Summations Only

The geologic column is worldwide, both land and sea. Here's an image of the geologic column that isn't as pretty as many others, but I picked it because the numbers are larger and you shouldn't have much trouble reading it: The Atlantic Ocean is only around 180 million years old. That means that the Atlantic sea floor closest to the American coast has sedimentary layers that go back about 180 million years. If we were to take cores a mile or two down we would find sedimentary layers from the Jurassic, just like we can find sedimentary layers from the Jurassic in the Grand Staircase region, like the Navajo Sandstone. The geologic column applies to strata on both land and sea.By the way, the Navajo Sandstone contains evidence of Earthquakes. Gee, imagine that, tectonism in the Grand Staircase region while the strata were still being deposited. See Ancient Dunes Preserve Signs of Dinosaur-Shaking Earthquakes.--Percy

In this paragraph you're talking about the fountains of the deep: In the years after WWII the necessities of modern submarine warfare required detailed mapping of sea floors all around the world. It was this mapping effort that provided the clues that led to the discovery of sea floor spreading and magnetic striping and plate tectonics, but one thing that was not discovered was any sign of fountains of the deep. But before the land was covered with water wasn't it denuded of all soil and sediments, which were washed into the sea?I have a question. Today the strata on land are very deep, in some cases two or three miles deep. They're lithified into rock because of the great pressure of being deeply buried. Before the Flood everything composing today's land strata must also have been on the land, again to depths of as much as two or three miles. With the great pressure of being deeply buried why wasn't most of this material lithified into rock, making it impossible for the 40 days and 40 nights of rain to wash it into the sea? You're just going to ignore every time I explain how you don't understand Walther's Law, so there's no point explaining it yet again, but you don't understand it. This is the same issue I asked about above, about why the sediments on land before the flood never lithified, but after the flood washed all the sediments into the sea and then redeposited them on land they did lithify. How could this be? Like HereBeDragons I can make no sense of this. I can't even figure out the right questions to ask. Can you please try again. Well, here's proof that you either a) Don't read what people post; b) Don't understand what people post; c) Don't remember what people post; d) All of the above.Earth's surface at pretty much all times in the past was pretty much like Earth's surface today. There would have been plants and animals and soil and rivers and lakes and oceans and rain and snow and deserts and prairies and forests and all that stuff. Life in the past did not live on a rock. Sedimentary deposits only turn to rock after being deeply buried. This has been explained about a gazillion times. What is your problem?What is "Beach? Covering that much area?" about? Is this about the Tapeats? If so then this has been explained about a gazillion times, too. The Tapeats was created as a sea slowly transgressed from west to east over millions of years. Sand was deposited to depths around a couple hundred feet at the coastline, so as the coastline slowly moved eastward with the sea's transgression it left in its wake a layer of sand a couple hundred feet thick. After maybe twenty million years the sea had transgressed maybe a thousand miles leaving behind it a thousand mile wide layer of sand. There was never any thousand-mile beach.Would you please learn how geology understands Walther's Law to work? You don't have to believe that's really what happens, but it would truly be a great aid to your understanding of what geology believes happened in the past if you understood it. Says the person with a 17 year record of uncomprehension.--Percy

First, you mean stratigraphic column, not geologic column which is conceptual.Second, stratigraphic columns contain many layers smaller than a mile long lake. May I remind you of this small piece of river in the Temple Butte formation: Flat is not a requirement. Whatever becomes buried, such as streams, rivers, lakes, canyons, monadnocks, etc., is preserved in the geological record. But a great many geographic features are destroyed as a sea transgresses across a landscape. The wave action at the coastline is like a giant monster chomping away at a landscape, inch by inch transforming whatever was there into a layer of sand.--Percy

If your idea of a good job is to make a series of mistaken and misinformed statements that are immediately rebutted and then to ignore the rebuttals, then yes, you're doing a great job. How is something as simple as "radiometric decay leaves daughter elements behind" going to be found wrong? Especially when different radiometric elements with different decay times and different daughter elements give the same answers.At nuclear facilities all around the world are huge numbers of spent fuel rods, no longer able to help drive the reactor because too much of the original radioactive element has decayed into daughter elements. It isn't like it isn't an extremely well understood process. The RATE group did not find any issues with radiometric decay. You try to challenge geological science and evolution all the time, you just don't succeed. Your participation here indicates that you understand very little. You mostly repeat tall tales unencumbered by supporting evidence. You only cite the evidence of geology or make things up. Any claims you've made of geological evidence supporting your position have been immediately rebutted, which you either ignore or don't understand. Ignoring rebuttals is your favorite approach - you've ignored 45% of the replies to you, nearly half.--Percy

From Percy's Message 1272Here's a page illustrating a more commonly represented trilobite type in which the genal and pygidial spines are evident. And here's the picture: All it would take is the isolation of a portion of the population in which those features were somewhat larger than in others, so that over generations of breeding within the isolated population they would become exaggerated to the degree seen in the second illustration. This principle of exaggeration of a trait over generations is illustrated by Darwin's breeding of pigeons for that very purpose: to increase a particular trait. The same principle is seen in the Pod Mrcaru lizards through natural selection of larger head and jaw exaggerated over generations of breeding within the new population started with the ten original individuals.At the same time the pleural spines of the trilobite, those "leg" like things, would have been reduced in the original founding group. That's all it takes, isolation of individuals whose features are already exaggerated or reduced by generations of previous isolation events. They are all naturally occurring trilobite genetic possibilities, so they are all the same Kind.There is a great variety of trilobites for sure, but as you look through the images available on the web you should notice that they are all the same creature with different features either emphasized or deemphasized, but they all have the very same features. There is a very spider-like one whose pleural spines look like many long spider legs for instance, but it's still a trilobite and those are its pleural spines. Seems to me the original trilobite genome carried all these possible variations, and processes of selection through isolation over the generations caused the different features to emerge to characterize many different subspecies.And here's an oldie but goodie I've answered a million times already: Sorry but the only way to answer this kind of thing is through incredulity. The idea that this represents an actual riverbed is some kind of joke. A cartoon riverbed at best. It's a trough or a channel cut in pure limestone and filled with pure limestone, both flush with the level of the contact with the Redwall limestone above. This could only have formed during the deposition of the sediments in the Flood, and since it is flush with the Redwall, meaning the Temple limestone doesn't spill over the top of the Muav, that's evidence that the Redwall was already laid down, which is what leads me to interpret the channel as a form of karst cut in the Muav after deposition of Muav and Redwall both. The "landscape" explanation is ludicrous. But I know you'll go on affirming it against all reasonable possibilities anyway.Oh, and the geological column isn't at the bottom of the sea. There was no Atlantic when the strata were laid down, that opened up with the beginning of continental drift at the end of the Flood. Strata laid since then are not the geological column, which is a specific stack of layers with specific fossil contents that was over and done with at the end of the Flood. ALL the strata from Cambrian to Holocene were already laid down when the continents split apart. You might find some in the Pacific I suppose. Maybe, but there too any strata added after the continents split is not geological column. It's like once you've all learned the erroneous Old Earth Geological Timescale your minds are set in concrete and there's no shaking them loose. Sad.From Message 2281 Take the cores then and prove it. You will not find Jurassic fossils or sediment there, because the Atlantic isn't 180 million years old, it only started about 4500 years ago and it took all those years to widen to its present 3000 miles. Do, get some core samples to prove your claim: you'll prove mine instead. Oh and by the way, the Atlantic sea floor spreads in both directions from the Atlantic ridge, so whatever you find near the American coasts should also be found near the European and African coasts. Maybe the Pacific so take some cores there too. But not the Atlantic. Here's that articleTook a look. Lemme see. Earthquake in the Navajo Sandstone that didn't affect the Chinle or the Moenkapi formations beneath it? Or anything below that either? Hm. Kinda odd don't you think? They're finding this "earthquake" in the layers of sand itself? They're blowing hot air. Whatever shaking occurred came after all the strata were laid down. In other words this article is identifying the Jurassic, a time period, with the Navajo sandstone, a rock, as if they were one and the same. Anyone want to try to rationalize this? Let's hear just what relation you all think the rocks bear to the time period. I'll try not to burst out laughing.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

In other words this article is identifying the Jurassic, a time period, with the Navajo sandstone, a rock, as if they were one and the same. Anyone want to try to rationalize this? L

---

No they are not. They claim that the Navajo Sandstone was a dune field during the Jurassic period.Every mention of Jurassic in the article: And the sidebar

quote:

---

Let's hear just what relation you all think the rocks bear to the time period. I'll try not to burst out laughing.

---

The Navajo formation was sand dunes during (part of) the Jurassic period. That’s all they say. They don’t equate the time period and the rocks in any way that is at all silly.Now perhaps you can explain why you have spent years sneering at mainstream geology on that basis of an idiotic falsehood you invented ? Ignoring numerous corrections, too. And why you are trying to prop it up with an obvious misrepresentation.Let’s see you rationalise that.

About the fountains of the deep you say sea floor mapping done in WWII failed to discover any such thing. Imagine that. Did they have any idea what they would look like if they found them? It's not even clear what the fountains of the deep were, and as I said, some think they were volcanoes. Well, there are more volcanoes on the sea floor than on the land, so if that's what they were I'm sure the mappers found lots of them. The idea is that forty days and nights of rain over every square inch of the planet would do something like that, yes, but see below. Well, I've been considering recently how the pre-Flood world is thought to have been lush with vegetation, no deserts or unfertile areas, so if it was completely covered with plant life it would have kept producing new soil, loose stuff rather than rock, and the roots would have done two things: kept the soil from hardening, and held it all together so that it might not have been as easy to scour away even by forty days and nights of rain as I'd been thinking. There still had to be prodigious mud flows but perhaps not to the point of "denuding" the land entirely. And that huge amount of vegetation would account for all the coal found in the strata too.Also, much of the miles deep layers we see now would have been formed from sediments from the ocean rather than the land, the limestones and p;robably a lot of the sand too. So there would be more depth to the land now than before. All that really interests me about Walther's Law is that it is evidence that the rising sea deposits separated layers of sediments onto the land. That's very important evidence.And oh yes I do ignore a lot of what you write because I object to things you say about me among other things. If you want me to pay more attention stop the personal remarks or you'll have to put up with being ignored or answered just when I happen to feel like it. Which of course is possible even if you were always polite, but probably nowhere near as much. See above. Since I don't see a problem myself I don't know what yours is, but I can try again to spell it out.The sea water is rising. It's raining cats and dogs and the sea water is rising. It's ocean so the rising edge is led by waves, that break as they hit the land while the water continues beyond them. Since the water is rising from all directions there is no area for the animals to escape to except whatever inland area is not yet under water. The water continues further onto the land as the sea level is rising. High tides extend it even farther onto the land. It recedes after each wave and after each high tide, leaving new layers of slick wet sediment behind, then returns with a new load of sediment Animals still alive on the land have to keep moving further inland as the water encroaches on their habitats. It takes at least the forty days and nights to cover all the land, with the surviving animals moving ahead of it. Sometimes they get caught, sometimes they don't escape but sometimes some do. Some of them leave tracks in the slick wet sediment left behind as the waves and tides recede. Eventually there is no land left and the water overtakes them, sometimes filling and preserving their tracks and burying the creatures themselves in the latest load of sediment.Sorry if this isn't clarifying. No need for proof, I admit it. That's the party line but the evidence of the strata themselves that supposedly represent such an idea is against it. Flat bald sediment with dead things buried in it is what actually existed at each time period in the past. Sheer fantasy belied by the actual facts. That's for sure. They died in the sediment-laden water that overtook and buried them and later became rock. And they were indeed deeply buried by some three miles depth of sedimentary layers left by the Flood. And it's been answered by me about a gazillion times. What is YOUR problem? That's for sure, there was only sand being deposited over thousands of square miles by the rising Flood -- alternating with silt and calcareous ooze and so on and so forth -- which accomplished the laying down of the entire geological/stratigraphic column in a few months. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Your corrections are all a bunch of ad hoc nonsense. There could never have been any kind of landscape where any layered rock formation now exists. Any identification of rock with time is ludicrous, including any identification with pre-rock "sand dunes" or anything else pre-rock. I hope eventually this ridiculous imposition on the human mind is absolutely and totally debunked.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Thanks for yet more evidence that those supporting the flood are ignorant at best but far more likely simply utterly dishonest. Why would anyone pay any attention to anyone so ignorant as to be unable to distinguish between water and lava or volcanic ash?Fortunately the mappers were not so dishonest or so ignorant that they could not distinguish between a fountain and a volcano.

quote:

---

Your corrections are all a bunch of ad hoc nonsense.

---

Funny how often you object to obvious truths. What I said was neither ad hoc or nonsense.

quote:

---

There could never have been any kind of landscape where any layered rock formation now exists.

---

In your ignorant opinion.

quote:

---

Any identification of rock with time is ludicrous, including any identification with pre-rock "sand dunes" or anything else pre-rock.

---

Identifying sedimentary rick as formerly being sediment is hardly ludicrous, nor is identifying the nature of the deposits through study of the structure and composition. And of course that is hardly identifying rock with time.

quote:

---

I hope eventually this ridiculous imposition on the human mind is absolutely and totally debunked.

---

You can hardly debunk science by telling stupid lies. What does it say about youmthat you’ve been trying to do that for years ? Even when the lies have failed again and again ?And the best thing about this ? You can’t honestly whine about unfairness.

Oh you probably believe your stuff, but I believe mine. Some day yours will be exposed as ridiculous. I hope soon of course.

How will the conventional theories be exposed as ridiculous when all of the evidence supports those theories and no Young Earth Creationist and no supporter of the Biblical Flood has ever presented any model, mechanism, process, procedure or method for either of the Biblical Flood tales to produce what exists in reality or any model, mechanism, process, procedure or method that could explain a Young Earth?

quote:

---

Oh you probably believe your stuff, but I believe mine. Some day yours will be exposed as ridiculous. I hope soon of course.

---

You’ve already been exposed as resorting to misrepresentation to prop up a silly straw-man - and spouting incredibly obvious falsehoods in response (can you really believe that quoting the article to show that you misrepresented it can be considered ad hoc nonsense ?). It’s pretty obvious whose position is ridiculous.In fact it’s ridiculous to even think those things help your position. Before complaining that your arguments are unfairly treated just consider what ridiculous nonsense you do post - and try to defend when it is exposed.

It's ad hoc whether you say it or the article says it. All made up to fit the ridiculous "landscape" interpretation of what is only now a flat sandstone rock in most places, and a water-swirled sandstone formation elsewhere.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

It's ad hoc whether you say it or the article says it.

---

Just how stupid do,you think we are ? Can you really think that the quotes taken from the article were made up on the spot just to refute your assertions about what the article said? Can you expect anyone to believe that ?

quote:

---

All made up to fit the ridiculous "landscape" interpretation of what is only now a flat sandstone rock in most places, and a water-swirled sandstone formation elsewhere.

---

Oh, so you are going to try to pretend that the discussion was about something other than your misrepresentation of the article ? Just another example of your dishonesty. And, of course, what you say just isn’t true even then. The conclusions about the origins of the Navajo Sandstone are based on detailed study of the rock, which is something you have never done.