Summations Only

I really am sorry, Dr. A, but when I post something objecting to the topic of a thread I never intend it to become this kind of lengthy debate and it's only the provocative responses that keep needing to be answered that turn it into that. I don't want to start a new thread because I don't want to be in this lengthy debate anyway. My opponents don't seem to care what they do to the thread, and I don't know how to prevent this from happening.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I don't think the split would occur without resistance to the tilting, which is what fits my scenario so nicely. The whole block of strata would simply tilt up into the air without that, there wouldn't be any faulting or splitting.

---

There would likely be some material on top in any case. The evidence says that it was not the material currently there. But, while the forces Involved have to do more than simply tilt the strata I am not sure that overburden is the explanation for why.

quote:

---

There is no upper resistance in the conventional interpretation, only in my scenario.

---

What makes you think there wouldn’t be any overburden in the conventional scenario. After all, the Supergroup is lithified by that time, so it had been buried and there is no reason to assume that erosion had removed the material burying it before the tilt, rather than after.

quote:

---

And why would it have to "vary" anyway?

---

Why else would it split ? Why else would the section at the low end of the tilt end up higher than the rest ?

quote:

---

That same resistance accounts for the eroding away of the upper corners of the Supergroup.

---

That is just silly. How does resistance cause material to be exposed to erosion ?

quote:

---

The erosion itself implies the horizontal movement I keep saying must have occurred

---

No. It implies that the Supergroup was exposed to the environment for a long time before the Tapeats was deposited. What you mean is that you need to invent the horizontal movement to explain away the evidence that contradicts you.

quote:

---

..the only actual evidence of the horizontal movement is the position of the quartzite boulder

---

And that only works as evidence if we assume your scenario in the first place. Without that it supports the conventional view.

quote:

---

such movement would account for the way the fault line is cut off by the unconformity, meaning that cross cutting relationship that would show the strata were already there was prevented in this case.

---

But it is a lousy ad hoc explanation which doesn’t make a lot of sense, and all the evidence favours the conventional view.No, I don’t see any reason to consider your scenario anything more than a daft fantasy made up to explain away the evidence.

I doubt that "some material on top" could have the effect of compacted strata three miles deep.However, at the point the Tapeats was deposited according to conventional Geology, the Supergroup and surroundings had all been eroded down to a flat surface. Well, presumably the Supergroup had been well lithified under a whole mountain range before getting eroded down to the surface the Paleozoic strata then deposited on. Early on in this discussion years ago it was emphasized over and over that it was an eroded surface, nothing on top of it. Perhaps because the "step" or monadnock impeded the higher end's movement? Sorry, I guess I forgot to repeat that the SUpergroup was moving up against it. It would have been the movement up against and along the counterforce of the Tapeats that eroded the Supergroup. Which I see I said in the next sentence anyway: What I mean is that I'm talking about a consistently different paradigm from the conventional paradigm tp explain all these phenomena In my paradigm the Supergroup was not exposed to the environment. Remember? But of course that is what I am doing here, spelling out my scenario, explaining it to you. Since the boulder is a quarter mile from its source in the Shinumo and the conventional view doesn't explain that at all, my scenario wins on this one. The idea that a boulder simply rolled onto the Tapeats "beach" is super silly. It is a beautiful consistent explanation that fits beautifully with everything else in my scenario. Elegant, consistent, characteristics of a good theory. I see, you intend to win the argument by slathering on the pejorative language, which doesn't apply to anything I've said. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What is it, two or three days, I forget, until you can shed your Clark Kent persona, albeit a very domineering Clark Kent, and return as SuperPercy and slap the cuffs on me? What are you going to give me, a month? Indefinite suspension? Just curious.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I doubt that "some material on top" could have the effect of compacted strata three miles deep.

---

If you could show that the effect required compacted strata three miles deep you would have a point.

quote:

---

However, at the point the Tapeats was deposited according to conventional Geology, the Supergroup and surroundings had all been eroded down to a flat surface.

---

Since that refers to the situation long after the fault occurred it’s hardly relevant. The step created by the fault was levelled by that same erosion.

quote:

---

Well, presumably the Supergroup had been well lithified under a whole mountain range before getting eroded down to the surface the Paleozoic strata then deposited on. Early on in this discussion years ago it was emphasized over and over that it was an eroded surface, nothing on top of it.

---

When the Tapeats was deposited on top of it, yes. But we are talking about events long before that. [quote] Perhaps because the "step" or monadnock impeded the higher end's movement? [quote] The end that is meeting less resistance in your scenario, since the monadnock penetrates the Tapeats ?

quote:

---

Sorry, I guess I forgot to repeat that the SUpergroup was moving up against it. It would have been the movement up against and along the counterforce of the Tapeats that eroded the Supergroup.

---

I was asking about erosion, not abrasion. So please try again. How did the surface get eroded if it wasn’t exposed ?

quote:

---

What I mean is that I'm talking about a consistently different paradigm from the conventional paradigm tp explain all these phenomena In my paradigm the Supergroup was not exposed to the environment. Remember?

---

So your paradigm let’s you assume any event that you need to occur - and the fact that you need it is counted as evidence for it! That is obviously convenient for you but the obvious circularity makes it hopelessly irrational.

quote:

---

But of course that is what I am doing here, spelling out my scenario, explaining it to you. Since the boulder is a quarter mile from its source in the Shinumo and the conventional view doesn't explain that at all, my scenario wins on this one. The idea that a boulder simply rolled onto the Tapeats "beach" is super silly.

---

Considering the height of the monadnocks it could roll quite away due to gravity. Boulders can travel considerable distances. And you don’t really have a very sensible explanation at all.

quote:

---

It is a beautiful consistent explanation that fits beautifully with everything else in my scenario. Elegant, consistent, characteristics of a good theory.

---

Ad hoc assumptions are neither beautiful nor elegant. And you have problems with consistency too. So no, the mainstream view wins hands down on those considerations.

quote:

---

I see, you intend to win the argument by slathering on the pejorative language, which doesn't apply to anything I've said.

---

You mean you intend to win the argument by ignoring all the substantive points I’ve made and pointing to my opinion of your argument. Which you don’t like. Because it’s true.

Catching up on this thread... Or as Edge commented the next day in his Message 1406: In earlier discussions I've said that to me it looks like the kind of stretching and faulting that creates the typical basin and range landscape. And since Faith thinks the region experienced only a single tectonic episode, the faults between the Supergroup blocks had to occur before the Paleolithic strata were deposited, else erosion (a surface process) would not have cut the faults off before the Tapeats was deposited. The Kaibab Uplift was a later tectonic episode.I wasn't able to understand this: I'm having trouble formulating intelligent questions, so I'll just pop some out there and see if they enable you to see what I don't understand. How can any dust form and deposit on the layer below if the two layers have already been deposited one atop the other? How can it be "dust" if it was "washed off the rock face" and is wet? If whatever that inch is atop the Hermit originated with the Coconino after both the Hermit and Coconino units were already deposited and lithified, how can it be said to be part of the Hermit?--Percy

So, now you admit that there was an earlier phase of mountain building?

What did you do?--Percy

I'm not saying the light coloration of the "1 inch layer" is part of the Hermit. I'm proposing the possibility that the light coloration is modern surface "dirt" that for some reason happened to preferentially stick to the Hermit outcrop face at the "1 inch layer". Give the "1 inch layer" a squirt of water and the light coloration might go away.I'm not saying that the "1 inch layer" coloration is likely just surface "dirt", just that it is a possibility.Moose

No, of course not, I'm simply recounting my understanding of the accepted interpretation.

Just a brief report on the 2017 film "Is Genesis History" in which Del Tackett (the Truth Project) interviews creationists about Geology.Steve Austin gives the creationist account of the Grand Canyon, the same one I give here though I differ on some points that aren't discussed in the film.Then a British creationist takes Tackett to Sedona to show him the great extent and flatness and straightness of the layers, which is also one of my favorite observations. He even uses my favorite term "pancake" for the flatness. The layers do show up better at Sedona. He also mentions the "knife-edge" tightness of the contact between the Coconino and the Hermit, for the whole distance visible on the screen. He also points out that the area covered by just the Coconino across a number of southern states -- two hundred thousand square miles -- is far greater than any sedimentation going on today. And so on and so forth. All evidence for a catastrophic event in the past but not by millions of years, and for rapid deposition of layers immediately one after another. This is around 30 on the counter. Around 33 he says the angle of the cross bedding in the Coconino is NOT consistent with aerial deposition but with underwater deposition. It's 15 to 20 degrees which is much shallower than the angle for aerial deposition.A little earlier he discusses how radiometric dating isn't reliable because you get such different ages with different methods.I'm enjoying it myself. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Just from reading your account, I can already tell that this is another deception of the public by YEC that I don't have time for.First of all, rapid deposition does not create sorted, tabular extensive deposits. If that were so, then the debris from Mount Saint Helens would look like the Coconino sandstone.And no, he cannot state the the depositional area of the Coconino is larger than any 'sedimentation going on today'. The abyssal plains of the world are evidence against that statement.And no, the angle of cross bedding for sand dunes is less than approximately 34 degrees, because that is the angle of repose for fine desert sands; and there is a lot of variation in both water-lain and eolian cross bedding anyway. Not only that, but they often tend to be curviplanar so it depends on where you measure them.And of course we get different methods using different radiometric techniques. We've been trying to tell you this for years now. Each method has a different decay rate depending on the parent material. We are always measuring slightly different things. However, a billion years is not going to turn into 6ky under any circumstance.You are being deceived.

Looks quite likely to me from what I've seen of the flume experiments. And great aeons of time certainly couldn't do that, not these extremely flat tight layers, no, which is what I keep arguing and so do they. In what sense? In the sense of very flat tight layers that's exatly what the debris from Mt. St. Helens looks like. Which is shown at the beginning of this film by the way.Here's an image of the layering rapidly laid down by Mt. St. Helens: But of course we are talking about depositions on the continents, not under the sea. Besides which, the abyssal plains are not flat and straight and tightly layered as is the geological column. There is no comparison. Here, see THIS GOOGLE IMAGE PAGE of cross sections showing the abyssal plain. Straight, flat, tight contacts? Hardly. Who do you think you're kidding? The measurements were done by a creationist team at a great many locations and the angle was found to be less than that for Aeolian deposits, consistent with formation in water. THIS TABLE agrees with what they said in the film: water-filled sand has a lower angle -- 15 to 30 degrees -- than dry sand -- 34 degrees -- or simply wet sand -- 45 degrees. You have? If you are getting different ages from different methods for the same rock you've got a problem. Since most of what the film is saying is what I've come to on my own anyway, the film isn't deceiving me. What they see and what I see are many clear evidences for the Flood over the Old Earth deception. The Old Earth perspective requires a lot of adjusting and hedging and nudging to get the facts to fit the theory (abyssal plains = geo column?).It's also interesting, I think, that they consistently talk in terms of two different paradigms, which I also do, and I don't think I've encountered this way of laying it out to such an extent before in creationist contexts, but it is a good way to organize the material: the evidence is the same, what differs is the paradigm or interpretive framework. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The measurements were done by a creationist team at a great many locations and the angle was found to be less than that for Aeolian deposits, consistent with formation in water. THIS TABLE agrees with what they said in the film: water-filled sand has a lower angle -- 15 to 30 degrees -- than dry sand -- 34 degrees -- or simply wet sand -- 45 degrees.

---

The angle of repose is the MAXIMUM angle. That the angles measured are less than the maximum for aeolian deposits is hardly evidence that the rock did not form from aeolian deposits.

quote:

---

If you are getting different ages from different methods for the same rock you've got a problem.

---

All measurements have a margin of error, and there are things that can affect radiometric dates. However, as has certainly been mentioned before there are multiple methods and the chance that any of them - let alone all of them - is so bad as to make the young Earth a real possibility is negligible.

quote:

---

Since most of what the film is saying is what I've come to on my own anyway, the film isn't deceiving me. What they see and what I see are many clear evidences for the Flood over the Old Earth deception.

---

You know I think the people spouting falsehoods are the ones who should be accused of deception.

quote:

---

The Old Earth perspective requires a lot of adjusting and hedging and nudging to get the facts to fit the theory (abyssal plains = geo column?).

---

Edge offered abyssal plains as large areas of sedimentation, which they are,As for adjusting and hedging I doubt that you will find more of that than is usual in science - adjusting theory to fit the facts. But let’s remember that you still have no explanation for the order in the fossil record - other than trying to pretend that it doesn’t exist. And you have many other problems which old Earth views don’t. In any fair assessment you’d lose badly on that criterion.

They are consistently in the water-filled range, so that even if they overlap the dry range here and there it is definitely evidence they were formed in water. The amount of disagreement among them suggests the whole system is so unreliable anything is possible. Nobody is "spouting falsehoods." It is possible to believe something that is a deception because it is false though you believe sincerely that it is true. But if that is all he meant he's being disingenuous, since the whole point is that sedimentation ON THE ORDER OF THE STRATA OF THE GEO COLUMN is not happening today. The whole idea of fossil order is a piece of imaginative deception. There is no actual order, all those creatures existed at the same time and died at the same time.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.