Growing the Geologic Column

It is the opposite that is true. The strata and fossils rule out any possibility for a global flood 4300 years ago. Such a hypothesis stands in opposition to all evidence, and the necessary sorting of fossils, nests, burrows, footprints and radiometric material goes against the laws of nature. No, we are not reinterpreting anything to suit ourselves. Please stop casting accusations. We are interpreting ancient evidence in light of the processes we see taking place on the Earth today. It is obvious that the stratigraphic layers of geologic columns all around the world represent the lithified ancestors of layers we can see forming today. Yes, most sedimentary layers are marine, but the scale is the same as what we see taking place today. Here again is the image of kilometers-deep sedimentary layers forming today. I know the first time I posted this you replied that it doesn't show sedimentary layers forming today, but this is the Gulf of Mexico off the Texas/Louisiana coast, and it is well know that sediments are accumulating at a rapid rate in the Gulf. The Mississippi dumps into it after all, the Gulf is where all that sediment goes, plus there's all the runoff from land: Except that instead of a random distribution the fossils are sorted by difference from modern forms, and appear in sedimentary contexts consistent with their type instead of being the jumbled mess a flood would produce. Except that we can explain the evidence in terms of geological processes known to be at work on the planet today, and consistent with the known physical laws of the universe. You can't.--Percy

Evidence can only be reinterpreted in light of new insights or new evidence. You have neither.--Percy

If I understand the point you're trying to make, Message 372 is better.Don't know why you said "#381". Saying "[msg=381]" will create a message link.--Percy

Again, it really causes a lot of problems when people try to invent their own personal definitions of terms that have already been defined within scientific specialties. The geologic column already has a definition. Are you skipping posts again? See Message 372 for a bunch of examples.Why do you keep saying the same wrong things over and over again, forcing people to present the same rebuttals over and over again. I do see now that you did eventually reply to Message 372, several hours after this message. Maybe you're reading the thread out of order?--Percy

To paraphrase what PaulK so aptly said, you spend all your time asserting your positions and none defending them.No, Faith, they are not what only the Flood could produce. In fact, they must be some of the least likely things a flood could produce.You are queen of the pronouns (sometimes I have to go back several paragraphs to figure out what "it" refers to) and of the one-sentence-response-with-no-quote, so let me clarify for everyone that you were referring to the strata and fossils of the geologic column.--Percy

In case we're unsuccessful in convincing you to stop inventing your own definitions for terms already defined, it would be helpful if you could from time to time repeat your definition. Now would be a good time for me for seeing your definition of the geologic column. I'm still way behind in the messages, but I'll catch up eventually. They aren't our definitions, either. They're the definitions of the field of geology, which we've all adopted because we're interested in communicating clearly. If we disagree with any terminology (for example, HBD and I would prefer that the definition of the geologic column include intrusions, but it doesn't, so too bad for us) we don't go around changing the definitions.It is readily apparent that you're changing existing definitions so that you can then claim the world can only work the way your definitions say it can work. Better would be to simply figure out how the world really works.--Percy

Can you explain this in a way we can understand? In the way you've stated it here it sounds like you're saying that your own personal definition of the geologic column excludes tuffs, so that if we bring you evidence of tuffs in the geologic column then because your definition excludes tuffs that therefore those tuffs are not really there.Which makes no sense, of course, so what is it you're really trying to say? The tuffs are there, deposited at the same time as the sediments they lie with, following the Law of Superposition, and in concordance with the geologic timescale. How could they not be part of the geologic column? What feels nitpicky is your definition of the geologic column. It seems designed to provide the support for your views that the evidence doesn't provide.In scientific fields we invent terms to describe the objects and processes we observe. You seem to be defining the geologic column in a way that doesn't accurately describe anything in the real world.--Percy

Faith, please, enough with the Bible. Citing the Bible is just the fallacy of argument from authority. You need evidence. Where the Bible is true the evidence will attest. Where the Bible is false the evidence will also attest. The Bible doesn't need you torturing definitions and evidence in its defense. It's perfectly capable of defending itself. The Bible speaks to people ready to hear its message, and it isn't one of fossils and strata.In this thread, a science thread, we should keep our focus on the evidence and on the arguments, hypotheses and theories constructed around that evidence. Edge was only rhetorically asking why you want to rely on myth. At heart it was a plea to please focus on the evidence.--Percy

Okay, good, you agree this image represents a geologic column: As I said, I'm providing evidence that sedimentary layers are still accumulating atop the geologic column today. This diagram is of the Texas/Louisiana coast where sediments are rapidly accumulating in the Gulf. Those are the sediments labeled Plio-Pleistocene in the diagram. Here's the diagram again. I've drawn a box around the fault in question, and I've labeled the top two layers on opposite sides of the fault with the letters A and B: First, if the fault extended higher than shown on the diagram then the diagram would show the fault extending higher. The diagram does not show the fault extending higher, and so the fault does not extend higher.Second, you know that the fault does not extend higher because the discontinuities on opposite sides of the fault only extend as far as the fault, which is the definition of a fault. The Paleocene/Eocene layers labeled "A" have a discontinuity at the fault, and the Oligocene layers labeled "B" have a discontinuity at the fault, and part of the Miocene layer has a discontinuity at the fault. The fault therefore occurred during the Miocene era and does not extend at all into the Plio/Pleistocene layer, because that layer did not exist when the fault occurrred. Had the Plio/Pleistocene layer already been present when the fault occurred then the discontinuity would have been present in that layer, too.Notice the fault on the far right is very similar, extending only partway into the Miocene layers.Notice another fault in the basement rocks near the far left.These faults are all examples of tectonic activity before all the layers were laid down. We know these geologic structures cry out "Flood!" to you, but they cry out "millions of years of slow sedimentation" to everyone else, and we provide evidence for that view while you provide none for yours. Yet another bare assertion. It's been shown many times how you're just making things up based on your personal interpretation of ancient Biblical mythology, while we've presented the evidence behind the geology many times. About the only thing you've been able to muster on your behalf is your startling ability to ignore and misinterpret evidence.--Percy

Instead of telling us it's "plain glaringly obvious" you must explain the interpretation of the evidence that makes clear how it's "plain glaringly obvious." This would require providing an explanation consistent with what we already know about geologic processes and with known physical laws, something you've never been able to do.--Percy

Hi Faith,Now you're not making any sense. First in Message 270 you say you're looking for evidence that there was onlh one intrusive/extrusive event: And now you say you have tons of evidence for it: Aside from this one among many contradictions, the conclusion that you have no evidence supporting your ideas is inescapable. Hypotheses are constructed from evidence. Your ideas are constructed around Biblical myths. That you're going to give something some thought in the future is one of your most common devices of dismissal for things you have no answer for. If you still truly think the geologic column across the globe records only a single extrusive event, then that is evidence only of your ignorance of geology. We understand your point of view, and we've been presenting the evidence that shows how and why it is wrong. That you are unable to see evidence that proves you wrong is a problem with you, not with the evidence, and certainly not with the people taking the time and effort to gather and present the evidence to you. When you draw irrational and contradictory conclusions from evidence, the only one putting you in a bad light is you. You can't blame the people calling attention to the irrationality and contradictions. If after all the evidence that has been presented you truly believe the Cardenas is the only extrusive event in the geologic record then it just adds to the long list of evidence you're already ignoring. Yes, the Cardenas and all the other evidence of extrusive events in the geological record will have to wait. Forever. Just like all the other evidence you ignore.--Percy

We're able to connect the evidence into a rational and consistent framework that takes into account our current understanding of geologic processes and of the laws of physics. You are unable to do this. All you've been able to do is make up irrational and contradictory stories. Since you weren't there either, don't you think it's time you dropped this silly objection?We know that rapid flows erode objects into teardrop shapes. We know this both from physics and from studying the natural world. Get on Google Maps and trace the Mississippi up from the delta and look at all the islands whose northern end is blunt and southern end is pointed. Even though the Mississippi flows relatively slowly along most of its course, the effect is still apparent.The tepui in question, Mt. Roraima, would be teardrop shaped were it eroded by a rapid flow, and other tepui in the region would also be teardrop shaped and all would be oriented in the same direction. Rapid flows erode differently than slow weathering, and these difference are the kind of evidence you should be seeking. At present you have no evidence for the formation of Mr Roraima by rapid flows. Neither of us is making unprovable guesses. I'm providing the explanations of geology that are supported by a great deal of evidence, while you're making irrational and contradictory guesses. You claim your guesses are unprovable, but that's not really true because the evidence shows them demonstrably wrong. The types of rocks we're talking about, sandstone, shale, siltstone, mudstone and limestone, do not form by drying. You're even wrong about compaction aiding drying, because compaction through burial could not accelerate any drying process because drying is an evaporative process. The water in buried layers does not evaporate. Compaction forces the water out from the pores in sedimentary deposits. Read the Wikipedia article on Lithification: Once the pressure of overlying layers is removed through erosion then lithification will cease. If rock really hardened by drying then the top portion of, for just one example, the Kaibab at the Grand Canyon would be harder than the buried portion, which being buried couldn't dry. But it isn't drying that makes rock. It is compaction from the pressure of overlying layers. You're raising this point in a way that makes it seem like you think it is something we might object to. But on the contrary, this is a completely accurate point. Compaction alone can produce rocks from unconsolidated sediments, and compaction and cementation can also. That diagram shows sedimentary layers right up to the Plio-Pleistocene, which includes today. And the diagram, or at least the marine portion, is of the Gulf of Mexico, which is rapidly accumulating sediments. So the diagram shows sedimentary layers accumulating atop a geologic column stretching all the way back to the Jurassic. The geologic column is still growing today.--Percy

If it's obvious then you must explain how it's obvious. All you've been able to do so far is give unsatisfactory and insufficient reasons for why you're going to ignore or misinterpret evidence or make stories. Sandstone layers come from not just deserts but also from coastal regions where beaches form. The Coconino at the Grand Canyon contains lithified sand dunes (your "hilly piles of loose sand"). The Coconino also includes the fossilized tracks of reptiles and large insects, typical desert denizens.The same is true of sandstone layers formed from coastal areas along beaches. The same kind of sediments found at beaches are also found in sandstone layers, just in lithified form. And concerning fossils, just as you can find, for example, oyster beds along beaches, you can also find oyster beds in sandstone layers, such as the Coldwater Sandstone in Southern California. Why should we stop asking you for evidence supporting your claims? You claim a worldwide flood would do things that no smaller flood has ever done and that seem to violate known physical laws. For example, we know the densest and heaviest material should fall out of suspension first, so if all the sedimentary layers in the geologic record were formed by the flood then all the densest and heaviest sediments should be on the bottom, and all the least dense and lightest should be on the top. But that's not what we find, so it seems your flood is ruled out.Or for another example, a flood could not sort fossils by degree of difference from modern forms. If sorted by a flood then the heaviest and densest fossils should be at the bottom, and the lightest and least dense at the top. But that's not what we find, so it seems your flood is ruled out.Or for another example, a flood could not sort radiometric material, with the greatest amount of daughter material at the bottom and the least amount at the top. But that is what we find, so it seems your flood is ruled out. (By the way, the radiometric material used to date sedimentary layers is mostly found in tuffs and basalts.) Okay, that sounds good, as long as they're scientific facts. But that's not a scientific fact. It's not even a religious fact. It's an article of faith. And besides, you've already conceded that your interpretations of the Bible, made as they are by a fallen person, could be in error, and that includes even your judgements of what portions relate objective facts and which do not. See just a few paragraphs up for how the strata and the fossils rule out the possibility of a worldwide flood being responsible. You keep asserting this but never supporting it, all the while setting aside inconvenient facts that in the end you fail to ever take account of. Geology has no inconvenient facts it must set aside. A flood is not a depositional environment.A coastline is a depositional environment. A lake is a depositional environment. A shallow sea is a depositional environment. Death Valley is a depositional environment.At a coastline, which is an example of Walther's Law, different sediments are deposited at different distances from the coast. The sediments are delivered to the coast from land. The heaviest sediments still fall out of suspension in very active water such as the waves on a beach, so the heaviest sediments, sand and tiny pebbles, fall out of suspension there. The further from the coast the quieter the water and the finer the sediments that can fall out of suspension. This sequence of depositional environments moving along a landscape is what define's Walther's Law. That's how layers of sand, siltstone, mudstone and limestone extending for sometimes hundreds of kilometers form.A flood is not a depositional environment. It's a chaotic and unorganized incursion of water onto land. Whatever debris and sediment it happens to pick up it will scatter around randomly. A flood has no consistent supply of sediment and no consistent depositional environment. In particular, a flood cannot lay down a sequence of, for example, the 20 or 25 layers such as we see beneath the Claron Formation at Bryan Head. Floods are destructive and random. The only organization available to it is that the heaviest and densest material will fall out of suspension first.You described an experiment further along in your message where you suggested putting some sediments on a rock in water in a pyrex dish. This is a good idea. Grind up some limestone, some sandstone and some shale, add it to the water, then stir it up. If you kept the particle size consistent then you should get three layers sorted by density. Three, not 25. Good luck figuring out how to get 25 layers of interspersed sandstone, shale and limestone.Walther's Law combined with multiple transgressions/regressions (and, in the case of the Coconino, a desert environment) can produce any number of layers, and it results in interspersed limestone, sandstone and shale, and of course the material from any other geological events like volcanoes. No, the millions of years derives from evidence. The Law of Superposition gives us relative ages, radiometric dating gives us absolute ages, and the layers themselves are consistent with what we observe occurring all around the world today, which is very slow deposition. It's funny to hear you say this. Yes, of course this is true. Depositional environments of beaches and river deltas persist for very long periods of time, and they deposit their sediments atop the geologic column at each location.But they do it on the geologic timescale, that is, very slowly. The Mississippi with its huge sedimentary load has been flowing into the Gulf for a few hundred years of recorded history, and yet miles of sediments have not happened in all that time. According to Estimation of sedimentation rates in the distributary basin of the Mississippi River, the Atchafalaya River Basin, USA the sedimentation rate is around 2-5 meters/century. At 5 meters/century it would take 32,000 years to accumulate to a depth of a mile. That's geologic time, and there are no assumptions, just evidence. First, a flood would not scour the land. Only confined water flows fast enough to scour the land. Floods spread out across the landscape and flow slowly. Plus, as anyone knows who's ever been to a beach with good waves, once the wave rolls over you the water behind is much quieter.Second, there would be almost no sediments on land to scour away in the antedeluvian world. Land regions, for the most part, are areas of net erosion, not deposition. What am I thinking? I'm thinking that I pointed out how a flood won't scour a landscape, and you responded about something else, how floods can cause mudslides and leave mud everywhere. When the flood's over in your area, has everyone's lawn been scoured away? You say there would be "pretty fast-flowing water," but after an area is flooded the water is moving pretty slow, as here: Sure there will be some places with rapidly flowing water, but not many because water only flows downhill. Where do you imagine your water is flowing to? Okay, sure. The lowest lying regions flood first. Once flooded water is no longer flowing into them. Then as the water rises higher all the flooded low lying regions combine under the flood waters. The water rises higher and higher, eventually covering even the mountaintops. Where is this incredibly rapid and destructive flow of water that's going to scour the landscape going to come from, and what is going to drive it? Do you have any evidence of these huge waves? Where did these huge waves pick up their huge sediment load? As I pointed out earlier, tsunamis arrive on shore with no more a sediment load than normal waves. Waves, even huge waves, are not going to scour landscapes. And tides especially are not going to scour landscapes. You are continuing to make stuff up. I'm sure even you must concede that this is inadequate rebuttal, so let me repeat the the key reasons why we know a global flood 4300 years ago is not responsible for the world's geology. The sedimentary layers contain undisturbed footprints, burrows and nests that a flood would simply destroy, they contain fossils that become increasingly different from modern forms with increasing depth, they contain increasing amounts of daughter elements of radiometric elements with increasing depth, and they are not sorted by weight and density which is the only sorting flood waters are capable of. Whatever lay between the surface and bedrock in the antedeluvian world, it wasn't sediments. Most land is subject to net erosion, not deposition. Most deposition of sediments takes place in marine environments, because they're the lowest point. First, we know all limestone is older than 50,000 years because it contains no ¹⁴C.Second, sedimentation rates in warm quiet seas where the precursors of limestone layers form are around a couple meters per thousand years. if it was 2000 years between the creation of the world and the flood then only maybe five meters of limestone precursor layer would be on the sea floor.Third, even if sea levels rose due to 40 days and nights of rain, it wouldn't cause ocean currents that scoured the sea floor.Fourth, there is no evidence on the sea floor of sedimentary layers being being scoured away. Things that happen leave evidence behind, and the things you claim happened left no evidence behind, so obviously they didn't happen. I guess uttering fallacies like this is how you keep yourself going, but everyone else knows we have copious evidence and you have, well, nothing. For example, you go on to say: But the seafloor is millions of square miles and is accumulating layers that become deeper and deeper the further you get from oceanic ridges. And this image that you've seen before is an example of kilometers-deep layers that are hundreds of miles in extent still forming today: --Percy

The Bible is "humanly created" too. What are "natural laws" and how do they differ from the physical laws of the universe? Are you saying you're not really trying to make the Flood consistent with known physical laws, but rather with some set of laws of your own devising?--Percy

You're claiming the detective has more data based upon more recent evidence and more colleagues than the paleontologist, but the only thing you've said that is true is that the detective's database was gathered from data that isn't as old. Whatever the specifics, they both have plenty of data for carrying out their jobs. The detective can look at the footprint and tell that it was a Nike Hyperdunk. The paleontologist can look at the footprint and tell that it was an iguanodon.But even if neither of them had any database or colleagues, how is examining and analyzing any footprint not an interpretation of evidence? What you say doesn't accord with reality. A paleontologist can interpret (assess, analyze, examine, whatever) the evidence provided by a footprint and tell it was made by an iguanodon. Evidence is evidence, and even when millions of years old it can speak volumes.I wonder. If unwitnessed evidence from long ago were to prove you right, would you still ignore it? What makes you think the conclusions of the paleontologist about the footprint can't be verified by other paleontologists, just as the detective's conclusions can be verified by other detectives? I think you don't really believe this and are only saying it out of habit. You've made many statements about what happened in the past. Just an example of something very simple, we can examine a metamorphic layer and know it has been heated, indicating it was once much closer to the mantle. We can often tell by how much it was heated, and we can tell the type of the original sediments, which tells us some things about the environment in which those sediments were deposited. The heating reset the radiometric clocks, and so we can find the time when it cooled, locking any radiometric materials into crystalline structures.Obviously your claim that we tell nothing about events in the past from ancient evidence is false. I think what you're actually getting at when you talk about plausibilities is scientific tentativity. In science nothing is ever 100% certain. Any theory or conclusion can be falsified. Degree of certainty is a function of the amount of interconnected confirming evidence. There can be no blanket exclusion of evidence of a certain type or age. One doesn't ignore any evidence in science. All the evidence must be considered and followed where it leads.So you can throw away your arbitrary rules of what evidence is and isn't permitted. You have to consider all evidence, and if you think our evidence doesn't lead to our conclusions then you must show how. You're just repeating your assertion. You've never explained how buried layers of rock could tilt while not affecting the layers above, nor where all the cubic miles of rock disappeared to for those portions of the tilted layers that are no longer there. This is very simple, and I can illustrate. We begin with layers A through H. Note that all the layers are equal in extent (length on the page): Now here's the same diagram after layers E, F, G and H have been tilted. These layers were once just as great in extent as layers A, B, C and D, and that extent represented thousands of cubic miles of material. Where did it all go? I don't know what it is you're looking at. If you can provide an image that would be helpful, and then we can answer your questions. Scientists in all scientific fields are interpreting evidence and making testable claims, and that includes geology. If you think the claims don't stand up to scrutiny then you should test them, which is just what you're attempting to do in this thread, but you're doing it in fanciful and impossible ways. To continue the detective story, you're like the detective who once he discovers the footprint belongs to his best friend claims the footprint was carried to the crime scene from his friend's home by last night's rain. Hilarity ensues.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.