Objections to Evo-Timeframe Deposition of Strata

quote:

---

I don't understand their objections, for two reasons:

​

1) The strata do show indications of all of the above processes occuring, and yet, there they are. And of course, the strata are neither perfectly homogenous, nor perfectly horizontal. Nor is the column the exact same over all of Planet Earth. So clearly a number of her objections stem from the fact that she clearly doesn't know what the geologic column is.

---

I know all those things. Perfection isn't the point. Forces have acted on them SINCE they formed in some parts of the world but they are clearly horizontal in origin. There is no process that could have created such formations over billions of years, and if this isn't intuitively obvious I think there is a wilful blindness going on.

quote:

---

2) It's your assertion that flooding, among other things, would have prevented strata from forming; your alternate model, therefore, is that the geologic strata were laid down... by a flood? Did that make sense to you when you came up with it?

---

This is not a matter of "marks" that can be "detected" as you put it on the previous thread. ANY of the usual weathering conditions planet earth experiences ANYWHERE over a single year would simply destroy any neat deposition of sediments. These occurring sporadically all over the planet over billions of years would simply have prevented the formation of anything like the geologic column. The only reasonable explanation of such horizontal layers is the tidal action of an enormous quantity of water that ultimately drained away.

quote:

---

Like I said, I don't understand these objections. I hope Faith will join us here to elaborate on them. The only things that seem ridiculous on the face of it, to me, are her ill-conceived objections.

---

Your not understanding them bodes very ill for any attempt to discuss them.

quote:

---

ANY of the usual weathering conditions planet earth experiences ANYWHERE over a single year would simply destroy any neat deposition of sediments.

​

And what weathering processes are at work, say, in the abyssal plain 500 miles off Virginia, or, for that matter, in the center of Lake Huron? Or 50 miles out from the Mississippi Delta? Sure, there is rapid weathering up here on land, but that isn't where most deposition happens.
Do I have to drag Lake Suigetsu into this discussion?

---

The geologic column is worldwide. The question is how anything could have formed in neat horizontal layers over billions of years under normal conditions of surface disruptions as we experience them, normal weather being a constant source of such disruptions.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-17-2005 14:04 AM

quote:

---

Come out to the Texas Panhandle to Palo Duro Canyon and look around. There are hundreds of horizontal layers exposed there that alternate between red siltstone and white gypsum. Gypsum is slightly soluble in water, and only gets deposited in lakes/seas that are drying up. And, again, there are hundreds upon hundreds of layers of it in that canyon alone. How many times did that enormous quantity of water drain and dry?

---

The flood theory as I understand it postulates fine sediments pulverized in the catastrophe being precipitated out in layers with tidal action over some long period of time. But I'd ask how billions of years of undisturbed deposition explains that formation better?

quote:

---

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 ?

---

Great. You agree that it had to occur in water. You are on your way to Flood theory.

quote:

---

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 ?

---

Neat horizontal buildup could not occur under normal weather conditions and other surface disruptions all over planet earth and it wouldn't be matter of taking erosion and other effects into account, it would simply prevent such a formation. Couldn't happen. But of course if you understand that water caused it all, I'm in agreement.

quote:

---

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) ?

---

Just logic as above. Sorry. As I said, the effects of wind and rain etc. in each of the billion years would demolish the whole edifice.

quote:

---

You were asked some very specific questions about weathering in named places. Your response gives no hint that you read them.
Could you please demonstrate that you understand what is being asked?

---

You appear to be talking about underwater locations. I assume the geologic column was formed under water and the layers were not subjected to normal weathering as that would prevent any such formation whatever. Weathering is a problem for any view of its having been formed gradually over time all over the earth in similar conditions to what we now have. I don't see the relevance of referring to specific named places so I didn't give it any thought beyond recognizing that you are talking about underwater locations.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-17-2005 14:22 AM

I don't see the relevance of specific local formations in a discussion of a worldwide phenomenon. I'm sure there are many anomalies that need separate discussion at some point, but your local situation doesn't deal with the general situation of the strata all over the earth that are visible by anyone with two eyes. The idea that they built up over billions of years is untenable to say the least given normal daily surface disruptions as we experience them.I should leave this discussion to you guys as I'm not really interested in it anyway.I have to get some work done.

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

quote:

---

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

---

Maybe I'll do some of the research you suggest eventually, but for starters the situation is stacked against a creationist, requiring of us at least twice the work to get through it than an evolutionist has to do because we have to double and triple-think every item for starters as it's embedded in evolutionist terminology. Then communication is impossible anyway as you have assumptions that laypeople can't penetrate and you aren't interested in grasping ours. You think in all the wrong directions from a creationist perspective. You raise irrelevant detailed questions only to produce endless tedious challenges to Flood theory that nobody could possibly answer since 1) none of us witnessed the Flood, 2) many different local conditions must certainly apply that require expertise way beyond a basic education 3) and many things have happened to the land in various places since the Flood too. Sorting all that out would only be worth it to a person whose life is dedicated to geology. I'm sure there are creationist geologists but they must be preoccupied with other matters than internet debate.Can you say in one sentence how geology explains the worldwide formation of the geologic column?

quote:

---

ANY of the usual weathering conditions planet earth experiences ANYWHERE over a single year would simply destroy any neat deposition of sediments.

---

quote:

---

They aren't neat, though. That's what I'm telling you. They're eroded, they're watermarked, they're twisted and shattered by earhtquakes - they're all the things you say they should be. So what's the objection, exactly?

---

What you are talking about is events that occurred AFTER the Flood -- or, excuse me, after their complete formation over a billion years or more -- and their original layers with their neatness and straightness are discernible after all those events. They are neat over MOST of their extent over the world. They are neat and straight in the Rockies, they are neat and straight in the Grand Canyon and in all the canyons of the Southwest and so on.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-17-2005 15:59 AM

quote:

---

Great. You agree that it had to occur in water. You are on your way to Flood theory.

---

quote:

---

Uh, I don't think anyone proposed that flooding never happens anywhere. But the idea that there was a worldwide flood is untenable on the face of it.

---

Somebody else said it was formed in water, and I've heard that from evolutionists before too. The evidence for a worldwide Flood has been given by others on this site and a lot of it is the very stuff that's used instead to prove the tenets of evolution.

quote:

---

And you never responded to the inherent contradiction of asserting that floods would destroy the geologic column and then asserting that the geologic column is the result of a flood.

---

With all the supposed discussion on this subject around here I'd think you'd know more about what creationists think than that. The worldwide Flood FORMED the column according to creationists. The column could not have occurred according to evolutionist assumptions that claim it took billions of years of slow buildup because normal surface disruptions such as local floods and wind and rain and rivers and erosion and everything else would have prevented it from happening according to those assumptions. There is no contradiction. If evolutionists want to claim that it had to be formed in water, fine, then I offer them the Flood as the best explanation for its worldwide appearance.

quote:

---

*I* raised the fact that depsoitional environments are usually underwater - but that did NOT refer to floods.

---

I don't recall saying that it did. When the other person answered my answer to you he brought up floods. You didn't and I didn't say you did unless I misunderstood who was talking as I'm posting in too much of a rush.

quote:

---

It refers to environments like lakes and river deltas.

---

Fine, it involves water.

quote:

---

And it was referring to the actual views of mainstream geologists against your claim that rain and wind would remove the deposits.

---

I made a quip that as long as you have to have it forming under water you are in line with Flood theory. Especially if you are saying that the entire geologic column all over the world, seen in the strata of mountains and deserts and everywhere had to have been formed that way.And yes I've heard some of this view about water being necessary though the Flood is denied. So OK, nobody thinks it formed by slow increments on land at all. Fine. So it formed by slow increments in water then but only different bodies of water here and there. And its perfect horizontalness and strata demarcations are somehow explained by that.

quote:

---

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.

---

Sorry if I did but I don't think I did. I simply answered somebody else who misrepresented you by misunderstanding my answer to you.

quote:

---

Oh and please drop the attitude that your fabrications are superior to the huge amount of scientific research that underlies modern geology.

---

Research did not establish the idea of the Geologic Time Table. Science did not establish that. Imagination did, and science finds out much truth, no doubts there, but evolution theory has it all captive. I'm sorry. I really shouldn't be in this discussion at all because it is frustrating and irritating. I do think the time table is crazy on the face of it. I'm sure everything else geology does is perfectly good science.

quote:

---

That degree of arrogance and egotism is not conducive to reasonable discussion - and is quite contrary to the humility (supposedly) taught by Christianity.

---

Not necessarily. Humility can say when something seems as silly as the Geologic Time Table.

quote:

---

Somebody else said it was formed in water

​

One part of one layer of the column was proposed to form in water; not the whole thing.

---

More like my original expectation. I'm just going by what you guys tell me as I haven't had the time to do any research on my own.

quote:

---

The evidence for a worldwide Flood has been given by others on this site and a lot of it is the very stuff that's used instead to prove the tenets of evolution.

---

quote:

---

How can evidence of a local flood be evidence of a worldwide flood, especially when such a flood is impossible; not to mention, contradicted by evidence?

---

I didn't refer to a local flood, now did I? I referred to tenets of evolution. Fossils proving evolution. Strata proving great ages of time. Nothing about a local flood. As for the evidence, it's open to interpretation.

quote:

---

Is that what you're saying? That because it flooded somewhere, it must have flooded everywhere at once? How does that make sense to you?

---

This conversation is so confused now I have no idea what you are talking about.

quote:

---

The column could not have occurred according to evolutionist assumptions that claim it took billions of years of slow buildup because normal surface disruptions such as local floods and wind and rain and rivers and erosion and everything else would have prevented it from happening according to those assumptions.

---

quote:

---

How so? Are you proposing that the miles of sediment represented in the geologic column would have simply been suspended in the air and water for all those millions of years?

---

I don't know what you are talking about. But that would certainly be an argument against the evolutionist notion that part of it happened in water over the billions of years.What I'm saying is that it couldn't have been laid down neatly on dry land in the small increments implied by the billions of years it took to build the whole thing, because normal disruptions wouldn't permit it. Such disruptions would have destroyed every increment in the process of formation. It couldn't have formed under normal weather conditions. At all.Rather it had to have been laid down in a much shorter span of time, the one-year period the Bible gives for the Flood perhaps -- and suspension in enormous quantities of water does the best job of explaining its physical characteristics -- with some number of years, maybe hundreds, required for it to dry out and settle down to current conditions.

quote:

---

Does that really make sense to you? That a physical process could prevent deposition, forever?

---

A yearly, say, deposition of very tiny amounts (which is implied by the idea of billions of years to build the whole thing), and this process going on over the entire earth over those billions of years, would be destroyed by the yearly action of all the normal weathering and other disruptions we experience all the time in every part of the earth. You couldn't get the first half inch laid down straight and horizontal before the wind blew it away in one place, and a river cut through it in another and the rain washed it into gullies elsewhere and so on until there's no place on earth it could have survived, or if it did in some unlikely conditions somewhere, the next half inch wouldn't. The earth is going to just sit still for a billion years -- heck, even one year, heck, even one week -- while this quiet sedimentation builds up in neat layers? Isn't that implied by the idea of its being a time table? You can't get the evolutionary line of fossils if it DIDN'T get laid down in slow increments or at least a stratum at a time in one fell swoop and yet there's no way it COULD have been laid down in slow increments, especially considering its layered effect with the demarcations between types of sediment, and considering the fossil content from one layer to another.

quote:

---

If evolutionists want to claim that it had to be formed in water, fine, then I offer them the Flood as the best explanation for its worldwide appearance.

---

quote:

---

No evolutionist is proposing that the whole column formed in water.

---

That's too bad as then they'd be on the right track. (joke)

quote:

---

yet there's no way it COULD have been laid down in slow increments

---

quote:

---

Which is a really funny thing to say, since we observe it happening.

---

Oh well. I give up.

Yes I'm contemptuous of the whole idea of the Geologic Time Table, impatient with the explanations, and just shouldn't be here. But as long as people address me I try to answer. So then is Science God, such that nobody has a right to be contemptuous of its assumptions?

quote:

---

I am not sure why I am bothering to write this reply since you have thus ignored 3 other of my posts in the other thread but I will try again.

---

Unintentional I assure you, and if it's possible, if the thread is still open, I might still try to answer you there.

quote:

---

One thing that others may not have mentioned with great clarity is that we actually can watch things being deposited today. The situation that you say cannot happen we actually observe. We notice a few things:

​

1. Deposition happens both on land and water that results in an accumulation of sediment. This process is slow.

---

Yeah, others have mentioned it, but we're talking BILLIONS of years, BILLIONS, and we're talking the WHOLE EARTH.

quote:

---

2. Weathering is both the agent of deposition and the destroyer of already deposited strata. The process for which you claim would only destroy the column is actually just moving it around a bit. Floods usually deposit sediment for example.

---

Granting irregularities in the horizontal strata, they are nevertheless remarkably straight and horizontal given weathering.Since this all is a matter of imagination on both sides as applied to the idea of the building of the column, there being no way to prove that the depositions you are talking could or could not explain it, you finding it reasonable, I finding it preposterous in the extreme, there is simply no way at all to have this discussion.

quote:

---

3. There is no reason to assume that this way drastically different in the past due to the fact that we can watch the same types of rocks we find that are old forming today. Because we know the earth is old from other evidence we can infer that these processes acted the same way they did back then that they do now.

---

Again, over BILLIONS of years and the ENTIRE scope of the planet you expect this process to continue to the point that the perfect stratifications we see in so many HUGE examples such as the Grand Canyon and the Rockies and the formations of the Southwest etc. etc. etc. are explained by it.Well OK, you believe that, what can I say?

quote:

---

Hope this helps,

​

*hoping he dosen't get blown off again*

---

Granted.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-17-2005 18:07 AM

I don't HAVE the time to do the research you say I should do for starters. Since I don't, of course I shouldn't take the time to argue this at all, but it got started and stuff is addressed to me so there you have it. Out of curiousity I'm sure I will read up on some of the material eventually. I'm sure it will give me a better picture of the history and theory, but I'm very doubtful it will change my basic views. We'll see.I don't know what people are getting out of what I'm saying but it doesn't bear much resemblance to what I thought I was saying, which could be because I'm posting in a rush, but it makes the conversation even more difficult than the expectable difficulties of the nature of the debate.I apologize for my impatience and irritability and bow out until I have more time, more interest, more knowledge.