My problem is with the enormous time frame. The idea that ANYTHING could sit still for 50 million years is simply preposterous to my mind.
As long as you agree that this is an argument from personal incredulity, that's fine. You can wrestle with this for as long as you want. Most of us see no reason why there should be limits to a period of stasis. In fact, all geological data support the possibility.
How can ANYTHING "subtle" happen in a 50-million year period? Hurricanes alter seacoasts and beaches, tornados move tons of stuff from here to there, one good rain causes mudslides all over California that rearrange local landscapes drastically, not subtly, and destroy houses; all in one year; but the redwall limestone stays in place for 50 million years even in the phase where it's quietly sedimenting away and not yet lithifying?
As we ran into this road block in a previous thread, I am reluctant to try to answer, but the quick treatment is that some processes are rapid and some are very slow. Very few encompass the entire world. But your point that erosion might remove previously deposited sediments is often correct. Those periods of erosion account for a lot of geologic time that YECs cannot seem to locate in the geological record. Perhaps you could enlighten some of them as to the importance of erosion and unconformities in abbreviating the rock record.
For my part, I'm sorry to say I'm not particulary interested in discussing geology with Faith at the moment. While Faith is obviously an intelligent person, she's under the mistaken impression that she already knows enough about geology to make valid arguments. She doesn't. I can't even figure out what she's arguing for or against in 99% of her posts.
I'm willing to concede my geologic arguments are wrong - I certainly don't know everything about geology - but before I concede such a point, I require much more than, "it's impossible because the thought of such a thing happening is mind boggling."
It's a complete waste of time, not to mention exceedingly frustrating, to discuss the validity of scientific observations with someone who places no value on such observations at all. Having dealt with my fair share of armchair geologists in real life, I simply don't have the desire nor the patience to deal with another one on-line.
In addition, I'm trying to finish my thesis by next Monday and I need to devote my time to that at the moment. I'm not even supposed to be here right now since I made myself swear off messageboards until I was finished. Ummm... it's been a bit tough...
My sediments exactly. I have expressed my opinion that Faith's only argument is one from incredulity. I can go no further. It's simply to much work, just to get a sharp stick in return.
Science is done by fallible humanity, and all the conclusions you think you have about the origins of the earth can claim no final authority.
Genesis was authored by God and there's no "interpretation" that could change the straightforward descriptions of the creation of humanity and all things and the destruction of all in the Flood.
Oh, yeah. I also don't debate sermons.
JonF's questions are badgering, harrassment, rude and the post he is taking issue with was clear and excellent reasoning and evidence exactly as written. When you all get off your fantasy version of science high horse long enough to recognize the fine reasoning on the other side of the issue it will be worth it for creationists to come here.
Talk about high horses! I think this post pretty much says it all. I predicted failure in this effort and Faith is proving my point.
Sorry about the placement of this post. I won't cry if you delete it.