Now you might get a slightly different arrangement depending on how you classify some of the layer rocks (sandy limestone for instance), but you should get the general idea: when the sand is being deposited for the sandstone layers there is also mud, carbonate and ooze being deposited somewhere else at the same time.
This can, of course be tested.
Note that gray layers are dry land layers. This shows transgression followed by regression followed by transgression topped by an unconformity erosion.
As long as you can make up "rapid dumping" I can make up "rapid organized deposition." ...
I believe "rapid dumping" was referring to your model of a world wide flood dumping massive amounts of sediment to create the layers.
What you would see from "rapid organized deposition" would be stratification of material from coarse at the bottom to fine at the top -- organized by Stoke's Law (basic physics). You would not see coarse layers covering fine layers.
I didnâ€™t make it up. Itâ€™s pretty obvious that itâ€™s part of your ideas. You want massive volumes of sediment deposited in a single year.
quote: I can make up "rapid organized depositionâ€
Making up nonsense is your main argument, so go ahead and do it again. We both know that there is nothing to organise the sediments in the way that you need.
quote: You weren't there and neither was I but the results are there and the Flood did it.
And there is your problem. You start by assuming the Flood and try to force everything to fit. But you werenâ€™t there. The only way to know if the Flood occurred at all is through the evidence. And the evidence says that it didnâ€™t. That is why you have to make up nonsense.
Remember the target example? If a claim is made that the target was hit but when the target is examined there is no hole found then the conclusion is that the claim that the target was hit is false.
But the two Bible Flood stories go further. They claim they covered every spot on the Earth; not just one target but every single target that exists.
The existence of the Bible Stories is the single greatest obstacle to the actuality of either flood. Any one that claims either of the floods actually happens must be able to use just the information in the stories to explain the actual conditions found in reality.
Every single observation ever made about anywhere or anything found on the Earth today.
They have no wiggle room. Just one observation that they cannot provide the model, process, method, mechanism or means that explains what is seen totally and completely and irrevocably shows that the Biblical Flood did not happen.
Just one single target with no hole.
That's all that is needed to prove the Biblical floods did not happen.
Scoffers denying the Flood shall come in the last days
Well, jar, I'm tired, depressed, overwhelmed and don't want to be on this thread, so I will leave you with this:
Science does not judge the Bible, the Bible judges science and all of us and everything else.
There shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished...
Pretty clearly talking about one Flood there, as is also the case wherever else in the Bible the Flood is referenced.
Re: Scoffers denying the *Second Coming* shall come in the last days
quote: Science does not judge the Bible, the Bible judges science and all of us and everything else.
According to your sectarian dogma. But your dogma is not the Bible, at best it is an interpretation of the Bible.
But then you refuse to argue the theology - which is odd because it is hard to imagine how you could understand it less than the science or have worse arguments. But I guess that must be the case - why else would you avoid the real issues ?
quote: Pretty clearly talking about one Flood there, as is also the case wherever else in the Bible the Flood is referenced.
And the author - even if it was Peter - might well have believed the Flood story and used it as a parallel to the sudden and unexpected end that was due to arrive soon. Except that it never did, and the scoffers were vindicated.
Re: If there was a Biblical Flood, no one noticed.
I figure I would have to personally examine the tree rings very closely to arrive at a meaningful theory.
Freaking hilarious. Here is the key issue with all the fundies. They actually think that expertise means nothing. They truly think that they are as capable of understanding ALL aspects of science as well as experts in the fields. As if she could actually examine never mind understand the tree rings. This is the same nutball that claims she can't read her computer screen and thinks she will be able to count tree rings. Aren't there admonitions against hubris in their works of scripture?
Edited by Admin, : Fix typo.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
For your flood to produce the layers we see would require a miracle. Not just the layers of lava, but the problems with the locations of fossils. Larger, denser fossils would be found at lower levels, smaller, lighter at higher levels. Unless the waters were extremely turbulent, but then we'd see everything mixed together, humans with trilobites and dinosaurs with wolves, etc.
Then there's the problem of how it all turned from mud and carcasses to shale, sandstone, limestone, etc. in only a few thousand years.
In a transgression (rising sea level) fine layers are deposited over coarse layers, not the other way around, according to Walther's Law.
And in regressions the opposite occurs since the active waters of the shoreline are the last to be on top.
Faith has never understood Walther's Law. She thinks it's a rapid process rather than a very slow one, that it describes a rapidly rising sea flooding the land and depositing fine-grained sediments in a stratified sequence.