Summations Only

quote:

---

The task I described was to explain how a particular time period scenario gets from there to its representative rock in the stratigraphic column. It's a specific rock. The mudstone example was just a purely hypothetical example.

---

That does not answer my question. Why is the order a problem? Given the fact that there is no right order how can it be ?

quote:

---

No it's a problem for Geology because of the huge time frames everything happens in. Getting a rock hard and dry takes a lot of time. If you pile more mud on it before it's dry, or any other wet sediment, you get them mixed or at least stuck together, but the stratigraphic column shows nicely demarcated separated layers.

---

So you think it is a problem for geology because geology allows the time needed for the sediment to dry out ? That doesn’t make much sense.Or are you suggesting that the sediment would dry out incredibly quickly in the bone-dry conditions of the Flood ? That seems even worse.

quote:

---

Calling the Flood an "ancient myth" is how you and others here justify your refusal to think seriously about any of this

---

What makes you think that it is your opponent’s who aren’t thinking seriously about it ? After all you are the one who makes obviously false claims and runs away from justifying them.Like Message 777Do you want to explain why deeply buried material turning to rock mustcause animal life to disappear ? It’s not as if there are a lot of animals living down there.If your idea of thinking about the conventional model leads you to believe obviously falsehoods - as an excuse to reject that model - then obviously there is something wrong with your thinking.Or how about the idea that there is some rightorder to the sediments? Message 831

quote:

---

...but just sling the jargon so you sound authoritative for the onlookers.

---

And how would you know that it is that and not pointing out evidence that you haven’t bothered to understand. There is no shame in ignorance, but using your ignorance as an excuse to accuse others of dishonesty is certainly shameful.

quote:

---

The evidence for the Flood that I and other creationists have described as actually existing on this planet shows a REAL worldwide Flood in REAL earth time.

---

No. Certainly not. You do a better job of disproving it with the bizarre fantasies you have to make up to try and defend it. But there is still so much evidence younhave yet to come up with any answer to, beyond trying to sweep,it under the carpet. Anyone who seriously thinks about the matter will see what you are doing there, and know that you do not have case.For example, the title of this thread. The fossil record is strong evidence against your claims - until you can offer some sensible reason to think that the observed order is possible in your scenarios you have nothing.

quote:

---

But I find the whole landscape idea absurd anyway. The Shinumo is a layer of quartzite among other layers, it's not a hill in a landscape, just as the Tapeats is a layer of sand in a depth of strata and not a beach.

---

Nobody is calling the Shinumo quartzite a hill in a landscape. It would be fairer to call it the bones of an ancient landscape including a number of hills. (I.e. it was rock at the time the landscape existed). Or islands, rather than hills, as they were when the Tapeats was being deposited. And the Tapeats certainly seems to have been deposited at a shoreline, down to the marks left by ripples.

quote:

---

I have an overview of the whole geological situation in the canyon area based on that cross section that has been referred to so many times in the past, and the overview is what dictates the horizontal movement and the thrusting.

---

That isn’t evidence for your ideas. It only tells us that the absence of the evidence is a problem for your ideas. Which we already knew.

quote:

---

The strata were pushed up by the Supergroup, it did not penetrate the Tapeats as the quartzite did. This is just one piece of evidence that all the basement rocks were confined beneath the strata when the Supergroup was tilted.

---

That’s your assumption, not evidence.

quote:

---

The main evidence of horizontal movement is the boulder which is a quarter mile from its origin

---

Which is better explained by the conventional view, as having been eroded from the Shinumo when it was already lithified and buried in the sediment that became the Tapeats

quote:

---

The main evidence of horizontal movement is the boulder which is a quarter mile from its origin.But the tilting of the Supergroup is also evidence of that, as it is in any angular unconformity. Yes Geology interprets all of this differently, I disagree and have a different interpretation.

---

And the evidence favours the interpretation of conventional geology. Your interpretation doesn’t even make sense.

quote:

---

Once I've got the whole scenario in mind Edge's little pieces of evidence, such as whether a surface is "abraded" or not are simply irrelevant.

---

In other words you have your fantasy and the evidence against it doesn’t matter. If the angular unconformity formed in the way you say there should be abrasion - you claim that there was abrasion. The lack of any evidence of abrasion is quite damning.

quote:

---

I also interpret Walther's Law to apply with a rapid rise of water and not just a slow rise. Why not? The slow rise is just an element of the standard Geo interpretation which I disagree with.

---

That’s because you are so determined to find evidence of the Flood you fail to understand what you are talking about. The particular sequences you are talking about are produced by the different environmental zones along a coastline. The rise or fall of the water is only relevant in that the zones move with it. But the Flood is supposedly dominated by huge amounts of suspended sediment. Natural production would be irrelevant. Really - we can’t know what the Flood would do but you somehow know that it would naturally mimic the sequences produced by slow changes in sea level? Why?

quote:

---

But also the idea that Walther's Law defines the Tapeats as a former "beach" is ludicrous. Are all the basement rocks we see in the GC underneath that beach? Did the sea retreat that far that we now have a canyon in a desert where the beach used to be? I suppose this will be insisted upon but I can't buy it. Walther's Law applies to the ordering of the strata but the Tapeats was a "beach" for a very short period in the rapid rising of the sea and the rapid deposition of the layers

---

That is a really odd argument. The only thing you reject is the timescale and yet the environmental changes obviously make more sense in the long timescale proposed by science. If even you imagine that the region was submerged you can hardly have a sensible objection.

quote:

---

Well, we have a definitional problem here. Erosion is simply disturbed rock, rubble, and it does not have to have occurred at the surface, it can also occur between strata and I would assume when one rock moves in contact with another.

---

Well, yes you have a problem. Rock rubbing against rock would be abrasion for which there is no evidence.

quote:

---

There is enough evidence of the tilting of the Supergroup while buried in the mounding of the strata over it.

---

There is obvious evidence against it. The fact that the major fault in the supergroup obviously occurred before the upper strata were deposited, for one.This is the usual Grand Staircase diagram and it really is obvious.

quote:

---

As long as I have a clear idea of how all this worked together, and the evidence for it I've already mentioned, Edge's preoccupation with the lack of things like faulting is simply irrelevant. The overall scenario works, so the small scale evidence has to give

---

It doesn’t work, you don’t have any significant evidence for it, and the evidence against it is quite sufficient to refute it.

quote:

---

He's always going to be thinking in his own paradigm and I'm always going to be thinking in mine where his observations are irrelevant.

---

No, the basic problem is that your thinking is apologetic (and in a bad way) and anti-scientific. You are trying to force fit everything into your scenario so naturally you dismiss contrary evidence as irrelevant - evidence only counts if you think it supports your scenario (and even there your bias causes you to make obvious mistakes).Geology, as a branch of science places the evidence first. And placing the evidence first proves you utterly wrong. That’s why you have to ignore or misrepresent so much of it.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix a quote box.

quote:

---

That cross section of the Grand Canyon / Grand Staircase area proves for starters that all the strata were laid down before any tectonic or other disturbance affected them. And that is the EVIDENCED foundation of my paradigm

---

You mean that it disproves it. As I said in my previous post the fault in the supergroup alone disproves it. Don’t you think it would be a good idea to stop trying to use evidence against your position as proof? You complain about your arguments being trashed but that’s practically begging for it.

quote:

---

Jusst the fact that there is no evidence of any kind of disturbance of the layers until the whole stack was in place is evidence of that.

---

Ridiculous falsehoods aren’t facts, Faith.

quote:

---

The attempt so many have made to claim that there is nothing odd about the planet's being undisturbed for hundreds of millions of years and then suddenly being violently shaken is too absurd for me to accept.

---

Since absolutely nobody has made that argument I don’t see how your claim of too many is possibly true. Nor even one of your opponents has bought into your fantasy, Faith. And it really is insulting of you to try to pretend that even one of us had. (You do realise that the Grand Canyon area is not the entire planet ? You do realise that we can see that even there, there were disturbances before the present geological column was in place?)

quote:

---

The absence of any kind of erosion between the strata of a sort that would occur on the surface of the earth is more evidence.

---

Isn’t it amazing how all your evidence is false? There is plenty of evidence of erosion between layers. You’re even attempting to pass some of it off as evidence for your daft ideas about angular unconformities - so it is rather hard to see how you can honestly pretend it doesn’t exist.

quote:

---

Just the fact that the strata LOOK so uniform, so identically straight and flat, is evidence that there were no time periods of millions of years

---

Because 790 foot high hills are so straight and flat.The next paragraph can be answered with the simple point that cherry picking the examples consistent with your view (making the unsafe assumption that you aren’t misrepresenting the lava dike) is hardly proof. Ignoring contrary evidence which is there for all to see is hardly a sensible way of arguing.

quote:

---

Now all the silly debunkery is coming out here and that is just too tiring for me right now. I've dealt with all this too many times already to have much interest in doing it again, at least not right now.

---

It would hardly sillier than your posts. And no, you have not adequately dealt with the many criticisms of your claims.

quote:

---

And I was going to come back to answer the rest of your earlier post but the pile-on while I was gone asks too much of me.

---

Two posts is not much of a pile-on. I’m not counting shorter replies to other posts you made.Just one final point. If your evidence is either false or obviously cherry-picked how can you complain if your argument is trashed ? Especially if you misrepresent your opponents into the bargain. It would be unfair of you to expect us not to trash it.

quote:

---

The fault in the Supergroup disproves nothing I've said.

---

I suggest that you look at it more carefully. Consider the facts that the supergroup is equally tilted on each side of the fault, that the contact with the strata above them is neither flat nor smooth, that that contact is a curve - a curve which does not follow the tilt, nor show a step, where the fault occurred, nor do the magma intrusions penetrate the upper strata.Clearly the supergroup was penetrated by magma intrusions, then tilted, then faulted, then eroded. And only then were the upper strata deposited.

quote:

---

No problem. I thought this through ages ago. The curve follows the high point created by the upthrust Supergroup as it impacted the Tapeats. The no-doubt violent contact with the upper strata removed the "step" and the faulting is simply the breaking of the Supergroup into two sections due to the same violence.

---

So a violent contact made tons of rock simply vanish. Really ? You say you’ve thought this through ?

quote:

---

The Supergroup did not prenetrate into the Tapeats showing that it was resisted by the weight above and was merely shaved down to its present remnant. It caused the curving of the Tapeats and the strata above by the force of its upward movement, first sliding horizontally under the Tapeats and then sliding under the curve as it formed.

---

You can’t see the Shinumo Quartzite sticking up into the Tapeats ? Even though you know it does ?

quote:

---

Yes, that is further evidence that the upper strata were a barrier that resisted penetration by everything except the quartzite, as the whole basement was forced horizontally under it as the Supergroup's tilt pushed it upward.

---

The tilt obviously did NOT push the upper strata upwards. I remind you that the upper strata do not follow the slope of the tilt as should be obvious.And why shouldn’t the intrusions penetrate the upper strata ?And how come the upper strata are so hard in the first place when they were supposedly deposited relatively recently ? Shale isn’t noted as a particularly hard rock even when it is lithified. So the Bright Angel Shale isn’t likely to pose that much resistance.

quote:

---

I would get the events happened almost simultaneously, perhaps the magma first but the tilting and faulting and erosion together beneath the whole stack of the upper strata

---

It is hardly what the evidence shows. You have zero evidence of horizontal motion you assume, I remind you that the upper surface of the supergroup shows erosion rather than abrasion. And you haven’t pointed to one piece of evidence that contradicts my scenario.

quote:

---

Yes I have thought all of it through many times,

---

Then I am sorry that you are so bad at thinking.

quote:

---

The tons of rock did not disappear, it's all there in the Vishnu schist.

---

So the step, by being pushed up, ended up underneath the rocks it was on top of ?What evidence do you have for this ?

quote:

---

And I merely failed to mention the quartzite penetrating into the upper strata because I was making a point about the curve and what caused it. But trust you, and everyone else here, to pretend I committed some kind of error when I didn't

---

You said that the Supergroup did not penetrate into the Tapeats. The Shinumo quartzite is an element of the Supergroup. So obviously what you said was wrong.And take a look at this diagram. (While it is not directly relevant you might like to consider just how flat the Surprise Canyon and Temple Butte Formations are, too)

quote:

---

Nope. I know you like the establishment interpretation but the evidence shows that the tectonic disturbance occurred after the strata were all laid down and that they were laid down rapidly and not millions of years apart.

---

Your version of the evidence which is either cherry picked, misrepresented or completely invented may show that. The real evidence says otherwise.

quote:

---

The tilting was not there first because the strata are pushed up by the Supergroup and would not deposit evenly over that curve, as I already said.

---

And that is just an example of misrepresentation. The evidence indicates that the tilting came before the curve - it’s very obvious that the curve doesn’t follow the direction of the tilt. At the right hand side of the diagram the curve goes down where the tile points up. If you can’t see that you are blind.

quote:

---

If you're just going to repeat the standard interpretation I'm done here.

---

If you can’t tolerate the truth then run away. It’s a stupid threat. There is no way we are going to agree to accept obvious falsehoods or even let them go unchallenged just because you demand it.

quote:

---

The tilting can't have come before the curve, as I've explained

---

As I explained your reasoning is obviously incorrect. The tilt had to come first, since the curve does not follow the tilt.. The curve may be related to the fault - but that certainly came after the tilting as can be seen from the fact that the tilt is at the same angle on each side of the fault.You’ve got no valid reason why the tilt can’t have occurred before the curve, so I don’t have to accept it.

quote:

---

Yes I got your reasoning. My guess would be that the even curve has more to do with the distribution of the weight above than the shape of the Supergroup.

---

Obviously you don’t get my reasoning. Since the curve is going down at that point it can’t be formed by an event that would push it up.

quote:

---

Sorry, it violates Steno's principle of original horizontality to have the tilt come before the Paleozoic strata. Some here are willing to violate that principle but I'm not. The strata would not lie down evenly over the rise.

---

That’s an argument that the strata were deposited before the curve - that’s the rise you mean.. It’s got nothing to do with when the tilt happened.
(I think you are wrong also, you can get deposits up to the angle of repose and the curve is very gentle, if you remember that the vertical distances are exaggerated with respect to the horizontal.)

quote:

---

This curve is the main piece of evidence I point to for the order of events that puts the tectonic disturbance after the strata were all laid down.

---

And one example - if it is an example - is nowhere near good evidence. That is just cherry-picking.

quote:

---

And besides, how do you get that rise over the Supergroup on the establishment interpretation that the Supergroup was the remains of a mountain range that eroded down to its current level?

---

Which rise? What we’ve been calling the curve ? A later uplift event. That’s easy.

quote:

---

It's been argued here many times that erosion would produce a flat surface, not a curved hill.

---

Eventually. But subtracting the curve the surface is pretty flat (monadnocks and other erosional features aside). In fact the downward slope of the curve looks like the steepest portion. The left end edge of the supergroup is near the top of the curve.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Yes it can if that upthrust corner was getting filed down as it were during the pushing up, and the weight above resisted it.

---

An upward push is not going to file it down. And the material doesn’t look any thicker there, while leverage would tend to maximise the upward force there.So the evidence is still against you. Implausible ad hoc speculations don’t make a convincing case.(Answering material added by edit)

quote:

---

Oh right, we don't need a reason for the rise, it just decided to rise there without anything to rise over. Come on!

---

You are making zero sense. The reason for the rise is the uplift event. And I have no idea what you mean by without anything to rise over. It makes no sense.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Sorry, no matter what problems you can find, the fact remains that the rise or hill over the Supergroup occurred after all the strata were in place and pushed up the entire stack.

---

Even if you’re right it has no real significance to my points.

quote:

---

Yes I didn't answer you very clearly but you need to be asked where the tilted Supergroup went if it wasn't the reason for the rise over it. If there was only, say, schist there, how did the Supergroup get there?:

---

This makes no sense whatsoever. First you ask where it went (implying that it was there and went away?) and then you talk as if I think it wasn’t there at all.So let us make it simple. I think that the supergroup was tilted and eroded to pretty much its present state before the Tapeats was deposited, as the evidence indicates. The uplift curved the surface but did not add to it or remove anything from it. And I am quite happy to believe that the uplift occurred even later than the deposition of the Tapeats.

quote:

---

There is no evidence for that.

---

There is plenty. The monadnocks in the Shinumo quartzite, the fossils - especially the trace fossils in the Tapeats, even the boulder you keep mentioning.

quote:

---

Surface of the eroded Supergroup? How did it curve it?

---

By pushing it up - the force greatest where the curve is highest.

quote:

---

So it also curved the Tapeats and all the other strata followed that curve?

---

That’s what you’ve been saying.

quote:

---

But there is no reason for it to have caused the curve.

---

Why not, and what do you think did ?

quote:

---

And I reject the idea that the strata deposited on the curve.

---

Then obviously they were pushed up by a force that would produce the curve. And the uplift fits perfectly.

quote:

---

If it was limestone rather than quartzite I might have to take it seriously, but quartzite no

---

I note that you offer no explanation of the supposed problem.

quote:

---

Not if the Flood caused it all.

---

That’s a silly response. If I used the same sort of argument you’d never accept it. Anyway the evidence very strongly indicates that the Flood didn’t cause it all. Creationists have had 200 years to find an explanation for the order of the fossil record. And they still haven’t got close. Remember the topic? We have the fossils, we win.

quote:

---

The boulder is evidence of the horizontal movement pf the Supergroup beneath the Tapeats

---

If there was this massive horizontal movement filing down the rocks you would have better evidence. The abrasion marks for one. (The filing down IS abrasion. No marks, no evidence of abrasion)So no, that boulder is better explained as a rock detached from the Shinumo while the Tapeats was being deposited.

quote:

---

What force?

---

There has to be some upward force for an uplift right ? Do you have an explanation for the curve that doesn’t involve some force pushing it up ?

quote:

---

I certainly have not. I've said strata will not deposit on a rise. I've said they were already laid down and THEN the whole stack was curved as a block.

---

Sorry, I thought that you understood that after the Tapeats was deposited includes long after it was deposited. Potentially after everything else. It really doesn't matter for this discussion how late you push it so I’m not arguing about it.

quote:

---

It would take tectonic force to curve a layer or layers, and that's what I think did it, AFTER all the strata were in place. You haven't given any cause for the uplift to have occurred.

---

Then go with that. It has nothing to do with the evidence that the supergroup was tilted before the uplift occurred.