Growing the Geologic Column

Maybe because there is other evidence? We are giving it to you right now. So, contrary to your previous sentence, you assume one event. It's free world. Do whatever you want, but in a debate you should provide evidence to support your position. To not do this is an insult. And yet you have no evidence whatsoever. To me, this is disingenuous.

This is clearly untrue since the Cardenas Basalt flows were deposited in sequence with the enclosing sedimentary rocks.

And this is all according to whom? Again, wrong. THe only thing you know is that the dike is younger than the sediments. It represents a thermal event that may have affected either the source or the reservoir rocks depending on when the oil formed or migrated. So, you have seen actual company sections used for oil exploration? How did you manage that? And how do you judge the 'sketchiness' of the sections? Do you ever judge the sketchiness of your own scenario for geological events? Well, at least you are consistently wrong. I didn't say that relative ages were available to tell which is younger. And what if both intrusive bodies were too old or too young? How would we know?Edited by Admin, : Add missing close quote dBCode.

So, you are not going to answer my question?Evasion noted. So, deformation occurred at the GC in Precambrian time but not at Roraima? Again, that was not my question. What process caused the huge accumulation of sandstones at Roraima?

Again, you assume that there was only one event. What about intrusives that do not penetrate into the Paleozoic and are actually cut off at the unconformity?

I seriously doubt that. I'm quite certain that your mind is closed on the subject.

Of course not. But I think that you mean to say that you do not include any data that is contrary to your odd ideas about historical geology.

And your evidence is not 'interpretive'?Oh, that's right! You don't have any evidence.Why not tell us why our evidence is wrong, rather than just making unsupported assertions? That was provided. Where have you been?

So, you assume that there was a fludde? And yet you have the nerve to complain that we make assumptions?

Of course you don't need it. It refutes your position that everything happened after all sedimentary depositon was over... QED...

But only one side can produce evidence. Well, the evidence is that it looks like erosional surfaces that we see today. But that isn't all, really...We see pieces of the underlying rock in the Cardenas and we also see a baked lower contact and weathering effects. If you have a better interpretations, I'm all ears. And what have you got? Except that we don't see evidence of shearing...Or maybe you have some? I'd love to see it.

You get them from non-humans? Still an interpretation. How do you know that 'global' was not just the 'known world'...I'd say your idea is highly interpretive. I haven't seen that part yet. Maybe what you are thinking actually contradicts God. After all, it is just an interpretation of the Bible.

So are yours. Why do I need divine revelation? Isn't that a potential source of interpretive error? I would be glad to see your interpretation of radiometric ages and the contact relationships at the Great Unconformity...

Why not? What if I told you that I actually had a conversation with God the other day?

No. You will not. It is impossible for facts to overcome a belief system that is based on religious myth. Thank you for making my point. Religious belief always trumps actual knowledge. It also ignores evidence.And no one is trying railroad you. All they want you (or someone else reading this thread) to do is think twice before making foolish statements. We know it will not stop you, but that would be a start. Edited by edge, : No reason given.