Objections to Evo-Timeframe Deposition of Strata

Wrong.The geologic column is the strata of different kinds of rock (including large percentages of igneous and metamorphic rocks in addition to the sedimentary rock) that forms the sturcture of the upper several miles of the Earth.

There's not enough room on the Earth for all those organisms alive at one time.

The fact that there are literally hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of paleosols with sedimentary and igneous and metamorphic layers between them. Those sedimentary layers took time, millenia, to form; some sedimentary layers can form fairly quickly but many can't. The metamorphic layers also take millenia in many cases. The igneous ones you can have as being deposited fairly quickly (some of it 1.5 miles thick) ... but many of them could not have been formed under water. Nobody's come up with a way that a flood could make a paleosol layer, but if it did, there's absolutely no flood scenario that creates any significant number of paleosols interspersed with such other layers. And you need hundreds of thousands of insterspersed layers. Tell us how that was done in 5,000 years!

It does reveal that one of your assumptions is that you'll avoid using reasoning.

True. However, the bulk of the article is discussing layers (from the heading "Case studies" until the heading "Discussion"). He uses quite a few technical terms, but the fact that you weren't even able to detect that he was talking about layers speaks volumes about your knowledge and ability to concoct a possible hypothesis that's consistent with the evidence.There is indeed no mention of igneous layers. He's talking about groups of related paleosols, formed over a few hundred thousand to a couple of million years. However, in forming any theory about how all paleosols formed, you need to consider the fact that there are igneous and metamorphic layers between paleosol groups. Your scenario needs thousands of occurences of underwater volcanism, underwater formations, subaerial (under air) formations, buried-deep-in-the-Earth formations, all interspersed and formed sequentially in-place (not transported from somewhere else).Don't forget that we can usually tell how the interface between layers formed; we's know if a whole layer were carried in and dropped on top of another. It's called "science". You have to consider all the evidence. You don't get to ignore any of it. If you don't understand it, don't present hypotheses until you understand it and its implications for your hypothesis.We'll be glad to answer questions and point you to places where you can learn. You haven't presented a view of how they could have formed. You've presented a hypothesis about how they may have been transported from one place to another. A explanation with absolutely no evidence for it.When you get around to proposing how hundreds of thousands of paleosols formed, with sedimentary and metamorphic and igneous layers between them, don't forget to explain how layers miles thick and thousands of square miles in area, all much more dense than water, was carried by the flood ... which bent some layers but not others. Not enought millennia in your scenario for them to have formed sequentially ... and the interfaces between layers show that they formed. You need to understand "conforming interfaces". How? They don't float, you know ... and they're pretty strongly rooted in the Earth. How many miles thick is this layer that you think was carried by the flood?But the point is that there are igneous layers that formed underwater interspersed with layers that formed under air interspersed with sedimentary layers that fored under water interspersed with sedimentary layers that formed under air interspersed with metamorphis layers that formed deeply buried in the Earth and so on. How did they form? How did their interfaces form with such conformance? Carrying them around on the flood-waters-bus isn't worthwhile until you propose how they came to be. Yes. Jeez, you really don't know anywhere near enough to be capable of forming a possible hypothesis. Crudely put, lava cools faster underwater than in the air, and cools faster in the air than magma does underground, and the particular minerals formed and the particular crystal structures are characteristic of the environment in which the igneous rock formed. Yup, you assume that. Now let's see you explore the consequences of this assumption, the mechanisms by which it could have happened, and the evidence which indicates that it actually did happen. Thre's nothing to address. As you wrote just above, all you've got is an assumption. When you present some analysis and evidence then there may be something to address.

Yup. The evidence clearly shows that. Because, for example, you need a layer of topsoil to form in the air (taking millennai), then you need a layer of clay formed by a freshwater river (taking millennia), then you need a layer of marine limestone (formed in a saltwater environment, taking millennia), then another topsoil layer formed in the air over millenia, then a layer of desert sandstone (forming over millennia), then a layer of marine sandstone (forming over millenia), then several thin layers of lava that formed under air, then some pillow lava that formed underwater, then another layer of paleosol that formed under air (taking millennia), and so on for thousands of layers. Oh, don't forget that the interfaces between layers and plutons intruding into layers and what-not show clearly that the layers formed sequentially, one on top of the other in-place, no transport of layers from one place to another.

Not ntecessarily. Only those who insist on worshiping the Bible instead of God. Sorry to be so harsh, but that's the way it is. I trust what God wrote. God wrote the rocks. Man wrote the Bible.The story of Noah is an important one with many lessons we would do well to heed. It's not history.The great geologists of the 18th and 19th centuries were all sincere Bible-believing creationists who started with the assumption that much if not all of the geologic evidence was the result of a global flood. By about 1820-1830 they had given up on the idea of a global flood making any significant contribution of the geologic evidence, and by about 1840-1860 they had given up on the idea of a global flood. And this was long before we had absolute radiometric dating methods!The evidence is clearly inconsistent with a global flood at any point in the geologic column.If there was indeed a global flood, then God spent a lot of effort purposefully arranging all the physical evidence to lie to us. I and many Christians choose not to believe in a liar God.For information on early geologists and their findings, see Hugh Miller -- 19th-century creationist geologist and A Flood Geologist Recants. For the testimony of some modern-day creationists who have examined the evidence and come to the only posible conclusion after doing so (but maintained their faith and Christianity), see About the Author (and some of the other material on his site, includingMorton's Demon ), The Testimony of a Formerly Young Earth Missionary, and What is the Inspiration for the Genesis Panthesis Website?You're not going to get any such proof. That was clear 200 years ago, and has only been reinforced by what we've learned since and the feeble and often dishonest efforts of "creation scientists" to claim that there is evidence for a global flood. The only way you're going to maintain your belief is by ignoring what God wrote in His creation. I wonder what He thinks of that.

Faith didn't write "create", she/he wrote "carried". Faith thinks that the layers were formed in some way before the flood, then got on the magic flood bus and were deposited whole, on top of each other, like building a stack of pre-formed pancakes. A hypothesis almost worthy of "simple" or "whatever". Magically formed cross-bedding. Note the angle of the layers on the left side of the picture, and the angle of the layers on the right side; almost 90 degrees to each other. If the Flood does this sort of thing, why do we find so many layers that are not bent like this? "Flood-formed dike" (magma intrusion into previously formed sedimentary layers, crossing layer boundaries). The black material was added after seperate layers formed together (note the white-orange layer boundary at an angle of about 15 degrees going up left-to-right). Three Dike Hill in West Texas, showing large dikes "formed by the flood". The three dark brown stripes going up left-to-right at a steep angle are solidified magma which crossed several very different layers, each composed of many similar layers (the layers are near horizontal). The magma must have intruded after the layers were together, and must have intruded after the layers had lithified (turned to stone), and each layer took far too long to form to fit into a 5,000 year scenario. Schematic image of a dike such as those at Three Dike Hill.The hypothesis of layer stacks formed by moving layers from one place to another like pancakes is falsified.{expanded descriptions of pictures and added a couple}This message has been edited by JonF, 02-21-2005 12:45 AM

I don't agree. Certainly most creationists who come here are ignorant of science and evidence, but that's not why they hold the views that they do; if it were, they'd change their minds (as a few do) when they learn. IMHO most creationists, whether they come here or not, hold their beliefs out of knowledge. Sure, certain, knowledge. They know, beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt and as Faith explicitly said, that the Bible (or at least their interpretation of it, which they seldom acknowledge) is correct. Again IMHO, I think that many of them think that way because it's comfortable to have no uncertainties; follow the God-recipe, add exactly the right amount of prayer-eggs and church-attendance flour and bake in the one true church and presto -- eternal life in Heaven.The fact that their knowledge is contradicted by all that God has shown us in His creation doesn't bother them.The one thing I don't really understand is why they want the imprimatur of science. Sure, science is venerated (in a manner of speaking) in our society, but if they can ignore all the evidence that they do, not even looking at rocks as they drive by them in highway cuts, why can't they ignore this as well?

I'm certainlly willing, but might it not be easier for someone with the mighty powers of Admin to do it?

I think that's a bit of an overstatement; we don't know that the scientific method gives us the "correct" answer or even the "Truth". We know that it's internally consistent and works and has practical value. Good point, but I don't think that's all of it. I get the impression that many really want the validation that being officially admitted to the Science (definitely with a capitol S) venue would yield. Agreed, it's going to fall apart, and IMHO is beginning to fall apart. You probably have seen these, but I'll repeat them here: The Design Revelation
Morris on Dembski
INTELLIGENT DESIGN'S CONTRIBUTION TO THE DEBATE OVER EVOLUTION: A REPLY TO HENRY MORRIS