"The Flood" deposits as a sea transgressive/regressive sequence ("Walther's Law")

quote:

---

The idea that there were describable periods of time (Cambrian, Devonian, Permian, Triassic etc) with definable identifiable living things in some stage or other of "evolution" between the former and the next, each marked by a slab of rock, a particular kind of sedimentary rock, some covering most of a continent, most at least thousands of square miles, is so nonsensical I don't know how you all keep yourselves convinced. It can only be by some kind of strange delusion.

---

The idea that there were periods of time with identifiable and distinct fauna is clearly true. The strata and the fossils are all the evidence we need.The idea that these periods are "marked by a slab of rock, a particular kind of sedimentary rock, some covering most of a continent, most at least thousands of square miles" is nonsensical. You just made it up. You certainly didn't get it from us or any mainstream geological source - or even from those Creationsts who know something about geology.So please explain how you could possibly think that we believed that after all this time.

So,Where is one ... ONE →(1)← continuous world wide globe girding layer.All the previous land masses have been destroyed and the materials are picked up by the flying magic carpet flood and carried around and around and around the world in a massive slurry of muck and organic matter, ... and then the rains and fountains stop, and the sediments begin to be deposited ... separated into layers or not is immaterial to the fact that there should be AT LEAST one ... ONE →(1)← continuous world wide globe girding layer ... if such a flood occurred. Irrelevant.Where is one ... ONE →(1)← continuous world wide globe girding layer that has to be deposited by a world wide globe girding flood. According to your model of the geological column there should be many. I only ask for one. OR it is what happened and you are the deluded one. After all there is no one ... ONE →(1)← continuous world wide globe girding layer that has to be deposited by a world wide globe girding flood. No you have provided belief and opinion, not evidence. Evidence would consist of something like ... oh I don't know ... maybe one ... yes ONE →(1)← continuous world wide globe girding layer that has to be deposited by a world wide globe girding flood.Where is it? Well retreating under a barrage of evidence for an old earth is typical of YECie cultists.But I still have to ask, faith, where is one ... ONE →(1)← continuous world wide globe girding layer.Show me. According to your model of the geological column there should be many. I only ask for one.Show me the BEST evidence you have.The only thing I know that makes a world wide globe girding layer is the radioactive iridium layer from the Yucatan meteor impact, and that layer has identifiable clasts from the impact specific to that meteor, that layer sits on top of many different types of depositional layers around the world and is covered by different types of depositional layers around the world.So we know that wasn't due to a globe trotting flood, and we do know what a globe girding continuous layer looks like.Where is your layer, one ... ONE →(1)← continuous world wide globe girding layer that would be deposited by a magic flying carpet world trotting flood ... where is it Faith?It does not exist. There was no flood. The earth is old. Very very very old. Get used to it.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

So, it WAS composed of strata but no longer is because it has been metamorphosed, right?Doesn't that mean that it was deformed prior to your one singular event that happened after the entire section was deposited? I mean, the GC Supergroup did not undergo the same metamorphism and neither did the Paleozoic section, right?Please explain how you get three different degrees of deformation in the same block of rocks, especially when the topmost layers are still soft. Sure you can. There are plenty of examples of multiple folding events presented in the same rock in the geological record. How do you know that it is shapeless?Why did the Vishnu become non-strata while the overlying rocks remained strata?Why isn't the idea of multiple deformational events a simpler solution?

Except that turbulent, sediment laden currents don't do that. According to you, yes. Well, the paragraph above is an excellent example of an assertion without evidence.This is all you have ever given us. All you have done is shown us a single cross-section of one small part of the world and told us how obvious it is to you.

PLease describe this distortion. I mean since that since it is so obvious and all.Why is the photo idiotic? Once again, you need to look at other parts of the world. There is no such 'wall of strata' that is global.I have urged you to look at the Paradox Basin and the Uncompahgre Uplift, not far from the Grand Canyon to get a different perspective. You have evidently failed to do so.

The GC Supergroup is not schist, nor is it granite.

Well, what do know, another content-free one-liner from Faith.We know you disagree. What we don't know, and it appears to be because you don't know either, is what evidence and arguments you can muster to defend your position. As Edge says in Message 120 (and to which you haven't replied), he sees "at least two tectonic events prior to the Paleozoic." So here's that cross section again: Why don't you respond to Edge's Message 120 and explain why there's only one tectonic event represented in the cross section, and he can reply by explaining why he thinks he sees at least two. Besides moving the discussion productively forward, you'll no longer be posting imbecilic "Sorry, I disagree" messages that make clear you got nothing.--Percy

Says the person who can barely write a single sentence without making a serious error, which is the real reason no one takes anything you say seriously. And we explain to you how you're wrong, in many cases wrong in very basic ways, making it very clear why you're someone not to be taken seriously about geology. Plus your immature, childish and infantile behavior makes it even more difficult to take you seriously. And how do you propose that the truth will win out? Is God going to ride in on a chariot and declare the truth? Or will the truth win out by arguments and models built around evidence, in other words, science?Hopefully your answer is that scientific evidence will show us the truth (since this is a science thread), an approach you haven't yet attempted. So far all you've done is declared your position multiple times, made innumerable erroneous statements, then ignored the corrections or simply redeclared your original position again. So you didn't understand Edge's post, so the possibility exists that if you understood it that you might find it persuasive, but you're instead going to issue insults. Good show. Why don't you instead post some questions to Edge so he can clarify for you so you can understand what he was saying. But you won't do that, will you, because understanding geology is what you're actually trying to avoid.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

This is just a redeclaration of your position with no evidence or argument. You haven't actually listed any evidence for your position yet, and you're avoiding the point. It is understandably to your advantage to avoid having an actual discussion of the evidence at all costs, since none of the evidence supports your position, but it isn't like it isn't manifestly obvious that topic avoidance is what you're doing.As Taq said, and as I and others have said, not just in this thread but in other threads, sediments are being deposited across most of the Earth's surface. I said 75%, Taq said 70%, but whatever the exact figure a pretty high percentage of the Earth's surface is experiencing sedimentation. It is impossible for this to be false because the products of erosion are being carried from the highest points, like mountains and plateaus and so forth, to the lowest points, like lake and sea bottoms, which make up most of the Earth's surface. And those sediments are being deposited atop and adding to the stratigraphic column. Nothing else is possible. To deny it is to be dotardly.--Percy

Of course it touches on your model. Here's the image again: There's a river channel cut into the layers of the Muav Limestone, later filled in by layers of the Temple Butte Formation. That could not happen in a flood, plus the sediments are not flood sediments but marine sediments, plus all the layers reflect increasing age with increasing depth as indicated by sedimentation rates, radiometric dating and increasing differences of fossils from modern forms with increasing depth, facts you apparently have no answers for. Your only response is to repeat your original position from scratch again.--Percy

I believe that I have shown this image before, but it bears repetition. What it shows is two trilobite assemblages, the lower one being Olenellus(in blue) and the upper one including Glossopleura (in red).Each of these would be time-stratigraphic horizon, in other words a 'landscape' or seafloor interface. One is obviously older than the other.Notice that the Olenellus line does not extend across the page. We infer that is because it died out before the end of Tapeats deposition around the monadnocks.Later, the Glossopleura zone extended all the way across the region in the Bright Angel Shale, getting closer and closer to the lower boundary of the formation as you go to the east.One take-away here is that neither formation is of the same age everywhere. As sea level rose, the Tapeats Sandstone unit simply moved east. Time-transgressive formations such as this do not lend themselves to a rapid, one-time depositional event. If so, both biostratigraphic horizons would continue horizontally across the section and remain at the same level within the Tapeats and the Bright Angel.You will also notice the schematic representation of late Cambrian limestones being much thicker in the west (understanding that there is vertical exaggeration). I'm wondering if this disqualifies them from being 'strata' in the Faith usage.

Except that the strata are not all identical in form. They differ in mineral type, sedimentary grain size, fossil content, radiometric age, etc. You haven't given any evidence for the flood, nor have you given any evidence against the geologic timescale. You've repeatedly declared your position and repeatedly made erroneous statements. When those statements are corrected you ignore the corrections, sometimes repeating the erroneous statements yet again. You frequently post messages that are non-responses, and you often make up excuses for why you'll not respond, because something is too white or too technical or you just don't feel like debating anymore (though that one was a lie, wasn't it, since here you still are) or you just don't understand.--Percy

You have repeatedly stated your original position many times without once offering a single bit of evidence in support, and you're doing it once again. Your objections make no sense. Why they make no sense has been explained many times, and you've either ignored the explanations or responded with yet another repetition of your original position.As has been explained many, many times now, irregular regions are typically upland (like mountains and plateaus) where erosion is taking place, not deposition. These regions will never be preserved in the geologic record because no sedimentation is taking place. Sedimentation takes place in low lying regions, typically lake and sea beds and sometimes coastal regions, which are usually flat.Here's some of the text from Message 119 that you did not reply to that contains a good explanation for why strata tend to preserve flat lowland regions and not irregular upland regions: Here's some text from Message 102 that you also didn't reply to that makes the same point using different images: If you'd read and understand and respond to all the messages you're currently ignoring you would learn a great deal, and then you'd no longer keep repeating arguments that have already been shown ignorant and idiotic.--Percy

This reads better as some odd kind of poetry than as any coherent argument. As near as I can make out it is yet another restatement of your position unaccompanied by even a single piece of evidence. This isn't even a hint of an argument. All you've done is called the standard geology "nonsensical" and "some kind of strange delusion." Anyone can attach derogatory labels to something, but it takes intelligence and knowledge to compose a coherent argument, something that you've never come close to doing in all your time here. Your modus operandi is so familiar to all of us that it is hard to believe you're trying to pass off this fantasy that you've "provided evidence...so many time in the past." What you actually do is just repeatedly state your position without evidence and then ignore the rebuttals. You're doing it now in this thread. You also have an incredibe lack of understanding of geology. You can't even figure out a simple principle like sedimentation at the top of the stratigraphic column. Wait a minute. If you could "easily" find all the threads, how is it that you're not up to it? How does that make any sense? This isn't what is happening. There's not really an argument or discussion taking place. There's just you selectively choosing which messages and issues you'll respond to while ignoring the rest. Fixing this is within your power. Simply start honestly and forthrightly addressing the rebuttals, instead of ignoring them while repeating your original arguments. Got a double standard much? You think you can do things like calling our rebuttals ridiculous, nonsensical and delusional (in just this post alone), but if anyone criticizes you then it's an attack on you personally worthy of an apology. Get over yourself.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

Interestingly enough, the Nevada mountain ranges are mostly tilt blocks similar to the GC Supergroup strata of the Grand Canyon. The deformed rocks are preserved but are certainly planed off to some base level in most ancient mountain ranges.
This surface is still somewhat irregular in the GC since the harder quartzites have not been completely planed off and form the 'monadnocks' that we have been discussing.One thing that I find curious in this discussion is the large number of flat landscapes such as the pediments and valley fill deposits in the Ruby Range image. Like waterfalls and volcanoes, mountain ranges are just temporary features on the surface of the earth. This will always be the case until plate tectonics stops and there is no more erosion. It will be a dead planet. If you look at the effects of seashore erosion you will see that the ultimate surface is pretty flat. Wave erosion is ferocious.