Summations Only

Not true at all Faith. You have been shown evidence of erosion and tectonic events between and within layers of the GC and you simply hand-wave them away with explanations that have little or nothing to do with reality.For example, the channels cut into the Muav Ls. and filled with Temple Butte Ls. which you explain as water running between the layers and then back-filling with limestone. Yet, these channels look nothing like karst formations (what waters forms when running underground) and there is no place for the water to flow to or the Temple Butte limestone to come from (since it is different from both the layers above and below it).The Great Unconformity is another example. You explain it as some kind of weird tilting and sliding process. It is an explanation that makes absolutely no sense and has little resemblance to reality. It is quite impossible to even imagine how your scenario could have happened as it has that little connection to reality. It is simply a "good enough" explanation for you and allows you to dismiss the unconformity as being an erosional surface. In other words, your explanation has nothing to do with trying to understand what actually DID happen but is just trying to maintain the premise that there is no tectonic or erosion events in the entire stack.The monadnocks are another example. They are clearly erosional features very similar to those we see in places like Monument Valley or like the image below from the Sonoran Desert. That image is very similar to what the Shinumo monadnocks probably looked like in their day. Since we have the same type of features in the modern landscape that obviously formed by erosion, suggesting that the Shinumo monadnocks were formed by pushing up from underneath, through other layers, just has no connection with reality.You are arriving at the conclusion that there was no tectonic or erosive event during the deposition of the entire stack because you start with the premise that the flood deposited all the sediment of the geological column and then you craft your explanations to support the premise. If you examined the evidence without that presupposition and instead tried to connect the observations with reality, you would not come to the conclusion that there was no tectonic or erosional events during the deposition of the Grand Canyon.As it is, your explanations for the features we see in the Grand Canyon are purely imaginary.HBD

Being "obvious" to you is hardly evidence, since it is also "obvious" to me that those channels in the Muav Ls. WERE formed at the surface. What is different about our "obvious" is that I can point out what surface channels look like compared to underground karsts and compare the formations in the Mauv to those features. Observations are fine... what you fail to do is connect those observations to reality. You just make stuff up to explain those observations. Sure you have. Coming to any other conclusion would destroy your faith, are you going to allow that to happen? No, there is only one possible conclusion for you. There must be some confusion about what "denial" means. What I see people on the old ages side doing is disagreeing with your explanations and giving reasons and arguments as to why they aren't valid. What I see you doing is making excuses to ignore evidence and arguments people are presenting because you "know" they are wrong and you are right. It's not that you don't make any legit arguments, but when opposed you have a whole arsenal of denial tactics that you utilize. Percy has detailed them many times as have others.For example: That is simply denial and does not address the arguments or rebuttals regarding how the monadnocks formed.and... That's your avoidance tactic.HBD

Ok, look at this image again... now look at the cross section of the Supergroup. Can't you see that the image from the Sonoran desert looks a lot like the unconformity in the cross section?Here's another cross section of the canyon (I had not run across this one before - it's quite detailed). You honestly don't see any disturbance there until the entire sedimentary deposition was complete?Just one example, the Cardenas Basalt separates the Unkar Group and the Chuar Group of sediments. It is a 300 meter thick lava flow, in two separate units, interbedded with sandstones and more. But I'm sure you can make up something...HBDEdited by herebedragons, : typo

Fossils are predictably ordered according to random and inexplicable physical features depending on the specific circumstances and the currently unknown properties of water acting through an indescribable sequence of improbable events.Duh...HBD

You don't mean "stirring up the sediments" do you? Because that would mean the sediments got mixed together and that is not what we see. Instead we see sediments sorted into discrete units, but not in the order expected of flood waters. So maybe instead of "stirring up the sediments" you mean these turbulent fountains "sorted the sediments." Shrug? Or not. Have you never been in a wetland? Of course there is tracks left. What do you think is under that vegetation... very soft mud? Funny but scientists don't think that. That is your own musing based on your faulty and imaginary thinking of the situation. I for one have shown you buried landscapes - termite mounds and paleosols for example.The standard account does not have landscapes on top of flat rock surfaces. Rather landscapes are inundated with water, sand, mud, etc. and the current landscape is replaced with new landscape and sometimes remnants of the old landscape are preserved by the new sediment that is forming over the old. We see that happening today. We see the evidence of that in the geological record (termite mounds and paleosols).What is bizarre about all this is that the scenario you seem to be imagining seems more like what we would expect if the earth experienced a global flood but then you impart that on the old earth and declare it impossible. Then you make up an even more bizarre scenario to explain the flood. I mean, the narrative you provided in this message is "Not Even Wrong". It is so far from reality, there is no way to even evaluate it and argue against it.I have already pointed out several times that you can't have the land being stripped bare of the sediment, animals running around on sediment that isn't there, sediment coming up out of the ocean basin to be deposited on the land surfaces high above, animals still running around, sediments being stirred up by turbulence, sediments being sorted according to some unknown principal, water so powerful it can move hundreds of cubic miles of sediments in a matter of days, water so powerful it preserves nests, footprints and creates tight contacts between layers, and so forth...This mix of conditions is so implausible that you are the only one who can even imagine what is going on, how it could possibly work. The rest of us can barely evaluate it because it is so far from reality.Arguments like this are basically a Creationist Escape Hatch and allow you to basically just make up anything you want. Of course, it is you alone who is enlightened and can understand the science clearly. HBD

Question... how could they be deformed BEFORE they were laid down. This argument seems to me to be another of your trivially truisms that you have extrapolated to explain everything. And when we show you areas where layers were deposited and then deformed and then more layers were deposited on top of them, you deny and make up ridiculous stories about sliding, rotating blocks where huge amounts of material just disappear.And this is what you get "I believe even though I can't demonstrate it" Exaggeration. Made up, no connection to reality.HBD

See... how could we possibly evaluate this statement. "Layers still form but the Geological Column began and ended with the flood." That's not even wrong.If layers still form and layers make up the Geological Column...Your logic astounds me.HBD

It's impossible, that's the problem. And you cannot explain how waves rising over the land could sort not only the sediments but also fossils and radioactive isotopes as they were depositing. I would call it pointing out how silly you arguments are It is impossible, not my fault. I never said "perfect baldness" - you are exaggerating my arguments.But there are thousands of cubic miles of sediments that are going to be deposited on the land when the forty days (or whatever time frame you imagine) is up. I only expect that all the sediment that is deposited came from somewhere and you have suggested it was stripped from the land. Think about all these deposits that are so extensive that you can't believe they could have come from millions of years. But instead they are generated from forty days of rain scouring the land.I can't help uit your scenario is impossible. I have no idea what you are going on about here. No you haven't Faith. You said they were transported from somewhere. That's impossible (not my fault). How are in situ root systems illusionary? How are in situ termite nests illusionary?Your argument that everything but your scenario is illusionary is a rather dishonest tactic. It is nothing but dismissal. Hand-waving away evidence. Those features deserve an explanation.HBD

No its not. Its conceptual.

No you did not. You asserted it. You have been shown disturbances between layers and you ignore them and call them illusionary. Far cry from "proving" your premise. Oopps... forgot the SuperGroup for which you argued extensively to be a flood deposit. Or is the SuperGroup not part of the Geological Column now? And there was a major tectonic event and erosion before the Tapeats was deposited?

No you haven't... maybe in your own mind, but I am not convinced. Well, yea. That's obviously the case right? It has to be that those who disagree with you are "in thrall to the lies." That's your "proof"?

Oooo... more "proof" of your arguments. Good show.

Wait... so now you accept the time element of the geological column (obviously the time periods would represent days or hours and not millions of years, but hey...)? Because if the column represents deposits that don't exist in all locals, then the column links them temporally. But you have rejected that idea in the past. Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.

But there IS erosion between the layers? Based on what data? How do you know how much erosion there SHOULD be? Should there be Grand Canyons everywhere?And stop typing in all caps. It is totally unnecessary.HBD

Yea, but what do geologists know? They're delusional.