Deposition and Erosion of Sediments

What about a Great Debate topic? That can be a one on one and can even be judged if you want it. I wouldn't mind participating as long as we don't talk politics.

You'd have to negotiate it with the others on your side, but it looks like Moose has some support at this point.

But as I mentioned to Moose, I'd really like to make my way through this thread first in any case -- from the top rather than the end as I'm doing now -- before any Great Debate happens, hoping that I don't generate too many new rebuttals in the process, although that's probably not to be expected.

I just took a break to answer some of the latest posts briefly. Still don't have time to get back to the serious posts earlier in the thread. Hope to do that tomorrow or Saturday.

But at this point I'd like to venture a guess based on Percy's saying that posters are jumping in to inform me that "Geology doesn't think those things" or some such, that I most likely have NOT said that Geology thinks those things and have been misunderstood.

I think I may not be clear enough that mostly what I am doing is making inferences from what I know of geological presuppositions, not saying geologists make these same inferences but proposing that they are reasonable inferences that should be made.

That is, for instance, I'm making inferences from what I believe ARE accepted facts, for instance

from the Geological Time Table,
from the idea of great ages,
from the correspondence of specific sedimentary rocks with specific time periods,
from the specific length of time posited for a given stratum such as the redwall limestone (identified as co-extensive with the Mississippian Period on the chart of the Grand Canyon),
from the horizontal presentation of the strata in the Grand Canyon (we can get to the nonhorizontal cases later),
from the statements that the Grand Canyon was formed under water,
from the remarks about erosion in individual strata despite the fact that the canyon was formed under water,
etc etc etc

Are any of the above NOT facts? From those facts and others I have been drawing inferences about how such horizontal strata could not have been laid down as supposed by the Geological Time Table.

I'm certainly not claiming geologists are saying any of this. I think I've stuck pretty close to ONLY what I KNOW geologists have said, including what all of you have said, and the rest is my own inferences.

I noticed on the other thread that it seemed people were objecting to what they thought I believe geology teaches when I was only saying what I infer from the Geo Time Table and other information that has been given, and certainly know geology doesn't teach it as I'm using it to dispute some geological conclusions, foolish as I am and all that.

In at least one case on this thread, Nosy Ned's post I believe, the same misapprehension of what I'm saying was again made, thinking I'm imputing ideas to geologists when what I'm really doing is making inferences of my own that I think SHOULD be considered but aren't.

I hope that clarifies something. If it doesn't, oh well.

I have to take off again.

[edited to improve clarity. I hope]

This message has been edited by Faith, 03-17-2005 11:51 PM

re any of the above NOT facts? From those facts and others I have been drawing inferences about how such horizontal strata could not have been laid down as supposed by the Geological Time Table. I'm certainly not claiming geologists are saying any of this. I think I've stuck pretty close to ONLY what I KNOW geologists have said, including what all of you have said, and the rest is my own inferences.

What you are being told is that many of the things you think are facts are not.

(eg. the canyon being formed under water -- in fact many of the layers of sediments but not all were formed underwater. But they did not spend all of the time from forming the lowest layer to forming the top most under water.

Your inferences don't stand up when all of the actual facts are considered.

In addition to the facts that you don't get right. There are a huge number of facts and details that you know nothing about. These additional pieces of information also make your inferences unsupportable.

It has been pointed out to you, a number of times, that until you have a reasonably great number of the facts in hand you are not nearly ready to begin to refute this science.

You start off with an objection to great ages. Yet you don't tackle the dates and dating forum threads that go into that in great detail.

You make statements like "horizontal" but do you know if the layers in the canyon that you think are horizontal actually are? How close or far from horizontal are they? These are some of the details you don't have.

You think that the major "layers" that you see are it. That they are uniform. It has been pointed out to you that this is not true but you have yet to appear to incorporate this into your inferences.

I think I've stuck pretty close to ONLY what I KNOW geologists have said, including what all of you have said, and the rest is my own inferences.

You may think this but it is clear to others that you do NOT KNOW what geologists have said. You have a half baked idea of some of what is said and very little idea about almost all of what is said.

It seems the only way to prevent further piling on on Faith.

Plan of the moment - Reopen in about 24 hours.

Bring any discussion of the action to the topic of choice, links below.

Adminnemooseus

---

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts. Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to: General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links: Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

Thread moved here from the Geology and the Great Flood forum.

Moose dear, if you had different plans just say so.

This is the Great Debate forum. The only one who should be posting on this thread besides mods is FAITH. The thread will be open to other posters soon. Please keep watch for your name to be called.

This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 03-18-2005 11:14 PM

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to: General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Introducing the new "Boot Camp" forum Other useful links: Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

OK. I'm not sure what happens now that this has been transferred to the Great Debate forum, but I was planning to post answers to many unanswered posts here. I did intend to start from the beginning but as usual found myself answering a more recent one first, Ned's latest. THEN since nobody can answer right away I'll probably be able after this one to get back to the beginning of the thread.

What you are being told is that many of the things you think are facts are not.

Yes, which is why I gave a list of the facts from which I'm drawing my inferences, to show that what I think are facts ARE in fact held by Geologists. Clearly they are accepted as facts by Geologists except for two you objected to -- the statements about formation underwater and about erosion, so I'll get to those eventually.

But meanwhile I'd like to remind you that the rest of my list does contain facts accepted by geologists. Very basic stuff. Geologists do subscribe to the Geo Time table, Geologists do believe that the strata of the Geo Column reflect great ages of time, and that specific time periods are marked by specific sedimentary rocks. Geologists do accept ballpark estimates of time such as the 40 million years allotted to the Mississippian period / redwall limestone deposition on the Grand Canyon chart. Geologists believe that the layers of the earth represent long time periods which would show up all over the planet except that they've been disrupted here and there, and that there is a complete column that would exist except for those disruptions, and that the strata themselves represent actual landscapes that existed in their particular time periods etc etc. Any of that you want to dispute?

I believe these are the main facts I've been working from in everything I've said, though I guess I might be forgetting some, but again, you only take issue with the last two statements on the list, about formation under water and about erosion of individual strata. I'm aware that there have been confusions caused by my lack of knowledge of the theories held by Geologists about these two factors, and in fact I think they should now become the focus of discussion, but my impression is they don't materially affect anything I've been inferring, although a better knowledge would no doubt improve clarity a great deal.

(eg. the canyon being formed under water -- in fact many of the layers of sediments but not all were formed underwater. But they did not spend all of the time from forming the lowest layer to forming the top most under water.

OK, I hope we will get to filling in this information since you consider it to be so important. I've been aware of some such ideas being the case but have been dealing with it by giving general answers to both underwater AND above water formation ideas, since it doesn't make a LOT of difference to my argument which it is as neither makes sense in terms of millions of years.

Your inferences don't stand up when all of the actual facts are considered.

I respectfully submit that you have not proven this. So far I have the impression that it isn't at all clear in anybody's mind what I'm even trying to argue, far from its having been defeated.

In addition to the facts that you don't get right. There are a huge number of facts and details that you know nothing about. These additional pieces of information also make your inferences unsupportable. It has been pointed out to you, a number of times, that until you have a reasonably great number of the facts in hand you are not nearly ready to begin to refute this science.

Yes, so you've said, and of course you think I'm an idiot, at least very foolish, and insulting to geologists too, which I really don't mean to be, but I do believe that it is possible to refute aspects of the claims made about the Geo Time table without much more in the way of facts than I have in hand. That's not arrogance, merely an assessment of the circumscribed nature of my focus.

For instance, about sedimentation I'm mostly concerned with the RATES involved, the TIME factor involved for the buildup of any particular stratum from the Geo Time table model, but you will all take the subject off into various ways sedimentation is observed to occur in current time frames instead and insist that this knowledge is needed when I don't think it really is. If a given layer was supposedly formed in water, and that layer reflects a particular time period of say 40 million years, I'm trying to get at what all happened in that forty million years. If you want to bring in examples from current observation they have to apply to that context to answer me, and as long as you aren't pulling a snow job with terminology you know is unfamiliar to me I can certainly follow that kind of reasoning. But so far I haven't seen anything that clearly addresses my thoughts about the huge time periods involved in light of the distinct kinds of strata that supposedly represent them.

Oh plenty of ASSERTIONS that tens of millions of years make no difference, sure, end of subject, right?

As for erosion, although I may not have been careful enough in all my statements, I really DON'T dispute what is said about observation of erosion on individual strata as some think I'm doing, I just dispute that it could have occurred in the time frame of millions of years, during which huge time span it seems to me erosion occurring at a normal rate would obliterate any beginning sedimentation process. I said this pretty clearly in my very first post I think. Erosion is only a factor out of water, as I understand it. Under water erosion wouldn't occur at all in a flat sediment bed. If I'm wrong please correct.

Let me make it a question, or in fact more than one question:

1) Is erosion observed on many or most of the strata?

2) Is it observed mostly or exclusively on the uppermost surface of a given layer or deeper in the layer? In other words is this erosion pretty much always found BETWEEN the strata?

3) Are you talking about what you observe after a stratum has been exposed in some way so that you know the erosion existed prior to the recent exposure?

4) Is it assumed that this erosion occurred in the time period assigned to the stratum, that is, if you are talking about erosion of the redwall limestone of the Mississippian are you assuming that erosion occurred within the 40 million year time frame of the Mississippian period?

5) And a corollary to that, is it assumed that the erosion occurred while the formation itself was still forming, that is, while it was still the surface of the Geo Column in its own time period, before the rest of the Geo Column was formed above it?

6) I gather that erosion would only occur out of water, correct? So that it would be evidence that wherever it is found the stratum was not underwater at the time of the erosion? Perhaps the layer had formed under water but then erosion occurred after the water subsided or the land rose?

You start off with an objection to great ages. Yet you don't tackle the dates and dating forum threads that go into that in great detail.

That is because I think it is best tackled from the angle I AM going at it, at least by me, because although I'm aware of some creationist refutations of methods of dating from fossils and particularly radiometric dating, that is a technical area where I definitely WOULD need more knowledge than I will ever have. There are many factors geologists point to that supposedly support the great ages idea. Trying to refute any one of them should be a reasonable enough place to start, I would think, and I've chosen to focus on what I think are absurdities in the time concept based on the appearance of the strata in relation to some few assumptions I'm sure are held by Geologists, which I believe is a topic suited to my peculiar abilities and limited knowledge. Again, the only facts you have questioned on my list of the assumptions I'm sure are held by Geologists are about the exclusively underwater formation of the strata of the Grand Canyon and the erosion of the individual layers, correct? Or do you want to dispute anything else on my list?

You make statements like "horizontal" but do you know if the layers in the canyon that you think are horizontal actually are? How close or far from horizontal are they? These are some of the details you don't have.

This is irrelevant and nitpicky. You are imputing some idea of perfection to my statements which I haven't claimed. It ought to be sufficient that geologists themselves remark on the horizontal disposition of the strata in such places as the Grand Canyon. Why do you nitpick about something so obvious? In fact you can go read a link Arkansas Banana Boy posted on another thread he just bumped in the last few days, titled simply "Geologic Column" I believe, which includes among the established principles of Geology the horizontal disposition of the strata.

You think that the major "layers" that you see are it. That they are uniform. It has been pointed out to you that this is not true but you have yet to appear to incorporate this into your inferences.

This likewise is irrelevant to the points I'm trying to make. It is sufficient for what I'm trying to say that they are roughly horizontal to the naked eye in some places like the Grand Canyon, and that they are treated as roughly uniform in descriptions of the time periods that are attached to them, and that altogether, considering all the layers found all over the earth in various states of disruption or supposed incompleteness, they are thought to imply a perfect column with all layers intact despite the fact that this perfect column does not exist in reality, because the layers are assumed to represent particular time periods. From this assumption it is inferred that various layers are missing in different parts of the world. Please correct any of this that I have wrong.

(Faith) I think I've stuck pretty close to ONLY what I KNOW geologists have said, including what all of you have said, and the rest is my own inferences. (Ned) You may think this but it is clear to others that you do NOT KNOW what geologists have said. You have a half baked idea of some of what is said and very little idea about almost all of what is said.

But I try not to make claims to know more than I know and I do believe for the limits of the topic I've taken I don't need to know much more -- just because my focus IS so limited. Everybody here keeps bringing in other things and I try to learn at least something about them as they come up, but while I find the information interesting, for the most part none of it really affects the points I'm trying to make. If I could get across better just what it is I'm trying to say I think that would become clearer. I'm sure there would still be many objections based on OTHER factors, but as for the points I'm trying to stick to, those don't really bear on it. (I also doubt that even if I were a practicing geologist you'd take my conjectures appreciably more seriously, just because a creationist is considered on this site to be mentally compromised one way or another a priori, so that knowledge isn't really the huge factor you keep trying to make of it.)

But about the underwater factor and the erosion factor, I've answered much that's come up about that in general terms. But it would be good to be more precise at least for the sake of communication I'm sure. In fact that should probably be the main focus at this point, and the questions I've asked above could be a start.

(Also, I do have questions about the Geo Column itself as it is found around the world, which I'd like to have answered in the proper venue, but mostly out of personal curiosity, as again I don't think any of it would bear appreciably on the argument I'm trying to float.)

Bunch of run-on sentences in this post, sorry. I'm too tired to correct them. To be continued tomorrow.

This message has been edited by Faith, 03-19-2005 01:05 AM

I am saying there is NO EVIDENCE OF EROSION on a single layer, which would certainly have obliterated it in its sedimentary form if it had been built up on DRY land over 20 million years. Hi Faith; it seems you are stating... "Sedimentary rock cannot form. It would be obliterated by erosion faster than its formation." If this is not accurate perhaps you can clarify your quote above.

Ned got it right in his answer to you, I'm only talking about any layer that is claimed to have been built up on dry land over the millions of years allotted to the formation of each rock layer.

As I understand it SOME of the layers are supposed to have been formed not underwater, and I guess this is the time to get more specific about just what the theories are about how each layer formed. This is a question for the geologists here.

As for formation under water, it appears to be accepted with ease that a layer of sediment can slowly form that way over millions of years to the mere depth of the rock layer in the canyon and be built upon by another layer of completely different sediment in exactly the same way also over millions of years.

In the underwater scenario, what are the theories about the change from one kind of sediment to another? (Redwall limestone on top of Temple Butte limestone on top of Mauv limestone on top of Bright Angel Shale)? How is it that deposition over millions of years only amounted to a depth of a few feet of one single kind of sediment?

Also, if it is assumed the sediment accumulated to a much greater depth than the layer in the canyon, was each layer somehow exposed to the air after its formation to be eroded down to its current thickness and then submerged again while the next layer quietly deposited on top of it for more millions of years? Was this process repeated for each layer? How was it so (relatively) evenly eroded is one question I've asked before.

Are we to believe that there was ever a "landscape" over much of the earth composed of mostly or exclusively limestone that lasted for millions of years? That it was one kind of limestone for some millions of years and then another kind for more millions and then sandstone for millions and shale for millions and so on? Isn't this implied by the idea of the Geological Column's being a fractured former perfect stack of layers throughout the earth?

One question that is rarely touched on is, if vast amounts of the sedimentary rock pile were deposited in the short period of "the great flood", where did these sediments come from? It is a similar problem to "flood geology", as to where did the water come from. While mainstream geologic theory has no problem with the sediment source, "flood geology" seems to have to produce the sediments from who knows where. I once ran the "where's the sediments from" question past Tranquility Base. He proposed the concept of "catastrophic weathering". I likened that concept as being along the lines of two turtles having a catastrophic collision.

I ran across an evolutionist here on another thread -- have to learn to keep notes on these things -- stating that such a flood would carry an enormous quantity of sediment picked up from the land it covered, supposedly the entire earth you know, and that over the year it took for the flood to settle, the sediment would have precipitated out until the whole world would have been covered with a layer of sediment to a great depth. It was his contention that since no such obviously expectable layer of sediment is observable anywhere that this is proof against the Flood idea altogether. In any case here is an evolutionist who seems to have no problem with the issue you are raising.

And he agrees with creationists I've read too. Starting with a continuous rain for forty days that must have eroded tons of landscape, assuming the absolute saturation of land to some terrific depth, following with currents and tides and waves, I don't see any problem with the idea that the flood waters were thick with sediments. As long as that much is acknowledged, I don't see what's wrong with creationist ideas that the sediments were precipitated out in layers of different kinds according to some principle or other.

This message has been edited by Faith, 03-19-2005 09:53 PM

Over and over I have said that the ONLY VISIBLE erosion that we can all see with our own eyes happened AFTER the layers had built up You may have said it but is it true that the erosion only happened after the layers were built up?

I meant SIGNIFICANT erosion as the layers actually exist as layers, which it seems to me would simply not be the case if they were exposed to erosion during the long time periods they supposedly represent.

You have only seen photographs. What real evidence are you using besides some tourist pictures? We should, perhaps, ask the geologists if there is any erosion of layers in the middle of the pile?

I did list some of those questions later. And the big question is how extensive is it? How could any layers have remained layers at all if exposed to normal erosion during millions of years? Even mountains of solid rock supposedly erode away, and the erosion effaces their layered construction, leaves piles of rubble, not recognizable layers.

The problem might be, Faith, that you are reaching conclusions without having all the evidence at hand. You can not make any firm statements about the Grand Canyon since you know nothing about it

I'm staying within the theory and the pertinent known facts it seems to me and raising questions about how the stack of layered rocks could possibly have been built up given those ingredients and assumptions.

If you think crucial ingredients are being left out, kindly supply them.

Thanks for the diagram of the Grand Canyon. It was helpful on the other thread and it's helpful here. As for posting pictures, I was thinking of doodling my own diagrams and sketches, using the awkward Paint program, to get across what I'm visualizing, and figuring out how to get those onto a thread, but actually I don't feel the need any more.

Faith - I guess I'm having trouble understanding- Are you proposing an alternative mechanism for the formation of the a single layer? If so, why is your mechanism more reasonable than what you are arguing against?

No, not proposing anything, just finding what SEEMS to be the going idea about how they got there scientifically impossible.

Such minuscule observations of the strata are not required for the obvious effects real erosion would have caused during a period of twenty million years or so. The effects of real erosion produced the canyon, which I guess is pretty obvious (even though I hate that word). What you haven't addressed is why we would should expect the erosion rate to be the same a hundred yards into the wall of the canyon as it is at the site of the river itself.

Because presumably the idea is that the erosion occurred in the time period of the formation of the layer. If it occurred after the column was formed, I have no problem with that -- that's just water being pressed out of the sediments and between the at-least-semi-hardened layers and taking some of the layer with it.

But my questions have to do with the period in which a given layer was forming. How could there only have been a merely superficial erosion that left the structure of the layer intact if we're talking about millions of years of exposure to the elements? If it was underwater presumably there would have been NO erosion. So if there is some and it is thought to have occurred during the time period the layer represents, how could it only have been a superficial rather than drastically effacing erosion? Surely if it was millions of years under water it would have been a million or so above water.

I think you really need to address a seemingly key issue with your argument - that, as Nosy mentions above, NET sedimentation is the issue, and produced the results we see. In other words, as long as the sedimentation rate is greater than the erosion rate, sedimentation will occur.

So are you picturing a layer of sediment on dry land extending dozens, maybe hundreds of miles in all directions, only sedimentary limestone say, nothing else, as we're building a limestone layer here, that is accumulating over MILLIONS of years, and subjected to MORMAL weather patterns over those millions of years?

You seem to be arguing that erosion would vastly exceed sedimentation across the entire landscape, not unlike it did in the formation of the canyon itself due to the erosive forces produced by the river. Do you have any evidence for a higher rate of erosion than sedimentation?

No. And if sedimentation really can build up in spite of erosion over millions of years resulting in a rock layer that really is a coherent layer of homogeneous content over many miles of real estate, and to a depth of no more than a few feet, upon which a completely different kind of sediment has built up in the same fashion to exactly the same result over millions of years, and if this same process more or less could be repeated over some 600 million years altogether until all the layers of the column were present, though at the end of it all something drastic happened in the way of erosion that hadn't even thought of happening during those 600 million years, then you've got me. I give up. You win.

Now. Can you also explain how so many different kinds of sediment took turns building up each during its own period of millions of years, just that one kind for millions and then another kind for millions until the whole column was built up? Yeah, lots of erosion between the layers. While not underwater then. Somehow pretty level after the erosion anyway since the layer is intact and sandwiched in with all the others...

I guess you guys can imagine things happening over millions of years I just can't imagine happening over millions of years. Obviously I have a deficient imagination. Oh well.

2 BYA: sediments and volcanic material accumulated

Where, under water or on dry land?

1.7 BYA: mountains are uplifted 1.5 BYA: mountains eroded to a nearly level plain

What kind of force could erode those diagonally upthrust strata at the base of the canyon to such level neatness? See, already that boggles the mind. Something ferociously violent had to happen to shear them off like that.

Besides, if normal erosion could do THAT, then what on earth is the problem imagining that it would obliterate a stratum in its formative period, say the first layer that dared to start to build itself up on top of that supposedly flatly eroded mountain?

1.2 BYA: plain subsided; Grand Canyon Supergroup layers deposited 800 MYA: fault block mountains formed 700 MYA: mountains eroded to hilly topography 600 MYA: area subsided; Paleozoic layers deposited 230 MYA: Mezozoic sediments deposited 65 MYA: uplift and erosion of mezozoic sediments

OK. They get eroded out of water. But how did they maintain their horizontal configuration through erosion?

4 MYA: Colorado river began to cut the Grand Canyon; volcanic activity within the last 1 million years in the western Canyon So, you see, there has been erosion of the layers over time. There have even been layers which are now completely gone.

And yet somehow the whole shebang has maintained its overall horizontal stack-of-pancakes configuration.

You also need to know that most of the layers were formed in marine circumstances. Of a total of 15 layers mentioned in my booklet, eight have a depositional environment labeled "sea", one is labeled "floodplain", one "swamp" and one "metamorphosed sea sediments". The other layers are labeled "desert", "disconformity", "the great unconformity", and "molten intrusion".

Yes, I've encountered stories like this. We are to think in terms of landscapes. I find it ludicrous. I get how the idea develops, extrapolating from how each kind of sediment is normally laid down and trying to account for observed irregularities in the layers and certain contents etc etc etc, but I keep coming back to the original overall impression of the layers themselves and making a "landscape" out of a layer of limestone over most of the world or even just the greater Grand Canyon area just does not compute. (And correct me if I'm wrong but it IS supposed is it not that that limestone layer WAS originally there, but was disrupted or erased, as the Geo Column supposedly parallels the idealized Geo Time Table.)

The bottom of a sea is a very tranquil place and can remain that way for millions of years, giving it time enough for sediment to build up undisturbed without being eroded faster than it builds.

So they say. And thanks for filling out the whole scenario. All I can say after all that though is

"A likely story!!"

I found a couple drawings that might help you visualize the Grand Canyon in another way. These take two slices through the canyon and the surrounding lands, one north-south and the other east-west. It only looks at the major sections but you will see similar signs of change and erosion within each major section.

But what is ALSO clear on those diagrams is that the layers through which the Grand Canyon cut are parallel layers and not eroded in any way that distorted that configuration. It's also interesting that they are represented as gracefully draping themselves over slopes without losing their parallel configuration, and continuing intact at the lower level as well for quite a distance. Kind of like the way damp clay can be draped and stretched. Doesn't quite fit the idea of millions of years of formation. First of all sediments don't collect in layers on slopes, so the sloping or sinking or rising had to have occurred to the whole column after the layers were formed, same as the Grand Canyon cut through them after they were formed. Since the slope had to occur after the layers were formed, meaning after the 600 million years, that would certainly suppose the rigid hardening of at least all the lower layers, which would imply resistance and breakage rather than malleable conformity to the underlying terrain as is illustrated here. Suggests the layers were still damp from top to bottom to me, not yet lithified.

You can find the images and write up here

Yes, thank you. MUCH appreciated.

Interestingly, IIRC, you'll find whole sections of rock missing in the Grand Canyon itself. For example, all of the rock from the time of the dinosaurs eroded away and simply isn't present. We know it must have been there at one time because if we wander over into Utah or Montana we can find it present. But erosion eliminated that whole massive section in the Grand Canyon itself. That's why the only dinosaur remains ever found in the Grand Canyon are those that washed in.

OK, tell me more. Are you talking about rock that was originally in layers like all the others, and is found in layers in Utah and Montana? And if so, can you explain how entire parallel layers happened to disappear out of a stack of layers without doing irreparable damage to the overall parallel configuration?

So what is seen in the Grand Cayon cannot be the result of one incident. There are pieces parts missing. It's not a neat, continuous act of creation, rather it's,like life itself, a random record ofconstruction and destruction carried out over billions of years.

OR, conceivably, the record of one humongous catastrophic Flood. Seems to me what you have offered here in fact supports that kind of event a lot better than it supports the scenario you just sketched out.

{Edit to add afterthought: If the idea is that the "missing" layers were eroded away after the underlying layers were formed but before the overlying layers had formed, that's a ferocious lot of erosion being implied there, and what's remarkable about it is that it so neatly removed some layers, but didn't cut a canyon or in any way disturb the parallal configuration beneath.

This message has been edited by Faith, 03-19-2005 11:59 PM

This is a very taxing enterprise I have undertaken here, to answer all these unanswered posts, but it's been illuminating and fun if exhausting.

Yours is next but I have to take a breather.

OK, tell me more. Are you talking about rock that was originally in layers like all the others, and is found in layers in Utah and Montana?

Yup. I'm talking about whole layers that are missing. They are present in other areas and not in the Grand Canyon. The were eroded away.

And if so, can you explain how entire parallel layers happened to disappear out of a stack of layers without doing irreparable damage to the overall parallel configuration?

The same way it always happens. They were eroded.

Erosion happens in different places and in different times and can be caused by different things. The same is true about deposition.

What we find when we look at a column (I hate the idea of a Geological Column, that is only a hypothetical idea and will never be the same in any two locations) is the net results over time.

There are several things at work. There is deposition. It can be from material worn down from somewhere else, material built up by living organisms, layers of magma or conglomerates of other stuff (for example a layer of coal).

When we take a slice at one point you can see the layers. But if we drove 500 miles away and took a second slice, it will be different than the first.

OR, conceivably, the record of one humongous catastrophic Flood. Seems to me what you have offered here in fact supports that kind of event a lot better than it supports the scenario you just sketched out.

Nope. Can't be.

Here's why.

When we compare slices from all over the world what we find is different parts missing. If the missing parts were caused by any one thing, they would show the same layers missing where ever we looked. But that is simply not the case.

Different areas show different events and different results.

{Edit to add afterthought: If the idea is that the "missing" layers were eroded away after the underlying layers were formed but before the overlying layers had formed, that's a ferocious lot of erosion being implied there, and what's remarkable about it is that it so neatly removed some layers, but didn't cut a canyon or in any way disturb the parallal configuration beneath.

You might have a point if anything you said was accurate, but other than the fact that some layers are missing, nothing in the above quote is accurate.

When you look at a period of millions of years you will find a bodacious amount of erosion. And a bodacious amount of buildup as well. And it varies depending on where you look. Every site is different and unique.

There is simply NO evidence of a world-wide flood and lots of evidence that it never happened.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

OK, tell me more. Are you talking about rock that was originally in layers like all the others, and is found in layers in Utah and Montana? ==== Yup. I'm talking about whole layers that are missing. They are present in other areas and not in the Grand Canyon. The were eroded away.

Entire parallel layers, not just one even but several -- two or three or more? On that diagram of nice parallel layers draped over a sloping landscape and cut through by the canyon they just aren't there. Of course I realize that's just a sketchy diagram.

But it certainly does seem to me that if those layers "should" have been there or once WERE there even, that there'd be some evidence at the place in the stack from which they are purportedly missing. Some Geologists think proof against the Flood is that supposedly there is no evidence of one particular layer of sediments they expect would be there, standing out in the stack itself in some way. Well, by the same reasoning it seems to me that a gap as large as the one you are describing would leave evidence of its having once been where you say it should be. But apparently there isn't even a fragment of those layers left anywhere in that entire area, a part that escaped erosion, anything to show it once was there.

And if so, can you explain how entire parallel layers happened to disappear out of a stack of layers without doing irreparable damage to the overall parallel configuration? ==== The same way it always happens. They were eroded.

I gather that this was during the time of their formation, during the millions of years during which the dinosaurs supposedly roamed? Somehow ONLY those layers were eroded away, ONLY those layers? And they were eroded away PERFECTLY, leaving no trace of their prior existence in the stack, none whatever, no lumps to disturb the parallel profile, not an errant stubborn rock or an embedded dinosaur bone the erosion couldn't dislodge? AND despite all that severe erosive activity over millions of years that totally erased multiple thick layers lumpy with dinosaur carcasses, the erosion left the underlying layers completely intact?

This is truly miraculous!

Erosion happens in different places and in different times and can be caused by different things. The same is true about deposition.

Certainly, but it wouldn't occur without leaving a LOT of evidence of its having occurred on such a scale as you are describing.

What we find when we look at a column (I hate the idea of a Geological Column, that is only a hypothetical idea and will never be the same in any two locations) is the net results over time. There are several things at work. There is deposition. It can be from material worn down from somewhere else, material built up by living organisms, layers of magma or conglomerates of other stuff (for example a layer of coal). When we take a slice at one point you can see the layers. But if we drove 500 miles away and took a second slice, it will be different than the first.

Yes, all these facts are far more consistent with the Flood than with the Geo Time Table, or the hypothetically complete Geo Column. The layers that are supposed to be "missing" were simply never there. The idea that they are missing is based on the theory that they represent huge spans of time. But there is no evidence of their ever having been where you say they are missing. One layer sits on top of another without any evidence of an eroded-away layer in between, no hunks of it that didn't get eroded away, etc., and without this supposedly surgically precise erosion having disturbed the layer below either.

OR, conceivably, the record of one humongous catastrophic Flood. Seems to me what you have offered here in fact supports that kind of event a lot better than it supports the scenario you just sketched out. Nope. Can't be. Here's why. When we compare slices from all over the world what we find is different parts missing. If the missing parts were caused by any one thing, they would show the same layers missing where ever we looked. But that is simply not the case. Different areas show different events and different results.

Different areas showing different events and results is EXACTLY what would be expected of such a flood. The layers deposited over the world would of necessity be different from place to place, as they would have carried the contents of the environment from which they originated, probably not have been redeposited TOO far from the original environment unless they were light enough to float great distances. And in that case you'd also expect to find different deposits in different places. There must have been enormous quantities of both plants and animals that washed down from higher places and buried some distance away. There is no reason to suppose that dinosaurs or anything else would have been equally distributed by the Flood throughout the earth for instance. Most were probably buried pretty near where they existed in the greatest numbers.

No, the "missing" layers are evidence AGAINST the Geo Time Table and FOR a great flood.

{Edit to add afterthought: If the idea is that the "missing" layers were eroded away after the underlying layers were formed but before the overlying layers had formed, that's a ferocious lot of erosion being implied there, and what's remarkable about it is that it so neatly removed some layers, but didn't cut a canyon or in any way disturb the parallal configuration beneath. ======== You might have a point if anything you said was accurate, but other than the fact that some layers are missing, nothing in the above quote is accurate. When you look at a period of millions of years you will find a bodacious amount of erosion. And a bodacious amount of buildup as well. And it varies depending on where you look. Every site is different and unique.

Well, I'm following from what you told me about the missing dinosaur layers in the Grand Canyon. As long as you answer in generalities you are not actually answering me. Dealing with specifics, let's look not at a general "period of millions of years" but at the actual strata in the Grand Canyon at the point you claim the dinosaur layers come up missing. Apparently these would have been quite thick layers. Simply applying educated imagination to the situation it seems obvious that had such layers actually existed in the stack at one time, there would be some evidence of the fact remaining, and not just some evidence but quite a bit of evidence. The layers above and below such a large missing belt of sediments would have been seriously distorted at that point -- but for miles in all directions the layers look like they were put there as is. There would have been some remains of the missing layers and there would have been some disturbance to the underlying layers, and not just some, but a LOT.

There is simply NO evidence of a world-wide flood and lots of evidence that it never happened.

The more you guys say about the "Geo Column" the more evidence accumulates in the opposite direction, against the time table idea and for something like a great flood. What's remarkable is that this isn't recognized. What you consider evidence for the Geo Time Table, the "missing" layers, in actuality is anything but evidence for such a thing, it is evidence AGAINST it. The Geo Time Table is simply taken for granted and the idea is IMPOSED upon the actual facts. The facts do not support it.

To repeat:

The idea of missing layers is evidence against it, much better evidence for a flood.

The appearance of malleability of the "column" over a sloping landscape as depicted in the diagram you posted is also evidence against millions of years of formation of the stack as it would have been hardened and not malleable. Better evidence for a flood.

Add that to what I've been maintaining from the beginning, that the relative regularity of the strata in the canyon walls, their parallel configuration, their relatively undisturbed appearance, is not consistent with millions of years of formation, but much more consistent with deposition from a great flood.

This message has been edited by Faith, 03-20-2005 09:32 AM

This message has been edited by Faith, 03-20-2005 09:47 AM