Summations Only

quote:

---

I m pretty sure I've seen them. And I'm pretty sure they don't tell you what you seem to think.

---

If they're the ones in this post: Message 448 then they do indeed only show age - and that at the level of geological periods.Personally I'd expect to see the following if almost all rocks were deposited by a world-wide flood.1) Evaporites and lava flows which cooled under air would only be seen at the top or the bottom of the column. Neither could form underwater. Undisturbed surface features, coral reefs and developed paleosols would only be found at the bottom. Likewise angular unconformities.2) There would be an upward-fining layer, perhaps a several yards thick containing a large majority of fossils, all sorted hydrodnamically. There would be no unconformities of any sort within this layer. This would be the majority of the3) If the majority of geological features were formed by a flood all mountains should be clearly pre-flood structures, excepting volcanoes.4) Geological evidence of continental drift would be absent. There's no time for significant drift. Any strata matched between continents would simply continue across the seabed, except where they have been pushed apart by rifts, and that for only a few kilometers at most.I will note however that there s a huge difference between trying to imagine what a flood would do, and trying to force-fit the assumption of a flood to our understanding of the geological evidence. Only by taking the former approach can we work out what we should expect to see.

quote:

---

Edge can confirm, but about the layers above the Pensylvanian carbonates, I believe the top layer of the diagram is the actual top layer, and I don't believe Edge was saying that there are layers above that layer today that are not shown on the diagram. I think he was saying that he doesn't know what happened to the layers above, but the undetailed answer is that it was erosion.

---

I think that Edge was only saying that it was unclear what was there today. The datum line represents a past surface, and the diagram isn't meant to show any overlying rock.The lecture material here gives a lot more info.
Salt Tectonics of the Paradox Basin

quote:

---

The term "datum line" was clear from context. It's just that there's nothing in that diagram indicating that the top line is a datum line, that it's just a line of reference and not an actual surface.

---

Edge said that it was a datum line. And I'm pretty sure that he is correct and that there are strata not shown. See the link in my previous post for a load more diagrams.

But why is it evidence for the Flood? Jumping to conclusions about cherry-picked sites and then universalising those conclusions will emphasise the cherry picking and conclusion jumping rather than leading to the truth.So make an honest argument which doesn,t rely on jumping to conclusions, or cherry picking if you can.

quote:

---

How about thinking about the timing, WHEN all this happened, because that has enormous implications for Old Earth theory. Which

---

The timing of the erosion would not in any way affect the time it took to lay down the strata. So no, your argument is false here. More likely in every case the timing of the erosion disproves your views because it started way too early to even possibly fit.

quote:

---

So you all prefer to blow off the obvious implication of the fact that there was no such disturbance for hundreds of millions of years

---

Pardon us for not agreeing with one of your assertions before you even make it, yet alone show it's true,

quote:

---

Every time I see an example of it such as those hills of sculpted strata in the movie I'm struck with the obvious implication that it makes the millions of years bogus and the Flood the best explanation of the phenomena.

---

The fact that you jump to a silly conclusion does kat mean that it is an implied by the evidence. Again you need to make a case, rather than complaining that people don't automatically agree with everything you say.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The MASSIVE erosion of the entire stack of layers all at one time is something else entirely and it's fantastic evidence against the Old Earth and for the Young Earth and for the receding Flood as the source of the massive erosion. Since this is such fantastic evidence it calls all the OE dating into question. And from what you've written here I have to suppose that you don't know what I'm talking about.

---

Perhaps you'd like to support the claim that this erosion happened "all at once" - especially as it's erosion that is still going on. Explain how it's connected to the Flood. And explain how it could possibly be evidence against the old Earth. The strata had to be present before they were eroded. They took hundreds of millions of years to be deposited and lithified. Even if they were eroded "all at once" that fact would not change.