Summations Only

You are actually claiming the right to invent your own facts?We are surely entitled to see that you are making things up, that your theory does not fit with reality as it is observed - and to say as much.And yet you deny that on the basis that you have a right to your own theory. Your rights do not extend to silencing criticism - which is the minimum you are demanding.

quote:

---

Seems like you're arguing with a perfectly natural sequence for no good reason I can see except to find something to object to in anything I say..

---

But the perfectly natural elements are not those that are being objected to. The perfectly natural sequence would produce braided streams, not meanders.And let us note that you are quite willing to reject perfectly natural and expected events just because they undermine your arguments: Message 163

quote:

---

The thing is it is SO absurd that I suppose you just can't bring yourself to face it

---

The stuff you make up is certainly absurd. But that is hardly our problem.

quote:

---

There is no way a sedimentary rock could possibly represent a time period.

---

The sediment was deposited during a particular interval of time, and thus represents - at least in part - the conditions in that place at that time. And that is pretty much all there is to it. No absurdity there.Now your crazy ideas about the land suddenly turning to rock and everything dying are certainly absurd. But they’re your ideas, nothing to do with us.

quote:

---

The strata were simply laid down one after another killing everything that lived on the land. There were never time periods, there was the pre-Flood earth and the post-Flood earth and that's it.

---

And yet you have no reasonable explanation for the evidence. That’s why mainstream geology rejects your views in favour of ideas which do work to explain the evidence.

quote:

---

Lots of absurdity.

---

Let’s see

quote:

---

No matter when in the "time period" the sediment was deposited the same problem exists. You can't end up with a flat rock without everything in the time period dying.

---

If by time period you mean the geological eras that is absurd. There is no reason why creatures living on the surface have to die when deeply buried material is being lithified no matter whether they are in the same time period or not.

quote:

---

You can't get a flat rock anyway from such a situation.

---

There are flat landscapes - even when we aren’t considering marine deposits which make up much of the geological record - and plenty of terrain features buried in the geological record so that doesn’t seem to be a real issue.

quote:

---

And each time period's having a rock unto itself is beyond absurd.

---

Again that’s an absurdity you invented. It isn’t our problem.

quote:

---

Cambrian, Silurian, Carboniferous, Permian, Triassic etc. are properly "time periods." Not eras, periods.

---

So long as you are clear about what you mean.

quote:

---

How do they get buried in that deeply buried material that becomes the rock that preserves their fossil remains? So you're saying it's a previous period?

---

I’m saying that Geological Periods are long enough that material deposited in the earlier stages could be buried and lithified by the end.

quote:

---

Then how do you explain their having their own new specific sedimentary layer, how does it get so flat when most of the world is pretty hilly and lumpy?

---

I already answered that.

quote:

---

All those time periods do have a rock to themselves. That's how the whole idea of time periods came about at all: no rock, no time period.

---

Completely wrong. Formations can contain more than one type of rock. A location may have more than one formation from a given period. Different locations will often have different formations for a given period. The idea of a rock for a period is just nonsense.The time periods are derived from the order in the fossil record, not the rocks directly at all. If you bothered to learn from the discussions here you would know that.

quote:

---

And they'd have to be exposed and cleaned off to become a rock in the stack of rocks known as the geological column, and in becoming the rock, whenever that happens, nothing could live there.

---

No they don’t have to be exposed and cleaned off. And there won’t be anything living there when the sediment lithifies because it is deeply buried. That shouldn’t be hard to understand. Yet somehow you keep failing to do that.

quote:

---

OK, so not just A rock per time period, a whole formation of stacked rocks per time period. Same problem

---

You’ve yet to come up with a real problem. Again the only way the rocks represent a time period is that they are made of material deposited during that time period (and hence contain evidence about local conditions at that time and place). That’s hardly absurd. It is obviously true for anyone with any sense.

quote:

---

To become a rock in the geo column it's going to have to be cleaned off because so many of those contacts are clean and tight.

---

You’re still making no sense,

quote:

---

If things are living way above this lithifying rock, on what I would assume would be normal soil with normal plants and normal hills and valleys and other normal features of an actual landscape, there is no way it will ever become a rock in the geo column, but it has to become a rock in the geo column because that's what we actually see that supposedly points to the landscape. You can't leave it buried with animals romping on it, or in the case of sea creatures swimming over it. somehow you've got to have an actual rock with other rocks on top of it, and that can't possibly happen while anything is living in any of those "time periods."

---

You are actually claiming that the presence of life on the surface will somehow stop lithification of the material below ? Or are you just asserting that material above it will never lithify ? (I will also point out that it is certainly not necessary to have any higher rock layers. There is no place on Earth where the geological column is infinite in height - there is always an uppermost stratum with no rock above it)Both are daft. The first is just ridiculous. The second is little better. The material above may or may not lithify. But I f it gets buried deeply enough it will. It just isn’t lithifying now - and the presence of life is not a factor preventing it.

The big problem with relying on diagrams is that they can be misleading. That is especially true if the diagrams are based on early work, and quite possibly get things wrong.The reality is rather more complicated: A diagram published in 1910 showing a cross-section from Snowdon to Harwich.Even if it is hard to read the fold of older rock at the right should be very obvious. This diagram certainly doesn’t suggest that everything happened at once.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Inserted the image from the link into the message.

quote:

---

I don't see the fold you are talking about. And if it's at the very far right it would only confirm my point anyway.

---

How could that be true ?Anyway it’s a clear example of deformation occurring before all the strata were in place.

quote:

---

Of course diagrams can be untrustworthy but this point is so very simple and the diagram also so very simple it really doesn't matter how many other things got left out. Really.

---

The diagram is really very, very misleading. It makes it look as if Britain was tilted after all the strata were deposited. But that really isn’t the case. The more recent diagram - itself more than 100 years old - shows that.

I note that you don’t explain how a large fold of material that wouldn’t even be present if the Smith diagram was accurate could help your case.

quote:

---

It would be absolutely unique in that case because all examples claimed to show that don't

---

But they do.

quote:

---

I can only assume this one doesn't either since I can't see it..

---

It’s perfectly obvious if you can see the diagram at all. A large fold of old rock with the peak just to the left of the word Tertiary. The labels - admittedly hard to read - indicate that the top strata of the fold are Devonian.

quote:

---

They are the only two end to end geo columns I know of, all clearly deformed as a whole unit after all having been laid down.

---

As I have pointed out the Smith diagram is misleading. And the Grand Canyon also shows very strong evidence that there were tectonic events before all the strata were laid down.

quote:

---

I use them to demonstrate what I'm talking about since I know I can't prove it from them.

---

One’s useless the other shows that the evidence is very much against you. That doesn’t make for a worthwhile case.

quote:

---

Very very few in comparison with what there should be if the Time Scale were correct.

---

Please support this claim.

quote:

---

And they are all very ambiguous and can all be interpreted more reasonably my way.

---

Since your explanation is riddled with problems - solved by inventing events ad hoc - and without any significant evidence, even the evidence that should be there - it cannot be called reasonable.

quote:

---

Look at the cross section. The entire column of strata all rise over the Supergroup without being disturbed.

---

As is quite clear on the cross section - and as I have pointed out before - this is not true. At the Canyon rim the upper strata are slowing down, where the Supergroup is still tilted upwards.The uplift is clearly a separate event from the tilting of the Supergroup.

quote:

---

Obviously not since that would mean the strata were laid down over the rise which is impossible.

---

Wrong on both counts.If the rise was caused after the tilting of the Supergroup then why would it have to come before the later strata were in place ?Don’t you remember that the flume experiments convinced you that sediment could be deposited on a slope ?

quote:

---

Can be but that example didn't look anything like the strata in the GC, it was an extremely steep deposition, quite odd really, and generally speaking, no it doesn't happen.

---

In other words you are now rejecting the flume experiments as reliable guides to real sedimentation. That’s hardly the line you took when you introduced them.But that’s a side point. The real issue is that the fact that the uplift occurs after the tilt of the Supergroup in no way means that uplift has to occur before all the strata are in place. That mistake is obvious.