Summations Only

I answered your claim about evidence all at the same level. The Flood made ALL the levels, there is not just ONE level where you are going to find it and that is one of the biggest bits of nonsense about this discussion that comes up. All you have to do is look at the strata in a road cut to see evidence of the Flood.

That's why I required it to be at a distance, because the kinds of disturbances that would have occurred during very long exposure at the surface of the earth would be visible from a great distance. But they aren't and even up close there is no sign of any kind of disturbance on many layers. You have to get up close to see any of the erosion you are talking about, even the erosion in the particular layers you have identified in that diagram. At least at the Great Unconformity the band of erosion can be explained as caused by abrasion between the upper and lower levels, which I like to explain as due to the tilting of the Supergroup strata by the volcanic action beneath. The strata would have violently tilted against the upper strata which remained intact due to the tremendous weight of the strata above, and the tilting and sliding would have abraded both levels, and the evidence is that the eroded band is composed of material from both levels. This got discussed in far more detail on other threads.I'm not happy with other creationist explanations which explain the eroded band as a slurry which eroded the Supergroup, I like my own better. Paul K and I had an argument about how a particular boulder of quartzite got into the eroded band because quartzite takes a long time to form. Clearly it came from the layer called the Shinumo in the Supergroup, but the question I had then was how that particular layer got metamorphosed into quartzite but the other layers in the same group are just sedimentary rock. I don't know but it's clearly a hunk of that particular quartzite that was abraded and got buried in the eroded band, by the shifting of the rocks brought about by the force of the underground volcano, according to my favorite theory.I'm too tired to continue. Later.ABE: Speaking of the Great Unconformity, that is exactly the same kind of formation as Siccar Point where Hutton made his famous determination that the rocks were very very old just by looking at that formation. It's an unconformity with horizontal strata lying on top of vertical strata of rock from two didfferent kinds of sediment, both sandstones I think, a greywacked and a red sandstone. Sorry too tired to go look it up, but the difference between them does factor into how I explain how it happened. Hutton thought the lower strata were tilted and then the upper were laid down over it. He supposed millions of years for all that to happen.First thing I'd point out is that if you look at a picture of the Siccar Point formation you must notice that there is absolutely no difference between the erosion of the two levels of rock caused by the Scottish sea weather. You'd think that millions of years beteween the formation of the two would produce some diference in their surface erosion.Anyway, the way I explain the formation as well as the Great Unconformity is that they were both originally a deep continuous stack of horixontal layers, Siccar Point once having a stack above it to a great depth that has since eroded away, and after the whole stack was laid down all over the world that's when we got the tectonic plate movement that buckled and folded and displaced a lot of strata in various places as the continents moved, and also caused volcanic activity. In the two places under discussion the lower strata were tilted by the volcanic and/or tectonic force up against a heavy weight of upper strata that resisted the tilting and stayed horizontal so that onlyl the lower tilted. The fact that two different kinds of sediment define the two levels suggests that the difference facilitated the sliding between the two levels.There is a band of erosion between the two levels in both places, the vertical or tilted strata versus the horizontal strata above, and in both places the band is composed of sediments from both upper and lower levels. This suggests that the erosion was NOT cfreated during a long period of exposure of the lower tilted strata at the surface but by abrasion between two already existing rocks.Another thing that suggests that is that had the upper strata been laid on top of the tilted strata a long time afterward, the sediment from the upper strata should have filtered down between the cracks in the titted strata, but the band of erosion appears to be a band unto itself and the strata remain distinct from each other.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I read through the last collection of posts I haven’t answered and realized I’ve come to that point where I can leave, there’s nothing more to say. I could go through and give some answers, could correct the usual misrepresentations of my view, could object that I do know about this or that I’m accused of not knowing about and so on, but there would be no constructive purpose.It’s easy to get lost in the particulars of the argument and miss the main point so I’ll just briefly repeat it: There’s just something that defies reason about assigning a lengthy time period to a slab of rock, supposedly populated by creatures defined by the fossils within the rock. Wish you'd wake up and see it. As for the evidence for the Flood, again I’d just say that the strata themselves require the explanation of having been laid down in water.Beyond that, the particulars of how the Flood might have happened are interesting to think about but I don’t expect to be able to answer them all, it's the unknowable past after all, I'm sure I'm getting much of it wrong. But again, the strata require the Flood, however the details should be understood.I’m taking a vacation from EvC and wish you all a joyous holiday season.

I don't want to be here, I don't want to deal with all this right now. All I want to say in response to your posts at the moment is:the horizontality is an issue because it demonstrates the lack of disturbance to the individual layers over their millions of years, no tectonic distortion, no jagged irregular erosion such as would be seen during exposure at the surface for a long period. OF INDIVIDUAL LAYERS. Erosion which would be VISIBLE FROM A LONG DISTANCE AWAY AND NOT REQUIRE PEERING AT IT FROM CLOSE UP>I would expect magma to disturb the layers IF THE VOLCANO OCCURRED AT ANY POINT IN THEIR FORMATION, BEFORE THE WHOLE STACK WAS LAID DOWN, but the evidence is that it all occurred afterward. And iff I'm right about the effect of the volcano beneath the GC it caused the Great Unconformity, of course also made the granite and the schist, also the quartzite in the Supergroup Shinumo, AND it casued the uplift of the entire canyon area, it uplifted the entire stack above the unconformity, cracking the uppermost layers above the Kaibab, causing the original opening that led to the carving out of the whole canyon, and so on....Yes, that's my favorite cross-section, the one from Wikipedia, thanks for putting it up. Since the northernmost part of the Grand Staircase also appears to be uplifted where the magma dike penetrates the layers, and the strata to the north of the fault line are appreciably lower and tilted, it suggests that the volcano there is also the cause of the uplift in that region.And all those long even layers depicted on the cross-sections DO demonstrate my point about the lack of disturbance over millions of years to the individual layers in their laying down phase, and the disturbances that ARE seen ALL occurred after the entire stack was in place, the erosion of all the upper layers, the canyons and other formations, the lack of horizontality of the entire stack as a unit with its slopes and curves -- which ALL the layers follow quite evenly, remaining parallel to one another, and the magma, which penetrates through the entire stack of the Grand Staircase, not through part of it but through all of it, emerging as lava at the top, ALL THAT SHOWS what I've been claiming about how it was only after ALL the strata were laid down in their pristine horizontality that THEN the tectonic and volcanic and other disturbances occurred.If you would just get that much, all that FACT, you'd have to reconsider the OE nonsense.But I really don't have time or patience for all this right now, sorry.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The strata were never at the bottom of the sea, ever, except during the Flood.But your thinking that puts YOU in the position of having to explain to Atheos how the sand grains according to him were so clearly formed aerially and not in water. Can't wait to see how THAT discussion goes. (never mind, I know: so the land was raised for a while and then it fell again or the sea level dropped and rose again. And you all think my scenarios are physically impossible. Ha ha.)And ALL the disturbances you see to the strata anywere occurred AFTER ALL the strata were in place. But you have to start contemplating that fact on a simple level, by looking honestly at that cross-section for starters.I wish it were EASY for me to post pictures but it isn't lately. My computer may be on its last legs right now. But there's also that time factor and my impatience. One does get tired of making a great effort to get across simple things only to be ignored and ridiculed. And then if I say THAT I'll only get more ridicule and punishment.Oh and YES I know it's a graphic for crying out loud. I'm not even going to bother to defend it.

You pick a picture that demonstrates the tectonic distortion that I've been arguing occurred after the strata were all laid down. My interpretation is different from yours, but you cannot answer it with a picture I've explained in a different way.

Deal with the answer you got. You're evading.OH YOU WANT PROCEDURE? IT'S CALLED OBSERVATION AND LOGICAL DEDUCTION.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Why don't you deal with what I have shown over and over again, that if any of the strata had been exposed at the surface for the long years you assume, they would show disturbances ragged enough to be seen all the way across the canyon. You are just repeating the party line about the kind of erosion that has to be seen close up that I've answered a million times already.And gthe idea that there wre successive risings and falling of land or water is phhyiscally impossible.

Of course it's not problematic for him since he's willing to embrace the establishment view I've been arguing against from the beginning without bothering to address or even read or think about anything I've said. It's just physically impossible for the column of strata to be sometimes under water and sometimes exposed at the surface, and for LONG periods supposedly exposed at the surface too, which as I've argued at tedious length would show disturbances to the layers visible across the whole canyon for crying out loud.DEAL WITH MY ARGUMENTS. They make yours irrelevant.

Yes and I drew my own illustration very similar to that one years ago to explain what I jmeant about what SHOULD be seen if the long years of exposure actually happened, that was posted here but probably isn't any more. Nobody took it seriously as usual. So are you now saying that's the way it happened in reality? If it did where's the photo to prove it?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Amazing how you're willing to quote out of context. The evasion and subterfuges to avoid my points are amazing. One would almost think you all KNOW I'm right but just refuse to acknowledge it.

I actually think the effect would be a liot worse than that, but yes, I'm saying that if AN INDIVIDUAL LAYER was actually exposed at the surface for long periods of time it would be eroded way beyond the actual erosion seen, enough to be visible across the whole canyon. Which it is not. Nor is it visible in that cross-section, a mere graphic as someone tried to dismiss it, but if the individual layers had been as disturbed as they would have been under the scenario that requires them to have bgeen exposed for millions of years (hey ten years would distort them more than we see) I'm sure the artist would have not drawn those nice neat parallel layers.

I usually give you credit for at least being able to understand what a person is saying. The best I can say now is that I was wrong, because the only alternative is to figure you are intentionally lying.

I said the tectonic distortion in all cases occurred AFTER ALL THE STRATA WERE IN PLACE. Your pictures prove nothing except that there WAS tectonic distortion.

I said "INDIVIDUAL LAYERS." The tectonic distortion occurred to blocks of layers at once AFTER ALL THE LAYERS WERE LAID DOWN. The individual layers within the stack were not INDIVIDUALLY disturbed in their own time frame.