Summations Only

Yes I see the contact line in the blown up picture and it's knife-edge tight. There are bits of the Coconino overhanging and causing shadows.But I was saying that the reason the contact is a darker fine line than the surrounding rock is that we're seeing the shadow that is IN the contact. And I can tell you don't get it, you don't get any of this and I guess nobody is going to straighten you out about it, nothing surprising there, but I'm tired of being the butt of your failures of comprehension.No, if you still think the contact is an inch thick or that the lighter band beneath the contact doesn't belong to the Hermit, you are not getting it and I am not interested in discussing any of this with you.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It sounds like you think somebody said that would happen.

I can't see bright white images with thinline writing or images on them and those are very common. Photos with decent lighting I can usually make out.

If someone describes a contact between layers as the tightest they've ever seen or uses a descripture term like "knife-edge" I know it is knife-edge tight and not an inch thick. Why Percy doesn't know that I can't fathom but I had no problem at all just looking at the picture and knowing that the fine line is the contact. I read the lighter area beneath it as being at an angle that reflects the sun more directly than the rest. But the important thing is that it is not the contact, the fine line is the contact.No there is no rule that says a contact cannot be an inch thick, but follow the discussion: this contact line in this particular section of the GC is pointed out for its extreme tightness which wouldn't be the case if it were an inch thick. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The daftness here is what I'm up against in this utterly absurd conversation. All I mean by "the important thing" is that it's what we are talking about for cryin out loud. We're talking about the CONTACT LINE and the contact line is that very fine line just below the Coconino, and not the lighter band beneath it no matter what the nature of that band might be. Sheesh. A one inch contact line would not be described as "knife-edge" tight even if it was tighter than others in the canyon. It's hard to believe the absurdities you're willing to sink to in trying to put me in the wrong about something as obvious as this. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

NOBODY would refer to a one-inch-thick area between strata as "knife-edge" tight. Nobody. Nobody would refer to it as so unusually tight they wish they could take people there to see how tight it is (Garner in video of GC lecture). You don't need to know any more about it to know that the contact in question is the fine line and has nothing to do with anything else in the picture. All the rest of your cogitations are totally irrelevant to this one simple point. That's all that matters, that the line is that tight at that location, everything else is utterly and totally and completely irrelevant. You don't need to postulate anything about the cause of it, whether Flood or whatever, all you need to do is recognize what the contact line is. Sheesh. But perhaps this explains the craziness going on here. You're all so afraid it might be used to justify the Flood you can't even recognize the simple fact that the contact is indeed "knife-edge tight."Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This discussion gets weirder and weirder. You are mixing up two different discussions now, the one about erosion time and the one about the tight contact. You should at least start by acknowledging that nobody said you could reduce any formation to dust in a few thousand years. Just your saying that means I can't expect to have a real conversation with you.And you keep trying to make the contact line discussion into a Flood issue but as presented the Flood has not come up. The whole thing foundered on whether the contact was as tight as I was saying it is and until that is clearly acknowledged I don't want to discuss anything else that may or may not be related to it.

Mainly it defies the idea of millions of years between layers.

The discussion is what foundered.I'm not interested in my "narrative" at the moment in relation to this issue, the point became the argument about whether the contact was tight, that's all. Percy claimed it was one inch thick and it isn't, and that's all this is about. Fine, you finally acknowledged it, thank you, but others need to acknowledge it or there's no point for me in continuing the discussion. This went on for days already and I got accused of all kinds of things because of it. Not interested in continuing it under those circumstances.

My scenario is that the canyon was cut by the receding Flood waters.

The idea about reducing a formation to dust is about how long it would take from its formation to be completely disintegrated. What website?

Reducing a FORMATION to dust means a ROCK.And don't exaggerate the softness of the sediments at the end of the Flood. They were three miles deep so certainly highly compacted.And who knows what the gravel is you're sitting on anyway.

Of course I get it. What is your problem?

Depends on who is doing the looking. A biased evolutionist isn't going to see it correctly. Especially if you think gravel that has collected there was collected thousands of years ago when of course it was collected recently.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There is no possible reasonable doubt that the fine line above the one inch strip you keep questioning is the contact line, absolutely none whatever, and that the one inch area belongs to the Hermit. Doubting the people who have used terms that describe extreme tightness of the contact line is unreasonable. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.