Why is evolution so controversial?

The movement of the sea floor is very far from new to me, but in relation to a few billion years of accumulated stuff I forgot that fact, that's all.

I have no idea what this has to do with the situation in the Grand Canyon area where the sediments stacked up three miles deep before the land rose and the canyons and cliffs were cut and the Kaibab Plateau was washed clean for thousands of square miles and so on and so forth. This is erosion with a capital E and it only happened after the layers were formed three miles deep. The whole Geologic Column making up the "Geologic Timetable" from Precambrian to Recent Time is represented in that entire three-mile deep stack (with only a displaced dinosaur layer considered to be a disconformity or some such nonsense) and this Erosion absolutely ended its accumulation which will never be resumed.

So far all you've talked about is subduction, not uplift, so now you are saying the sea floor will be tilted and raised into mountains and that will be a new continent? I don't get it. Tectonic force buckles continental land and raises mountains, it doesn't make continents. The high mountains that have been raised by tectonic force, Rockies, Himalayas etc., are buckled continental land, not former ocean floor. Oh I see, on YOUR model they were once ocean floor. Sigh. On mine they are simply once-horizontal strata full of fossils that accumulated on the land mass that were then tectonically raised into mountains. They never COULD have been ocean floor, they weren't pushed up from such a depth. Sigh. Never ever "forgot" Mount Everest, I've always explained those high mountains as formed by tectonic force after the Flood, including the Rockies which were produced by the same tectonic force that created the Grand Canyon with its Great Unconformity and all the rest of the formations in that area.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'll try to be clearer. I know sediments get deposited in the oceans and elsewhere, and get layered too, but not where the Geo Column was deposited, certainly not building Recent Time periods on top of it, and for the most part nowhere near the same scale, and not to the same depth, and not the same sediments and in other words not like the Geo Column or the Geo Timetable that is imposed on itEdited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Adding new layers to the uppermost Recent Time periods with very very modern fossils in them? Kindly show me any such thing. This could happen. Funny though that it formed over hundreds of millions of years and THEN and ONLY THEN started to disappear, IF it is really the basis for the Geo Timescale.Which of course it is not, and that's the real explanation.

You've really gone full-on, balls-out, batshit crazy, haven't you?

NONE OF IT GOES ON TOP OF THE CONTINENTS. The newly created ocean floor is just part of the MOVEMENT of the continents. Have no idea what you are talking about. Sea floor layers cannot possibly be the Geologic Timetable as I've shown over and over. The occasional fisherman or oceanographer probably. Wonder which will be regarded as the most or least "evolved" a few million years from now.Gee that REALLY clinches it, doesn't it. Must be the Geo Timescale continuing then. NOT ON TOP OF THE CONTINENTS. In that case have pity on me and explain what on earth you are talking about. I've never seen anything about continents being built out of ocean floor. Volcanic islands is It. No, just me. I just hit on this in this thread. Suddenly realized how clear it is that the Geo Column and therefore Timescale has absolutely stopped forming and how absolutely stupid the idea of it continuing on the ocean floor is.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

We all say you don't know shit about Geology. Tens of thousands of Geologists say you don't know anything about geology.Everything that you have written at EvC says you don't know anything about Geology, in spades.The fact that you are trying to defend a childish flood myth, that was disproved 200 years ago, with a hodgepodge of ridiculous assertions demonstrates that you don't have a clue about Geology. 12 years here and you still can't figure out what's wrong.Delusional fantasies and lies will never convince anyone Faith.

You're so cute.

Na, the fact is that I DISAGREE with some Geology and that's what you don't like. I don't toe the party line so I'm crazy. Oh well.

Na, Geology disagrees with you about everything.And I like it. I love it when I can tell people who are wrong, that they wrong.Evidence and reality are the party line.You keep saying you're crazy and we keep saying, "We know!"

Faith said something true!

What you are disagreeing with is reality. You are clinging to your fantasies in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.That's not the sanest of things one can do.

That's one hypothesis for why people think you're crazy. Another is that you're a dumbfuck fruitloop screwball nutjob crackpot dingbat know-nothing batshit cretinous assclown.

Things are totally off-topic, but I can't let this pass: Pretty damn bogus reply.I can't see AT ALL how the deep ocean basin deposition model really has anything to do with any with the sediment deposition of the Grand Canyon area rocks. At best, MAYBE the bottom-most pre-Cambrian rocks that are now high grade metamorphics MIGHT have some sort of deep ocean origins. MAYBE.Moose