Summations Only

No, it occurred as a result of the tectonic force tilting and pushing up the Supergroup, plus the horizontal movement at the unconformity between the Tapeats and the Precambrian rocks.(I've begun to use the term "erosion" to describe the rubble that accumulated at the unconformity, since you reject the terms "sheared" and "abraded" but I certainly don't mean by that word what you mean: that the erosion occurred on the surface before the strata were laid down. It would be nice to have a different word to say it, however.) They are the result of the collision between the lower tectonic force and the upper weight of the strata (which caused the Kaibab Uplift among other things) plus the horiizontal movement between them.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The Kaibab Uplift is the main part of that evidence, since it pushed up the entire stack of strata where the Supergroup collided with the Tapeats. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The point of the comment about the extent of the Coconino sandstone was that sedimentation ON LAND, like the Coconino, is not occurring on that same scale, which is an argument against the OE theory. That is not the geologic column on the seafloor. Presumably according to OE theory the geo column formed slowly on land over millions of years, and the model for it is supposed to be today's sedimentation. Doesn't work.

The idea that the Sahara will ever by a layer in the geo column is too absurd.

I'm accusing Old Earth Theory of deception. I don't think people who believe in it are trying to deceive, they are deceived themselves.

The film gives the YEC interpretation of various facts as against the conventional interpretation, and gives the reasoning for it. It's a way to find out the YEC point of view. And it hangs together quite well. It sticks to the most important issues in geology and biology and doesn't go off into the many other issues YECs also tackle. I could have written much of the script myself.I identified Del Tackett with the Truth Project because that's what I know him for, not because there is any necessary connection with this film that I know of. The Truth Project was a very good presentation of the Biblical worldview.Why would a presentation of the YEC or Biblical point of view be proselytizing any more than a presentation of the evolution or natural science point of view would be? Don't we have a right to disagree with you?And of course you do the usual ad hominem attack on Austin and other creationists as if that has anything to do with the substance of the film. Given the opprobrium heaped on creationists I well understand Austin's initial choice to publish under a pseudonym. Big deal.I'd really like to know Austin's response to the accusation that he was lying when he presented uniformitarianism too literally for your taste. One doesn't normally encounter specific enough descriptions of how a particular layer was formed anyway so the natural thing to do is suppose incremental accumulation. You don't quote him so for all I know you got it wrong anyway.Austin didn't mention any Dating Project that I recall but I'm going to watch it again so I'll find out for sure. He is being interviewed by Tackett overlooking the canyon and does of course discuss the difference between the YEC view of time and the conventional view, but just in general terms as I recall.You go on into issues that have nothing to do with the film.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You are continuing the ad hominem attack here, bringing in things that have nothing to do with the film. The film is a very general presentation of the YEC understanding of the formation of the Grand Canyon and other strata by the worldwide Flood, followed by a very general presentation of animals as varying only within the Kind, basically my own two favorite arguments. Kent Hovind isn't even mentioned in the film, and Austin doesn't discuss anything but the general view of the Grand Canyon.Seems reasonable to me to assume that the dating system has been falsified by presenting a dinosaur skull and getting a date that contradicts the standard idea of the age of dinosaurs. Going on and on about misleading the dating experts isn't a very convincing tactic. They got it wrong about the dinosaur. I'm sure there ARE many conditions in which they would also get it wrong about other things. That proves them wrong, DW, it just does, but you attack the very scientific method of proving them wrong instead. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm watching it at Netflix, I'm surprised I left that out.