For him, or for me?
Continental shelf
Pages for logged out editors learn more Coastal habitats Ocean surface
For him, or for me?
The individual particles making up the layers either washed off the land or formed under water in place, they were not transported as a sheet–that would destroy all of the fossils or prospective fossils. “Sediment deposited under elevated ocean that then compacted into rock layers” is different from “layers transported from under ocean onto continent by massive tsunami”.
You are speaking hypothetically–but not acknowledging actual geological data.
This is why I have introduced Sloss sequences–geological sequences based upon data collected from boreholes, drilled down through the sedimentary layers.
Based upon this actual (not hypothetical) data, the sedimentary layers upon the continents were deposited by six basic cycles (megasequences) of “transgressing” and “regressing” ocean waters–that is, ocean waters flowing onto the continent, then flowing back off.
Such transgressing and regressing did not “destroy all of the fossils,” but instead, suddenly and completely encased them within the sedimentary layers.
So, you are making suppositions that run contrary to actual geological data.
I am still curious what answers you might purport:
Or maybe it just slowly and gently encased them, instead of disintegrating them in an aqueous sandblaster, rolling them along at high speed in an abrasive environment.
New evidence always supports the antiquity of the earth, and it continues to build. Girdled rocks:
More for him. He’s been gone a while : )
Yes, the ocean rose, sediment washed off the land into the ocean-covered area which is now land, organisms lived on or above that sediment, died, were buried (or vice-versa), the ocean receded, the layers were compressed into rock.
Exactly, megatsunamis would destroy the fossils.
Not exactly suddenly, though.
That would make sense!
When the oceans rose, this was a “transgression,” when the waters transported and deposited layers of ocean sediment more and more inland —so when oceans rose, any land sediments would be moved further inland with them.
You are speaking hypothetically–but not acknowledging actual geological data.
This is why I have introduced Sloss sequences–geological sequences based upon data collected from boreholes, drilled down through the sedimentary layers.
Based upon this actual (not hypothetical) data, the sedimentary layers upon the continents were deposited by six basic cycles (megasequences) of “transgressing” and “regressing” ocean waters–that is, ocean waters flowing onto the continent, then flowing back off.
Such transgressing and regressing did not “destroy all of the fossils,” but instead, suddenly and completely encased them within the sedimentary layers.
So, you are making suppositions that run contrary to actual geological data.
Did Sloss make suppositions that run contrary to actual geological data?
L. L. Sloss, 1964, Tectonic Cycles of the North American Craton:
The writer concludes that the history of the North American craton for the past 600-700 million years includes six major episodes of changing tectonic behavior.
…when oceans rose, any land sediments would be moved further inland with them.
Rising oceans erode.
…when oceans rose, any land sediments would be moved further inland with them.
Sediments settle. That is, they go downhill, not uphill. Or upstream, to be more correct.
Check out how continental shelves work:
Pages for logged out editors learn more Coastal habitats Ocean surface
His data is acknowledged even by catastrophists. We just disagree with his timescale.
So, you are making suppositions that run contrary to actual geological data.
You still have not provided any geophysics equations. Until you do, your posts are 100% pure speculation.
And the speculations by a beloved minister of the gospel about the data are most assuredly not the same thing as the data. His posts are contrary to your speculations, I will grant you that.
His data is acknowledged even by catastrophists. We just disagree with his timescale.
That is not borne out by your comments in this thread. Repeatedly, you have stated to those who actually agree with the Sloss model and have attempted to inform you of sound geology, that they are contrary to actual geological data, despite being consistent with the laws of physics and well understood geological processes of sedimentation.
You’re a disarming player Sir. Charm is difficult to beat.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.