So rather than deal with what I've said, you prefer to pick at my spelling and throw names. How predictable.
Second of all, people actively study sedimentation as a contemporary process. Several of my colleagues here do exactly that. The fact that layers tend to get distrubed on a short time and length scale is well known to geologists; however, the churning due to active processes diminishes as layers get buried and become older.
No kidding. People actually study sedimentation. I'm shocked to my foundations.. Nobody is disputing that geologists know that layers can tend to get disturbed over short time and length scale. Unfortuneatly, it has only largely been considered in recent times due to liquifaction studies surrounding flood and earthquake conditions. The telling statement you make now in error is that the process diminishes or presumeably halts with depth of burial. You haven't shown that, you merely state it. Assumption yet again rearing it's head. You reason it plausible then state it as fact as though it were fact. Yet you have zero basis for saying it. As I've been saying, Strata largely can be accounted for by liquifaction in surface layers. Rock strata is an entirely different beast of burden and cannot be accounted for in the same ways. Lest we forget that Science has also theorized about how Rock is made but largely hasn't a clue that they are either right or wrong - only that it's a good guess.
But heck, don't take my word for it. There are areas of the country where the surface strata are really young; western Nebraska is one such area. You can go out and look what aeolian and alluvial processes do to Pleistocene deposits. The evidence that adjacent strata are not necessarily contiguous in time is all over the place. But adjacent deposits are, by and large, contemporaneous withing a million years, and 100 million years from now, the fact a flood washed 10000 years of wind-blown sand off a deposit will be insignificant.
Why would I take your word for it when you're merely stating the obvious - that presumeably ancient deposits appear at surface level while then applying your assumptions to them and stating those assumptives as fact. This is really no different than anything else that's been discussed. Pull your terms out of the mix and what are we left with? We're left with the fact that In Nebraska and countless places around the planet, supposedly ancient deposits are found laying at surface level and we're supposed to assume that a flood must have uncovered them or something. One only need look to the find overseas of the remains of a dinosaur rivaling the size of T-rex which is dated to the time of T-rex not by where it is found; but, by other assumptive measures, as it was found at surface level. Or perhaps we should consider too the presumed Giant Alligator fossils that were found at surface level as well and dating to T-rex's times though it was uncovered - its bones littered on the top soil of the surface layer in Africa. Hmm. Just laying about. One must assume the top level means ancient then, that or we're all living in ancient times. That or we assume that something uncovered the bones. Then we start making other assumptions that perhaps there used to be a mountain there and erosion wiped it out, else the remains would be much deeper down. No signs of an eroded mountain, Must be some way to explain it - and when we dig into our book of theories, assumptions and postulations, we get - well let's go use carbon dating to figure it out so that the assumption is hidden in the mechanism. Applying terms to things doesn't mean you have any clue about them; but, the reason you apply terms is to give that appearance. Ages for Dinosaurs are a part of this. And the label Pleistocene is applied as a label to a time frame assumed from the assumptions of strata dating methods and from the assumptions of carbon dating. It has no proof, can't stand on it's own; but, you use it as though it were a factual time frame that is differentiable from others. The fact is you have an outcrop of earth that is full of fossils and the only way you can explain the fossils in your dating scheme is to assume that the strata are disjointed at this point. Indeed. Most of the planet must be disjointed considering we find fossilized sea creatures lying in the loose rock of moutain tops.
One wonders why it is that when the footprint of a man is found inside the footprint of a T-rex and frozen into stone - fossilized into rock that it becomes neccessary for scientists to cut the footprints of both out of the ground and cart them off, then claim it to be a non-existant happenstance. One assumes that over time, it will be explained away as a folk tale because it is historically inconvenient to your timelines that such could happen. One then looks to the explanation given - the fossilized rock softened back to clay then reformed to rock preserving not only the t-rex tracks but those of the man. When the evidence wrecks the appearance of all your assumptive reasoning, it's easier to dismiss troublesome problems than to deal with the evidence. Which is what we've been discussing here. Assumption is not evidence. Nor is it proof. Nor does it amout to proof that you should give names to your assumptions. That may work with the unthinking.. not with me.
Please tell me which Universities are currently teaching a course in "Creationist Liquefaction Studies".
Oh, I dealt with what you said. But the manner in which you say it is also something that can be interpreted. It says here's someone who can write lengthy, opinionated posts using concepts with which he's so unfamiliar he hasn't either seen them in print or bothered to look up in a dictionary.
People actually study sedimentation. I'm shocked to my foundations.
You claimed geologists hadn't thought about it. Some geologists have made it their life work, and that has precious little to do with 'liquefaction'. Other geologists actively study how sedimentary deposits are transformed into rock.
Why would I take your word for it when you're merely stating the obvious - that presumeably ancient deposits appear at surface level while then applying your assumptions to them and stating those assumptives as fact.
We were talking tertiary and quaternary strata here. Do try to keep up. Pleistocene and late quaternary deposits aren't ancient, and largely they aren't 'rock' either. They still show stratigraphy that can be integrated into a self-consistitent and logical picture of the last 10 million years or so, on the great plains.
We're left with the fact that In Nebraska and countless places around the planet, supposedly ancient deposits are found laying at surface level and we're supposed to assume that a flood must have uncovered them or something. One only need look to the find overseas of the remains of a dinosaur rivaling the size of T-rex which is dated to the time of T-rex not by where it is found; but, by other assumptive measures, as it was found at surface level.
Where are there dinosaur fossils in western Nebraska? But OK, let's ignore your total ignorance of geology; the central US hasn't seen a lot of mountain-building in the last several hundred million years, so deposits are alternately brought to the surface by erosion or covered by sediment deposited by wind and water. I honestly don't see a problem with either process. In the west, plate tectonics has pushed up deeper deposits, and that's why you find T rex skeletons in places like Montana and South Dakota. You probably don't believe in plate tectonics either, though. Presumably earthquakes and volcanoes are acts of God, eh?
That or we assume that something uncovered the bones. Then we start making other assumptions that perhaps there used to be a mountain there and erosion wiped it out, else the remains would be much deeper down. No signs of an eroded mountain,
You think there are no signs of eroded mountains in South Dakota and Montana? Have you ever been to either state?
Must be some way to explain it - and when we dig into our book of theories, assumptions and postulations, we get - well let's go use carbon dating to figure it out so that the assumption is hidden in the mechanism. Applying terms to things doesn't mean you have any clue about them; but, the reason you apply terms is to give that appearance. Ages for Dinosaurs are a part of this.
We use carbon dating to get ages for dinosaurs. Sure.
And the label Pleistocene is applied as a label to a time frame assumed from the assumptions of strata dating methods and from the assumptions of carbon dating.
We can't date back a significant way into the Pleistocene with 14C dating. However, Pleistocene deposits are recent, near the surface, and we can easily extend what we know about the present and the recent past back to the Pleistocene.
One wonders why it is that when the footprint of a man is found inside the footprint of a T-rex and frozen into stone - fossilized into rock that it becomes neccessary for scientists to cut the footprints of both out of the ground and cart them off, then claim it to be a non-existant happenstance.
I've found mammals and turtle shells and other fossils in Tertiary deposits; I found a little jawbone two years ago that belonged to a Mesohippus. I've looked at the strata in W. Nebraska myself, and traced the ash deposits from volcanoes that let us date them. It's straightforward, and I don't have to take any geologist's word for it. I can look at 9 million year old ash layers, from, say, the Ashfall site just north of here, under a microscope, and I can compare them with what came out of Mount St Helens. On the other hand, I've never seen human footprints in a rock next to a T-rex's, but I'd be delighted to go look at this find if you'd tell me where I could do so.
Geology isn't based on assumptions. It's based on a huge body of careful observational work. But hey, in 2003 anyone can go on the internet, totally ignorant of that work, and claim it's all speculation.