Not Acknowledging the Theory of Evolution

Of course, the jury is still out regarding the number of oceanic transgressions onto the continents, and therefore, the capacity of geologic history to have record of all those supposed epochs of time in the sedimentary layers, the investigations continue, right Skin?
 
Perhaps you'd like to elaborate and actually participate in discussion. State the problem and why you see it as a problem. Suggest your own explanation for the issue and why you think your explanation is the most viable. Lets not assume that everyone that reads this thread is educated in geology, specifically oceanic geology and sedimentology. Provide some sources such as journal articles or texts that describe your issue, perhaps even an online source.

Participate in discussion or don't participate. The choice is yours, but don't stoop to hit-and-run BS of the creationist nutbars that create red herring and strawman arguments just to distract, deflect and deceive. It won't be tolerated and will be judged as spam.
 
How many oceanic trangressions do you say there were Skin?

You can't say Skin, 'cause you don't know. Ask geologists, and they'll say anywhere from one to hundreds, so how many do you say Skin, and what is your evidence for that number?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It depends on what you mean by "oceanic transgression." I only minored in geology, so I'm not as versed in many of the detailed and technical terminology of specific disciplines within geology, but I don't recall that term being used. So if I look at it as one of your usual made up, bullshit terms, then, on the face of it, you mean how many times has the ocean covered the continents.

This, my good man, will depend upon which continent and when, since the continents are each on their own tectonic plates which have changed position, size, density and constitution with time. Therefore, the answer to your question could be millions of times, thousands of times, or hundreds of times -perhaps even a handful of times to never -depending on when/where you are.

In other words, this is a non-question -a nonsense, creationist bullshit question that has no scientific basis beyond your imagination. If I'm wrong, please cite the scientific literature that discusses the topic an allow me to revise my position, which I will do cheerfully with the right data.

Also, either participate in discussion or not. If you choose "not," keep creating posts that are spam, meaningless, or trolling in nature and we'll all get to see you again in three days.

and what is your evidence for that number?
Click to expand...
Again, it depends upon where, but in general the evidence is the sedimentary deposition in the locality itself. I regularly visit several "beaches" of 65-125 million years ago and collect Inoceramus, Texigryphaea , amnonites, etc. They all have different chronometric periods to which they date that range as above and are found in members that under/over-lay each other. In one locality I can visit the Austin Chalk and the Eagleford Shale in a single place due to recent construction and I can follow these members west and see where each overlaps the next for millions of years. Sometimes beach, sometimes dryland.
 
Last edited:
IAC, welcome back.

I have a few questions for you to get the ball rolling again:

When tsunamis occur, or other natural disasters, which increase the sea level tremendously for a period of time, why is no sedimentary rock formed? I thought it formed instantaneously?

Also, wouldn't the fact that Mitochondria in eukaroytic cells have their own DNA strongly suggest that it used to be its own entity?
 
IceAgeCivilizations said:
And why would vast sedimentary layers form from a relatively passive transgression of the ocean for that matter?

I don't know what you're driving at.
Click to expand...

According to you, here's why:

"Mineral rich waters and CaCO3 cause rapid lithification, mineralization and cementation."
 
And almost all the sandstone and shale (clay) layers have varying degrees of limestone within them, indicating an event with all mechanisms of sedimentation at once, with one of the three major mechanisms being dominant often, a global Deluge with various regimes of sedimentary deposition intermixing with each other.
 
Fair enough, but that still could be considered proof for either the YE or OE theories. The thing I find most frustrating about both theories is that evidence we see today somehow to some extent supports BOTH theories in many cases. It is very odd.
 
But there really are no ancient river valleys with fossilized soil layers, nor ancient hills covered by sediments from some transgression among many, so there are no ancient terrains within the geologic column, just sedimentary deposition in water, vast layers, grading into each other.
 
channelMorrisonFm.jpg


Here's one example I found.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/termites.htm

Also, what do you say about the one mentioned by someone in the EarthScience Thread?
 
Well, according to you that tsunami of 2004 which produced a storm surge of 108 feet should have caused "rapid lithification" of some sort, right? It had the power and force to deposit sediment, and the water to cementize it, right? Yet no sign of sedimentary rock is found.
 
Those conditions were nothing like the Deluge conditions, with the rampant tectonic activity from the rapid plate interactions, spreading and subduction, and the associated volcanics.
 
Seems to me like the major difference between evolutionist and creationist thinking is their concept of time. The only thing I find gratifying is that at least science has been incorporated into creationist blather. It's a step in the right direction.
 
IceAgeCivilizations said:
Those conditions were nothing like the Deluge conditions, with the rampant tectonic activity from the rapid plate interactions, spreading and subduction, and the associated volcanics.
Click to expand...

So you're suggesting that plate tectonics played a major role in producing the geologic column?

You're suggesting that a Deluge without the "rampant tectonic activity" would NOT have produced the geologic column as we see it today?

Please elaborate.
 
The vertical crustal displacement, with the rapid horizontal displacement, allowed scouring and deposition in various phases and modes in various regions, to then generally rise vertically, as the new ocean bottom sank into the mantle, displacing the continental crust upward, like a water bed.
 
IceAgeCivilizations said:
But there really are no ancient river valleys with fossilized soil layers, nor ancient hills covered by sediments from some transgression among many, so there are no ancient terrains within the geologic column, just sedimentary deposition in water, vast layers, grading into each other.
Click to expand...
Crap. Bullshit. Worse, I think you know it is a lie. There are many 'fossil' landscapes know, and doubtless others yet to be identified. I shall cite two known to me personally. The Torridonian sandstone of the North West of Scotland overlies unconformably the hills and valleys of Lewisian gneiss that had been eroded some 800 million years ago.
More recently Permian(?) sandstones filled in an ancient valley in the Lower Palaeozoic of the Southern Uplands of Scotland.
To repeat either your ignorance is absolute, or you are deliberately lying. The former is bizarre; the latter is just distasteful.
 
IAC, how long did it take for every layer of sediment to form which in today's geologic column, starting from the first day of the rain.

Were any layers formed during the oceanic regression? If so, which ones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top