Objections to Evo-Timeframe Deposition of Strata

There have been many changes on the surface of the "geo column" since it was formed. This is one of the things that makes the idea questionable, as such after-the-fact changes have made parts of it "anything but nice and neat" so that given all the changes one has to imagine happening on this very active planet (assuming uniformitarianism, or the idea that all is the same as always) it is hard to see how ANY of the column survived ANYWHERE.Unless you are putting ALL of it under water, you have to imagine a pretty uniform flat surface for neat layers to accumulate on, but in fact you don't see that in most parts of the world. The world is pretty lumpy and bumpy, and any layers accumulating on it would be very irregular. Everybody here says oh but the layers ARE lumpy and bumpy, but no they are not. The pictures given to prove that they are in fact prove that they aren't -- they are pretty much NEAT AND PARALLEL and altered only AFTER THE FACT. The funny thing is a picture somebody posted of a few layers in a road cut I think, showing a slight waviness. But the waviness is exactly parallel from one layer to another. If these were built up over time, sediment would have settled off the high point of the wave and it would not have been echoed in the next layer up. It couldn't happen anyway over the huge time spans people are assuming. It just couldn't. Under water only, and even then there are questions about the time frame.Even the flattest prairies and deserts aren't as flat and horizontal as the geo column layers. Certainly the neat layers accumulated before the mountains were formed, since there sure are many neat parallel layers in the high mountains everywhere that were clearly there previous to the mountain-building forces. Etc etc etc.Anyway, despite these differences over distances, nevertheless you postulate that there has been this slow accumulation over millions of years, and that this accounts for what is VISIBLE of the so called Geological Column, and I say such a model boggles the mind for just the visible portions. And in fact you postulate that the same slow buildup has in fact occurred everywhere, only local conditions have un-neatened some of the evidence. Still there is an enormous amount of visibly layered land on this planet, with tons of fossils in it. (And I have the impression that it is only since creationists have been hammering at evolutionism that the emphasis on local effects has been getting such air time as it were. Almost sounds like geologists are abandoning the concept of the Geo Column bit by bit.) Not sure I'm getting the picture here, but yes, I've acknowledged that there are certainly local conditions that interfered with the formation of neat layers and certainly rearrange them afterwards, so your observation doesn't go either to evolutionism or creationism. The problem is still to account for the neat straight parallel layers. Can you account for all of them wherever they exist? (And a lot of it is only "seen" when wells are drilled, right? It may not be "visible" but it's pretty much everywhere in one condition or another), beneath those prairies and deserts for instance. No. I'm looking at MANY layers parallel to EACH OTHER. Is there a geological formation anywhere of ONE layer cutting diagonally through the others?[Edited to restore a quote that got erased somehow]This message has been edited by Faith, 03-14-2005 06:25 PM

No, it isn't off topic because we can certainly discuss the fact that the geological record is so unlike the expected result of a worldwide flood that geologists abandoned the whole idea that such a flood left any clear record at all. Agassiz (himself a creationist) laid that idea to rest back in the 19th Century - and the idea that the Flood accounted for the majority of geology was abandoned well before that.We can even discuss the geological evidence.You can even admit that you were wrong and that you really meant to state that you personally had no doubt that the Flood happened. Simple clarifications like that are fine.The off-topic part is your appeal to the Bible.

quote:

---

No. I'm looking at MANY layers parallel to EACH OTHER. Is there a geological formation anywhere of ONE layer cutting diagonally through the others?

---

There are certainly igneous intrusions into sedimentary rock. But I would be surprised to see a distinct layer of sediment cutting diagnoally through others. How would such a thing form ?

No, I wanted to be more definite, because the word of God IS the word of God, and that is my assumption just as evolutionism is yours. The facts supporting the Bible as the word of God are tremendous. And it was accepted as such by if not a majority, certainly huge numbers of people in Western civilization until quite recently, and without that belief science would never have begun.So I'll repeat: There IS no doubt that the Flood happened as God said so.Now, the fact that YOU don't believe and see no evidence for it doesn't matter to the discussion. You would just as easily say that there is no doubt that evolutionism is true, in fact wouldn't you?I believe if God says something that's better than anything science can say, and certainly if science contradicts God, so much the worse for science. I'm quite sure you could reverse the formula in favor of your own beliefs, saying science is better than anything a God you can't prove would say, and if that unprovable God contradicts science, so much the worse for that God. So I'm doing nothing different than you are doing as far as our assumptions go. You don't assume you can prove evolution by declaring it, you expect to prove it. Same for a Bible-believing creationist. I haven't appealed to the Bible at all. I answered some erroneous remarks about creationist belief by others here and that is all I have done, and the admin people declared THEIR remarks off topic. In answer to them I have stated my assumptions, my starting point, but I do not make them part of my argument and I don't try to prove them either. They are a given from which I work, period. You are not required to accept them as all I am presenting to you is thoughts about the geological column etc. The Bible is not open to discussion. Do try to grasp this. It's pretty elementary logic.

They had a lot of wrong scientific ideas in the 19th century.

Ask Jazzns. It was his idea. I said it was impossible too.

The Unconformities and the age of the Earth: Challenge to Anti-Climacus and other YECs topic may or may not be what you're looking for.Warning to those with slow connections (like me) - Graphics at the topic cause the page to load slow.Warning to those with slow brains (like me) - Uh, I forgot what I was going to say. Moose

But this is PRECISELY the problem!!!!! The ones below were once the ones on top which you admit are moved around by weathering!!!!!! EVERY layer of deposit in this notion that it took millions of years to build them up is EXPOSED TO WEATHERING before another is laid down on it. Presumably this happened to each and every inch of each and every stratum. THINK OF THE VAST TIME FRAMES YOU GUYS ARE BELIEVING IN. This is NOT happening lickety split. It is happening at an unbelievably excruciatingly slow pace, so that every deposition has oodles of time to be messed with by the elements. And THEN you have this other ridiculous idea that SOMEHOW at SOME point after aeons of slow deposition this very slow even process of deposition SUDDENLY switches to SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-14-2005 06:54 PM

No, JazzNS did not refer to a layer cutting through other layers.What he referred to was a layer that was deposited on a sloping surface and was therefore at an angle rather than exactly level.

The pictures are nice. I like all the pictures everybody has put up. But it was jazzns who suggested the possibility of a diagonal layer through an otherwise horizontal "layer cake." The pictures you posted show something happening TO the layers, but it's not the same idea I got from him, and speaking of forgetting everything i've forgotten why he brought it up. It didn't seem relevant to me at the time.

At an angle to what? To the "layer cake" according to him. I am talking about the multiple PARALLEL strata, layers all over the earth. He brought in this single diagonal "layer" idea. I have no idea why he brought it up, it is irrelevant. And please would everybody address HIM about it instead of me for that reaason.

So lets sum this up:1) You demand respect for your beleifs - to the point where nobbody is allowed to post a dissenting opinion. But you won't accept that anyone elses beleifs are even relevant.2) You refused to discuss legitmate material the groudns it was "off-topic" but when corrected you insist on dragging in material that really is off-topic.3) You appeal to the Bible - or rather you preferred interpretaion of it as proof of the Flood - and then deny appealing to the Bble.If you REALLY think that you can offer this "tremendous" proof that the Bible is the "Word of God" then feel free to start a thread on it. But I strongly suggest that you actually educate yourself on the subject first.

At an angle to a "flat" suface, of course.The fact is that Jazz' proposal was perfectly fine. Your idea about a layer cutting diagonally through other layers was dubious. Which is why I asked you to explain why it was relevant. Turns out it was just a rather obvious misinterpretation in your part.

Yes, the Bible is true no matter what. There is no doubt. I'm not asking science to rely on anything but in fact all the thinking that is done in science IS based on faith in evolutionism, in old earth etc etc. You'd say "Evolution is true, no matter what." You think you have the best of all reasons, scientific proof. I think the proof is very iffy, and I think I have better reasons for my belief --God Himself said it. But again, I'm telling you what I believe only because others here were wrong about what I believe.If you don't yet see evidence for the Flood that doesn't mean there is none. You are operating from a contradictory paradigm from which it would be HARD to see evidence for the Flood. All your assumptions militate against the idea. A great deal of what is said against my posts on this thread comes ONLY from prejudice against creationists but it would be hopeless to point that out to you. But you don't find valley shapes and bowl shapes at the bottom layers. You find neat parallel layers. You don't find layers thickening and thinning in a given formation, you find neat parallel layers. In the Grand Canyon you find neat parallel layers at the very bottom tilted diagonally and apparently sliced off by the neat parallel layers horizontally arranged from there on up. You don't find dips and valleys throughout the layers. Where you do find them they are usually obviously something that happened AFTER the layers were formed. Unconformities and disconformities are events that happened TO the layers after they were formed.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-14-2005 07:42 PM

Why WHAT was relevant? I don't HAVE an idea about a (single) "layer cutting diagonally through other layers." You are creating a huge confusion here out of nothing. JAZZNS brought this up out of the blue for all I know. There are diagonal layers in mountains caused by the force that thrust up the mountains. Sometimes you see them butting up against layers going in another direction, but they are MULTIPLE and not cutting THROUGH anything and I have NO idea why this is even a topic!!