Summations Only

My ideas violate no physical laws, but many of yours have over the last year or so and that's why I don't read much of what you write. There is no point in having a discussion with somebody whose straw man arguments aren't even remotely rational. And you lecture me in a particularly offensive way. I might put up with that except for the way you garble the a4rguments.

duplicate Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's "impossible" only by ingrained theory, not reality.What's silly is THIS comment of yours. The point of that diagram was to suggest that the fault line at least and perhaps the unconformity, occurred DURING the period of its laying down but there is no evidence for that in that diagram. There is no rational way to impute those phenomena to the laying-down period let alone to the "Pennsylvanian" period. As I answered. it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that all that occurred afterward, after all the erosion that had to have occurred in that area to remove all the strata up to the "Cenozoic." And all he answers me with is more of the Old Earth assumptions rather than reasonable physical reasons to assign the fault line to the laying-down period. Which he can't because all he has is the OE assumptions. No, I'm not going to argue with that. Don't put words in my mouth. I've never questioned that. I figure they can know such PHYSICAL things. What they can't know was that there was supposedly a mountain range here and a shallow sea there such and such millions of years ago. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I have never ever said I'm not willing to look at evidence elsewhere. In fact I would very much like to if a location could be selected that would be appropriate and I'm not sure one exists. The problem is it's messier elsewhere. It rapidly gets too complex and requires an enormous amount of time, which doesn't fit into a debate thread. It's only good for mystifying the creationist.The Grand Canyon - Grand Staircase area has the virtue of being streamlined as well as amazingly complete from bottom to top. And what would be the point of moving on to other locations before I get people to see my argument there in the first place? That's just a typical railroading, it doesn't serve understanding, that's for sure.ABE: The diagram edge put up with the intent of railroading me could be discussed further except that all he is interested in is railroading me, mystifying me and one-upping me. He hardly ever gives more than a brief cryptic statement about anything and then if I say it's incomprehensible he accuses me of all kinds of antiscientific perfidy along with uppityness that refuses to curtsey to the Scientist. Who needs it? In any case my HONEST assessment of that diagram is that there is no reason to think the fault line occurred even at the level of the "Pennsylvanian" let alone during that totally fictitious Time Period. And if he's going to answer me with more Old Earth mystification forget it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I would like your assessment of my answer to this in Message 353

You have no idea what a worldwide Flood would do, there's no point in addressing your unwarranted assertions about that. And besides as usual you are misrepresenting the argument. "Sorting fossils in water' is not something I've ever said. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That diagram of the GS-GC area is everywhere on the web. What are you saying it's supposed to show?And what is your point about the photo?

"In the meantime, we do know that what we see is nothing out of the mainstream of geological observations. interpretations."Edited by Admin, : Use bold quotes instead of [size=4] quotes, sidesteps the bug where the struck-through "observations" is displayed below the rest of the line.

"Sorting fossils in water" is a strange misrepresentation of the idea of water carrying sediments along with dead and dying creatures, in currents and levels of the water and so on, to some point on land where they get deposited just the way water does carry things and deposit them, as that model of Walther's Law suggests. Sorted too, into different sediments. Only in the Flood there would have been a lot more water flowing across a lot more land, a lot more sediments and billions of dead things.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, that is not the case. The Grand Canyon area has the virtue of being clear enough to demonstrate that nothing tectonic happened between the Cambrian and the Tertiary, which is excellent evidence against the Old Earth and for the Flood. All a more complex location would do is muddy up the evidence. People have presented me with photos supposedly proving that tectonic disturbance did occur during the laying down. The area in the photo may be quite messy, jumbled, collapsed and so on, which proves nothing about their claims and suggests to me exactly what I've been claiming. It all got shook up afterward, but if Geology doesn't agree, too bad for me.Geology is going to have a whole bunch of stuff supposedly proving events in certain time periods from such messy situations, like that cross section edge just posted, but they don't prove that, the idea merely fits with the Old Earth assumptions.Edge may know a lot but he's got a lousy attitude and a lousy communication style. I don't understand half of what he says, and that's from his communication problem not my level of knowledge.I know the Flood occurred, and I'm 90% sure the Grand Canyon shows how.Nothing more to say on this particular subject. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

My job is to construct some idea of how the Flood happened although I'm not a geologist and have to rely on the internet for information. For my purposes the clearest situations are best. I'm not going to give up no matter what nonsense I get thrown at me.I know the Flood happened and the GC shows the ridiculousness of Old Earth explanations. All other locations would also be products of the Flood but it would be harder answering all the Geology objections. It's hard enough in the Grand Canyon where the evidence is really very good but besides the natural problem of trying to get across a model that is entirely different from theirs, the objections range from the sublime to the ridiculous, even a long utterly insane exchange about the meaning of the word "parallel."Right, so you pick the other location you want to discuss, OK? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't use the term "slip fault" Your post is useless to me, just an aping of edge. Not reading it. Go away.

Hey you've won, go celebrate or something. You've chased the creationist away with your jargon and your rank-pulling and your namecalling. You've made this discussion as odious as it could possibly be and as useless. Have a good time. I'll take up my argument elsewhere.

There was no tectonic activity in other locations during the laying down of the strata. No you have not shown that.

Go celebrate with edge. You've won the debate.