Objections to Evo-Timeframe Deposition of Strata

But you have already been told that is not what happened. There have been one period of orogeny (mountain building) after another for 100's of millions of years. As you were told before the Appalacians were from a previous time of upheaval on that side of what is now north america and for 250 million years have been wearing down.You seem surprised that this has only just happened. Well that is not what happened so there is no need for surprise.You also seem to be surprised that there are enough quiet times in a place here and there around the world to allow for sediments to build up. A few millions or 10's of millions of years of "quiet" is enough to build up rather a lot and that is not very long when we talk of coninents moving across the planet. The time scales involved are on the order of 100's of millions of years between events like a new round of orogeny.The nice flat layers are not "all over the world" in one great set of layers. They are different in different places laid down at different times. Some are still pretty flat, some very much not so flat any more.You are coming to the wrong conclusion because your facts are wrong.Edit ti fix dumb spellings.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-20-2005 10:08 AM

A powerful approach to sorting things out is not focussing on looking for evidence that supports a view. It is trying to find ways of showing conclusively that an idea is wrong. Generally, while you can get to be very, very sure that something is right you can never be 100% certain that a complex model is totally correct. Even when there is an enormous amount of evidence supporting it. You might be 99.999% sure but not quite 100%.However, you can sometimes use a smaller amount of evidence and be even more sure that another idea is wrong. This is the case with the flood model.You are the one that suggest that creationists explain the whole of geology by a catastrophic flood. In fact, some of them, at least, do not. There are too many pieces of individual evidence that exclude that idea.One you have been given: the paleosoils. They are simply not possible in the middle of one giant flood laid down layers. So the idea that you suggest creationist have is wrong. That is settled.Now we need to have a modified model that might acoount for that. When you find out what creationists might be saying then we can discuss it.The idea that the mountains arose quickly doesn't work out very well. Imagine the number of huge earthquakes there would be for one thing. There is a lot of heat energy involved as well. With some care in thinking through the details that is another model that doesn't stand up.The dating of the different formations to vastly different ages also shows that they did not all happen at once. Nor did they happen 4,500 years ago. The flood model for tectonics is simply wrong.ABE No, there isn't!There is a conflict between a paritcular interpretation of Genesis and the real world. As Galileo put forward 400 years ago if there is a conflict between the real world and the Bible it is the interpretation of the Bible by humans that is wrong not either the Bible or the real world.For some reason, that many find very hard to understand there is a minority cult of Christians (and other religions ) that we tend to use the term "creationist" to label that say if their specific personal interpretation of the Bible is wrong then the whole message of the Bible is false. My Christian friends (and other believers here) find this appalling. It is obvious to me and other believers that this isn't the intended use of the Bible (as a science text). Most of us here do NOT think that showing creationists interpretations to be wrong says any thing about the existance of God. However, creationists seem to think it does. Very strange they are.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-20-2005 18:08 AM

Of course, and since many creationist decided they could not do that they modified the flood model to something different.Until a better model is constructed science will stick to the best available one. That is the current consensus model and there isn't any real competition that I'm aware of. The single, world wide, 1 year, catastrophic flood isn't it. Are you? What is it that makes you object to it? So far you simply seem to find it hard to accept or believe but don't have any reason that I have seen yet.It was clear to people who looked closely that the time scales were large and long before we had good measurements of the actual time. I'm sure some of them found it hard but they realized they had to take it as it was. You have no real reason not to follow the same path. No, one side is not allowed to imagine. No one gets anything accepted in the sciences without good reasons that go far, far beyond imagination.But try imagining earth quakes happening a rate 1,000's of time greater than they do. We would get a quake like the Dec 26th one everyday. It isn't insulting to geologists, it does say something about your reasoning.

Your explanation does not begin to cut it.These are fossilized soils. They have very specific characteristics including plants and all. They can NOT have been layered out of flood waters. They are NOT a layer of messy mud.That is the point of what you linked to.

, remember that many creationists have given up the one big flood being responsible for everything? That is because they recognize that this is an utterly ridiculous idea.The others seem to just pretend that the paleosoils aren't there. No, each layer had to have millenia to form, then others layers on that, then other layers all in the flood. Remember you said the flood created all of the layers. Then after the flood there has been millenia. AFTER these were supposed to have been formed and buried.You should be getting a bit embarassed by now for not thinking this through.

Carried intact!!!! ????In a catastrophic flood? And not just once but 1,000's of time?These layers are a lot more than a turf roll. Do you think a turf roll would be "carried" at all? Intact? Laid down in one piece? Then it happens again with another layer?If you step back a bit you might begin to get a glimmer of how embarassing it is for the majority of Christians to have some of the loudest Christians making statments like this.Give a moments thought to what would happen to a "turf roll" in even the most gentle of floods. Now think about a large area in the greatest catastrophe that ever occured. Geez.

No, that is clear. You are not about to take in any new information. You have made that abundantly clear in all the threads you have been in. That is why I've stopped bothering with you.

Oh no! Those who are aware that a flood didn't happen don't interpret that Bible at all. They simple take the simple statment of those like you who say a flood happened and then show it didn't.There is plenty of interpretations of the Bible by those who are trying to say a flood did happen though. Walt Brown and his hydroplate "theory" being one of the wilder "interpretations".There seem to be rather a lot of different interpretations by those that believe a flood happened.I think the only thing that those who understand geology get from the literalists is that a global, short term flood happened only a few thousand years ago. Do you object to that "interpretation"?That is the "interpretation" that has been shown to be wrong. It is the one that was initially discarded by Christian believers in the Bible about 200 years ago. It is still rejected by the majority of Christians and the vast majority of scientists who are Christian.

I don't understand what you are saying Crash. If a layer is underneath another one then, of course, it was laid down before the higher one. The processes, as I with no geology understand them, would lay one layer down and then some conditions change which produce the next.One problem that seems to be missed is that the calculated rate of deposition is a long-term average. I'm not sure that is relevant but may be confusing.Another is the time allowed for the deposition; we know that sedimentation can go on under water for millions of years if the water body stays in place. I don't know why Faith hasn't gotten that message yet.(as a tiny aside I noticed (I think it was Faith) makeing a comment on "bowl shaped" deposits when valleys and lakes were mentioned. My impression was that he felt the layers should each have a curve to them to conform to the "bowl" rather than the totality having bowl shaped boundaries(maybe I am misreading). If this is the level of thinking you are dealing with you may have to go much slower and in very little steps (short words might be a good idea too). I'm not sure what is meant by "at once" but isn't this the standard geological model? A lake or ocean sits in place for 1,000's to millions of years and layer are placed at it's bottom by changing circumstances at the source of the sediments. I don't understand your exact objection. What are you reading into Faith's statement that I am not?Faith's problem seems to be that he can not believe any such relatively undisturbed circumstances can exist for millions of years. Since we see ocean bottoms getting steady layers of sediment and have no reason at all to think that they can't last for millions of years I don't see how he can conclude that. Just what model to you think Faith is putting forward and what are you saying actually built up the sediments that the canyon cuts through. I'm not sure what you mean by "not neat". There are, it seems in pictures, areas that have many horizontal layers. The big picture is one of 10's of millions of years of "neatness". I think what Faith is missing is that there are details within those layers showing some episodes of weathering etc. However, again, it comes back to his inability to accept a sea staying in place for a long time? At least that seems to be the heart of it. I have no idea why he doesn't like that. Isn't Faith saying that we require that there be consitions allowing for sedimentation that stay in place for millions of years? Isn't it that simple.If the layers have no erosional unconformities (see me try to use a real geology term ) isn't that exactly what we are saying? So what is your objection?Meanwhile, I don't understand why Faith thinks that such conditions can not stay in place for as long as an ocean does. Perhaps he can explain that.