hoodoos. In a nod to Moose I'll remind you that the topic is Walther's Law, but about the hoodoos you seem to be confusing two different things. On the one hand there's the time it took for the strata to form that make up the hoodoos, which is obviously at least millions of years. And on the other hand there's the time it took for the strata making up the hoodoos, once exposed at the surface, to be eroded away, which is obviously on a scale of only thousands and tens of thousands of years. Yes, the rate of erosion of the hoodoos is pretty standard knowledge, and no there is no need for you to have to substantiate it. But you're addressing the wrong point. You've just made yet another non-sensical statement. The rate at which strata are deposited is not related to the rate that they are eroded once exposed. Those two rates are dependent upon two different sets of completely different data. There's no one moderating this thread, so no one's going to suspend you, though you could do the honorable thing and cease participating as long as your only contributions are going to be calling people names, making ridiculous statements, and repeating multiply rebutted bald declarations that have no evidence. Like this message you just posted.--Percy

We'll deny it because it's obviously wrong. Anybody can see flood deposits being deposited every day. Your attempt to see a difference between flood deposits and "the Flood" deposits is ludicrous.

As has already been pointed out innumerable times, you are making a mistake of nomenclature. Each location in the world has a unique stratigraphic column - there are literally billions of stratigraphic columns. There's no formalized definition of how big a stratigraphic column is. We know it descends into the Earth as deeply as there are strata, but how long and wide is it? Is is a foot square? A foot circular? A yard? A furlong? Who knows? Who cares? It doesn't matter. The important fact is that a stratigraphic column is a column of strata at a particular point on the Earth, and how big each is will depend upon the needs and interests of the geologists studying them.What you're really talking about is the geologic column, also known as the geologic time scale, and also explained to you innumerable times. Of course, this explanation doesn't count since you're not reading it, but it's your loss because it will just cause you to repeat the same stupid statements so that we can make more fun of you.So, ignoring useful and accurate information, how's that strategy working out for you? The geologic column is complete in the same way that you're diary is complete. Think about it. Your diary won't end until your life ends. In the same way, the geologic column won't end until the Earth ends.Other people have explained this to you in other ways, all perfectly and easily understandable. You have no excuse for not getting this. Since the current deposition of sedimentary layers is atop the current stratigraphic columns, how could it not be a continuation of them? Come on, Faith, explain your logic here. Sure, we're all deceivers and victims of our own self-deception and naturally everything we say is false just because you say so and despite all the evidence and rationale we provide and that you just ignore, but surely you can explain your position at least once. Explaining it no times by writing many words but saying nothing is not getting you anywhere. Boy are you ever confused.First, there's nothing you said that we can deny because you haven't actually said anything beyond, "You're wrong." That's basically your entire argument.And we know sedimentation is continuing atop existing stratigraphic columns because, a) we see it happening; and b) the products of erosion have to go somewhere, and no matter where they go they're going to end up at the top of a stratigraphic column somewhere.It has nothing to do with proving whether or not there was a Flood. As has been explained before by myself and others (though there's so far no indication that you've read or understood them), even had the Flood been a real event, sedimentation would be still be occurring atop the stratigraphic columns the Flood created. What kind of insanity is driving you to believe that calling something "ludicrous" is an argument of any value? As has been pointed out multiple times, blowing up your image reveals that the strata are only mostly flat with irregularities. Here's the image, click on it and you'll see what I mean. Oh, wait a minute, you're not reading this, so I guess I should change my instructions to don't click on it and continue wallowing in your ignorance: Summarizing your arguments, we can't consider the possibilities you've offered because you have no evidence, no rational, and not even anything that makes sense. Deserts cannot become strata because it's impossible, for reasons you don't reveal because you don't have any reasons. And the debate is over because you're God and you said so. The strata comprising the hoodoos at Bryce Canyon are 40-60 million years old. Here's some information about how the hoodoos themselves form from Hoodoos at Bryce Canyon. Don't read this either, you wouldn't want to learn anything:

quote:

---

Unfortunately hoodoos don't last very long. The same processes that create hoodoos are equally aggressive and intent on their destruction. The average rate of erosion is calculated at 2-4 feet (.6-1.3 m) every 100 years. So it is that Bryce Canyon, as we know it, will not always be here. As the canyon continues to erode to the west it will eventually capture (perhaps 3 million years from now) the watershed of the East Fork of the Sevier River. Once this river flows through the Bryce Amphitheater it will dominate the erosional pattern, replacing hoodoos with a "V" shaped canyon and steep cliff walls typical of the weathering and erosional patterns created by flowing water. Indeed a foreshadowing of this fate can be observed in Water Canyon while hiking the Mossy Cave Trail. For over 100 years a diversion canal has been taking a portion of the East Fork of the Sevier River through this section of the park and already it's easy to see the changes the flowing water has created.

​

While we can't stop this inevitable fate, humans can help to preserve the Park's existing hoodoos by keeping to the park trail system. Believe it or not, just walking up to the base of a hoodoo will shorten its life span as your tracks weaken the clay slopes that protect the hoodoo's foundations. Staying on established trails ensures that erosion will not prematurely destroy the hoodoos that millions of people come from all over the world to see.

---

What observations that support the Flood? You've written a lot of words, most of them in sentences that are wrong, but you haven't mentioned any observations that support the Flood. All you've done is what I said before, said, "You're wrong." Not much of an argument. Well, there's an extravagant claim. Why don't you complete your devastation of the geologic time scale by explaining the radiometric dating and the fossil sorting? Assuming we're talking about evidence and rational argument, over the past ten or so years you've actually managed to say the same thing you just said in this message, nothing. Wow, two uses of the word "ludicrous" in a single post. I guess that makes your arguments twice as convincing. Let's see, what's twice zero? The truth is that you've withdrawn from debate while still typing lots of words. You've got no evidence, no rational thinking, nothing that makes sense, and you do not very often make it through a single sentence without making an error or casting an insult or just being completely and utterly insane by thinking that the power to declare when debates are over lies within yourself. I think you've got some kind of God complex.--Percy

What on earth could you possible mean by "since the so-called 'Holocene'"? It certainly isn't "so-called" because that is definitely its name, the Holocene, the current era. And saying there's "nothing building since the Holocene" makes as much sense as saying there's "nothing building since now." And there certainly is much more than "nothing building" because sediments are still being created and deposited, and they're being deposited atop the existing stratigraphic columns. In the Bryce Canyon region, the strata comprising the hoodoos formed 40-60 million years ago. Erosion down to that level is relatively recent, and the hoodoo structures themselves are thousands to hundreds of thousands of years old - you are correct that they were mostly formed in the Holocene, but the erosion that removed the layers above Bryce Canyon to expose them took a very long time and most certainly precedes the Holocene. It is their cap of relatively hard dolomite that makes the structures possible. This is all we ever get from you, isn't it, just bald declarations with no evidence or explanation or justification or rationale or anything. You may as well be relating religious myths.Bryce Canyon is at a relatively high elevation, so it is without doubt a region of net erosion. The material eroded off the hoodoos is initially deposited locally at Bryce Canyon, but gradually over time these sediments descend to lower and lower elevations through the forces of gravity, wind and water. They eventually find themselves on flat plains. What facts are you looking at that make this obvious to you? What *is* obvious is that the strata that once overlay Bryce Canyon must have had considerable depth and been there for a considerable time, else there would have been insufficient time and pressure for lithification, particularly of the dolomite. Receding floods do not cause widespread erosion. For the most part they leave mud and debris behind. If you doubt this you might want to reread the recent news articles about hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria. If you for some reason feel moved to repeat your completely unevidenced claim that a flood of a magnitude of the Biblical Flood would possess different qualities from the kinds of floods we actually observe, please provide evidence. So much ignorance, so little time. Hoodoos have their particular structure because of an accident of geology that isn't uncommon. A cap of hard rock overlies softer rock. The hard rock at the top protects the softer underlying rock from erosive forces, creating structures like hoodoos. You have a unique talent for cramming many errors into a small space. Hoodoos aren't expected where the conditions that produce them don't exist. I'm not sure what you mean by no canyons, but canyons are not expected where the conditions for them don't exist, such as a river with cutback, or a river in a gradually uplifting region such as the Grand Canyon. I have no idea why you said "no staircases" - this is the region of the Grand Staircase. And where you say "no erosion at all to speak of," well, that's just plain wrong. All exposed areas of the world are subject to erosion, and this is certainly true of Bryce Canyon and all the lower elevations nearby. Well, there's some irony for you - reciting an entire paragraph of error before calling nonsense the perspective that actually has evidence and doesn't violate natural physical laws. The only things that are obviously false are almost everything you say. You haven't provided any evidence at all for the Flood. Every time you do claim to provide evidence it turns out to be an empty declaration of opinion or a misconception or an error or a claim that you already provided the evidence somewhere sometime or something that is made up. There is no Faith Flood evidence to track down at EvC because you haven't offered any. Well, there's another lie. If you didn't care you wouldn't be here. Well, yes, this debate is a "miserable sham," because you refuse to engage in any actual debate. If geology and evolution are wrong then it will be demonstrated by evidence and rationale, not by the farce you're engaged in.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Given that the Holocene is the current era starting about 10,000 years ago and continuing from now on into the future, and given that sedimentation is still occurring in the Holocene, how could it possibly be "finished"? Sedimentation in the Holocene clearly isn't "finished", and why on earth do you keep lying about having shown things that are, to anyone of any intelligence at all, self-evidently impossible. Well, yes, we know that you know the Flood explains all of world geology, in the same way you know snakes talk and women turn to pillars of salt and bushes burn without being consumed and seas part with a wave of the hand. Not that anyone has noticed. Thank God. Come back when you have some evidence.Or is this declaration of stopping another lie?--Percy

So which layer of all those in the Grand Canyon that were -- according to you -- laid down one after the other as the flying magical world trotting flood danced around the world time and again ... which of all those layers shows up in a continuous layer all around the world?Which one ... (1) ... →ONE← ... layer is continuous all around the earth ... if we find it in the Grand Canyon, as you continually decree, where do we see it in Europe, in Asia, in Africa, in Australia ... everywhere the flying magic carpet world trotting flood went ... ??? WHERE IS IT, FAITH????That is the only evidence that supports a world wide flying magic carpet world trotting flood, because ANY discontinuous layer can only support a specific area being underwater and accumulating sedimentary deposits at any one time.According to your model there should be several such layers.So show me one ... (1) ... →ONE← ... layer that is continuous all around the earth and shows up on every continent and in every stratigraphic column.One.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : just one

You have never SHOWN this. All you do is stomp your feet like a 1st grader and insist that no new sediments are being laid down.Where do you think eroded sediments go? Do they float up into space? And now you are back to stomping your feet like a 1st grader. What next? Threaten to hold your breath?

Here is a picture of ongoing creation of sediments on top of the existing geologic column in the Mississippi river delta: Here is a picture of the Ganges river delta that also has ongoing and massive creation of new sediments on top of the existing geologic column (light brown sediment just off of coast): Here is the remnants of the Colorado river delta before those crazy Californians took all the water: Here is the Selenga river delta in Asia: How can anyone claim that new sediments are not being created on top of the existing geologic column right now in modern times? These are just a handful of the numerous river deltas that are producing sediments right now. In fact, they are a massive infrastructure problem for many ports because sediments have to continually dredged as they build up.

and the Amazon ... what??? grain size decreasing with distance from mouth??? who woulda thunk that would happen.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : ..

That takes me back to a family trip where we visited the Mt. St. Helens visitor center. Being a kid who grew up in the 80's in the Pacific NW, no road trip was complete without checking the area out. In the visitor center they had a collection of jars with ash arranged by their distance from the eruption. Sure enough, as you moved away from the eruption the grains were smaller and smaller and smaller. Out of all the things I saw there, that is the one thing that stuck with me for some strange reason. It seems that my path as a scientist started at a young age.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.