Objections to Evo-Timeframe Deposition of Strata

Well if you understand what you are saying perhaps you can help me out with a few questions.Depositional environments are often (AFAIK usually) underwater. How are rain and wind relevant in that situation ?How do you know that erosion is not taken into account ? Are you claiming that erosion must always overwhelm the rate of deposition everywhere ? Can you support that claim ?Do oyu have evidence that rain and wind are ignored in those depositional environments where they might apply (e.g. that the effects of wind are ignored in dealing with strata believed to be deposited under desert conditions) ?

So in other words rather than actually presenting the views of geologists you are presenting something you yourself made up. I think that explains why it is silly.If you've only got a vague idea about what is actually found in geology and know almost nothing about the actual explanations proposed by geologists then shallow "reasoning" of the sort you've described is not going to be of much use to you.Yet you actually have the nerve to claim:

quote:

---

my main argument is that the Geologic Time Table is such a silly idea on the face of it, just looking at the strata it supposedly explains, it should embarrass scientists to take it seriously.

---

Why are creationists so reluctant to do even basic research yet so willing to throw out unfounded attacks ?

What is obvious is that you think that your inventions are factually true - even though a kind assessment of them would be that they are poorly-founded guesses.

quote:

---

Yes, it seems so obvious to me I think it ought to be obvious to anyone with a little contemplation. I figure scientists are preoccupied with the trees and missing the forest. I really don't see the relevance of any of the rest of the discussions that go on around this subject since it's so obvious

---

What you are saying is that geologists don't know what they beleive and that they must REALLY believe what you say. Well that's pretty obviously absurd.In fact your arguments against mainstream gelogy are hampered by knowing neither the view you are attacking nor the data which is to be explained. And it should REALLY be obvious to everyone that making stuff up instead of learning the basic facts is the wrong way to go about it. Apparently it isn't obvious to you.

*I* raised the fact that depsoitional environments are usually underwater - but that did NOT refer to floods. It refers to environments like lakes and river deltas. And it was referring to the actual views of mainstream geologists against your claim that rain and wind would remove the deposits. Please don't try to turn an exposure of your errors into support for your views - especially when you have to misrepresent what was said.Oh and please drop the attitude that your fabrications are superior to the huge amount of scientific research that underlies modern geology. That degree of arrogance and egotism is not conducive to reasonable discussion - and is quite contrary to the humility (supposedly) taught by Christianity.

Well there's no hope of having a reasonable discussion here. So long as you maintain that your baseless imaginings dictate the truth there's nothing worth saying. If you ever realise that you are an ignorant human being - and not a God as you seem to think - then you can come back here and work to remedy that ignorance.

As I keep saying the issue is that you have NOT bothered to gather any significant geoogical data or any knowledge of geological theory. Then you invent your own parody of the theory and use THAT to condemn the real theory.Now if you weren't filled with false pride then you could at least admit that you don't really know what you are talking about and that it is quite possible that you might be wrong. You might even admit that 2 centuries of scientific work might be a little more solid than the imaginings of someone who can't be bothered to do even basic fact-checking. By any sane assessment those things not only MIGHT be true it is virtually certain that they are true. Unless you really do think you are God or a Prophet or something.

quote:

---

If sediments stack up at the bottom of bodies of water, in layers of different kinds, similar to the pattern of the geologic column, clearly demarcated from each other, why is this NOT good evidence for the possibility that the Geo Column was formed in a worldwide flood?

---

For a start it doesn't deal with the rock formations produced by desert conditions (which the mainstream view has no problem with). Secondly because it doesn't deal with the volumes needed for the flood explanation. Third it doesn't deal with the timescales available to the flood explanation (which not only covers deposition but lithification and subsequent erosion - including major erosion BETWEEN lithification of one layer and the deposition of the stratum [B]currently[\b] directly above it). In short it isn't good evidence for the possibility of the Flood because it says so little and ignores all the reasons why the Flood is NOT a possible explanation.

But it ISN'T significant evidence for one aspect of the flood. It's too broad and leaves out too much. You need to be far less vague and non-specific - as well as complete - to have good evidence of an allegedly global event like the Flood.Quite frankly it's clear evidence of prejudice on your part that you would even try to suggest that this is good evidence for the Flood.And might I suggest that if I really WAS being prejudiced you could actually come up with a decent answer which explains why this should be seen as GOOD evidence for the Flood. Of course you can't because it isn't true.

Firstly you'd better hope that your house is in an area where there's going to be net deposition - at least on average - over that time period. And that nothing else moves the stone (unless global warming prevents it we'll probably get another ice age in that time and glaciers do a lot of erosion and moving stuff around).So, it's possible but you can't count on it. You'd do better choosing somewhere where there is net deposition now (the more the better) as that gives the best chance.

Just saying that something can happen underwater - in an unspecified time-frame is hardly significant evidence that it could happen millions of times faster in a year-long flood.And since there is no reasonable Flood geology explanation of the fossil record appealing to it as evidence of the Flood is just absurd.I do know that when you say that something is evidence it is supposed to SUPPORT the claims. To say that it is GOOD evidence means that it gives strong support. Which means that I understand the concept of evidence better than you.The point of my objections is that you are only dealing with part of the geological record and only one aspect of that - and then claiming that it is good evidence that the Flood explains nearly ALL the geological record. It isn't. It can't be. You need much more.As for the question of rates, you are the one propsing a drastic acceleration - by a factor of millions if not tens or hundreds of millions. And in a time scale of a single year you want strata to be deposited, lithified, and eroded - in some cases even eroded completely away from quite large areas - and for more rock to be laid down on top. If you want to claim that that is possible it's up to you to produce evidence. Simply suggesting that if something can happen given millions of years then it can happen in the single year of the Biblical Flood is not a serious argument.

Did you or did you not claim that the fact that sedimentary rock usually forms from sediments deposited underwater was "good evidence" for the Flood ?

quote:

---

The very EXISTENCE of the amazing worldwide abundance of fossils is EXCELLENT evidence for a worldwide flood.

---

Rubbish. It's not even significant evidence BEFORE you take inot account the aspects of the fossil record that the Flood fails to explain. Moreover by making this very claim you implicitly admit that you ARE attributing a huge amount of the geological record to the Flood despite starting your post by implicitly denying making such a claim.As to the rate of sedimentation, in Lake Suigetsu it seems to have varied between 1.2 to 0.62 mm per year (http://www.cio.phys.rug.nl/HTML-docs/Verslag/97/PE-04.htm ) - but that's sediment. Lithification of sediments often involves compaction so the actual amount of rock that sediment would produce would be lower still.And how can you say that unspecified "effects" of the Flood must have lasted a millenium ? What "effects" and why would they have persisted so long ? And any YEC timescale already has serious problems with dating the Flood (a straight reading of the Bible puts it at around - or even after - the time the Pyramids were built) so adding significant effects lastign a milennium only makes things far worse for your case.Also I must poitn out that I am not necessarily claiming that any particular formation must have required millions of years to be deposited - but that the geological column must have taken that sort of time period to reach its curretn state.

Well so you're flip-flopping between repeating your claim and denying you ever said it. Yet we still haven't seen any good reason to think that such aa superficial look at geology COULD be good - let alone excellent - evidence for any such claim.Why can't local events do justice to the fossils found ? Since some fossils are the result of burial by sandstorms must we assume a global sandstorm ? If some fossils form in anoxic lakes must we assume that the entire planet was an anoxic lake ? And why talk about "extravagant abundance" without producing any numbers at all ? Underwater mudslides are quite good at producing fossils - how many of those happen over the entire planet in the course of a year ? How many are needed to explain that part of the fossil record ? How many would be "extravagant abundance" ?Now you certainly haven't tried to argue fairly that mainstream geology is wrong. Your main arguments have relied on making things up because you're too lazy to actually look at the evidence. And you can't even manage to remember that what I explicitly said that some deposition occurred on land - nor that one of your reasons for rejecting mainstream geology was an assumption that ALL sedimentary deposition occurred on land !And I'm not surprised that you don't understand the problem the Pyramids pose for your dating. Not only do you need a huge workforce to actually build them, but you also need the rock (which according to you shoudl still be soggy mud). But it gets worse - the famous Gizeh Pyramids are not the start of the development of the Pyramiud - they are the height of Pyramid building. They are preceded by earlier attempts which were developments of the still earlier Mastaba tombs.And I will finally point out that depth of water does NOT equate to the rate of sedimentation.

ie. when confronted by REAL facts - not the "facts" you've made up, you call them "preconceptions" and run away.

quote:

---

Oh really? Please list the specific "known facts" which are better
explained by the flood. Be very specific and show both what the accepted scientific explanation is and the "better" flood explanation.

---

I suggest that a good start would be a full explanation of what Faith means when she says that the geological column is found everywhere.{Fixed quote box - AM}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-18-2005 14:42 AM

Now you're being too generous, Newd. Faith is attacking the mainstream theory - and claiming to knwo that the Flood is a better explanation. The fact that she's made up her own strawman version of mainstream geology doesn't seem to deter her (I wish I know what it was about creationists that makes so many of them feel that their opinions dictate reality).