Summations Only

1) No one other than adherents of a particular narrow brand of religion advocates the things you do.2) The real world evidence is all against the claims you make.3) You tell us the bible is the highest and only form of evidence you'll accept.Conclusion--you are doing religious apologetics, the exact opposite of science.

What I "advocate" is just your way of obscuring the fact that I've given actual physical evidence that has nothing to do with my beliefs.

It may be an assertion, but plenty of evidence has been provided on these very pages multiple times in the past. Your denial is to no effect.For instance, you ignore the fact that the Great Unconformity shows signs of erosion in the form of gravel deposits, and differential erosion such as boulders and talus around the monadnocks of Shinumo Quatzite; all the while with no evidence for shearing as you so confidently assert.You do not recognize the various compositions and relative ages of igneous rocks in the Colorado Plateau region; nor their relationship to cross-cutting faults and erosional surfaces.And most egregiously, you ignore the fact the Grand Canyon equivalent rocks defined by regional mapping show abundant evidence of tectonism and erosion in the rest of the world while the Faith-designated strata of the Grand Canyon were being deposited.Even your definition of 'strata' is convoluted beyond recognition.We could go on and on, but it is to no avail. Blind, dogmatic ignorance is impervious to facts. All you have to do is deny. Okay, then you explain the processes involved in creating an angular unconformity at numerous places within the geological record.

quote:

---

What I "advocate" is just your way of obscuring the fact that I've given actual physical evidence that has nothing to do with my beliefs.

---

That just isn’t true.In reality the evidence shows a long history of tectonic events.To first this in with your religious doctrine you come up with the idea that they all happened at the same time. It’s not based on the physical evidence - it’s an attempt to deny the obvious implications of real physical evidence.But you go on, and now you are insisting that your apologetic excuse is evidence of a Young Earth, and even an observable fact!In reality you’ve only looked at one small part of the planet, and you haven’t come up with any real evidence that your idea is true even there.That is your physical evidence - a lousy religious apologetic that you try to pass off as a fact.

I guess you never heard of the Reformation.So, why are there so many Christian sects?

The Reformation RESTORED the true biblical Christianity that had been ignored and twisted by Roman Catholic pagan superstitition. If they ARE Christian, they differ only on secondary minor points. But you probably wouldn't recognize a denomination from an all out heresy so this discussion would get way to complicated and I'd rather not go there.

It's a misinterpretation. Perhaps you could show one to be sure.

quote:

---

It's a misinterpretation

---

So you say. But you haven’t even made a reasonable case for that in the examples that have been discussed.

quote:

---

Perhaps you could show one to be sure

---

I’d rather stick to the point than go back to something where we already have made a good case.Why you are you trying to pass off an opinion you hold for religious reasons as evidence? Why are you insisting that it can be shown from the physical evidence when you can’t even do that for the region we’ve discussed most? Let alone the rest of the planet?And why are you evading this point ?

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

The Temple Butte channel couldn't possibly be something that had ever been on the surface. That's obvious to me, sorry if you don't see it.There are many separate observations that go into my view of the Great Unconformity. I'm too sick of arguing about this right now to want to review all that.I don't get what you or anyone is trying to say about the monadnocks and don't know if it's worth hearing more about it.No I have not arrived at the judgment that there was no disturbance to the geo column from presuppositions but from actual evidence. I worked on it a lot back when. I clearly clearly demonstrated what I was seeing in the Grand Canyon.But everybody's usual denial is just getting too tiresome. I wish I'd written it all out somewhere independently of this place where it's so hard to find anything. .Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The Temple Butte channel couldn't possibly be something that had ever been on the surface. That's obvious to me, sorry if you don't see it

---

Nobody sees it. You just assume it.

quote:

---

There are many separate observations that go into my view of the Great Unconformity. I'm too sick of arguing about this right now to want to review all that.

---

There are no actual observations that provide any significant support. None.

quote:

---

I don't get what you or anyone is trying to say about the monadnocks and don't know if it's worth hearing more about it.

---

They were clearly formed by surface erosion - like the ones herebedragons showed pictures of. They were there when the Tapeats was being deposited.

quote:

---

No I have not arrived at the judgment that there was no disturbance to the geo column from presuppositions but from actual evidence. I worked on it a lot back when. I clearly clearly demonstrated what I was seeing in the Grand Canyon.

---

That is an obvious falsehood. You would have had to have looked at a great many locations to determine that, not just one. And you are almost certainly wrong about the one region you did look at. It’s obvious that you just made it up, and it isn’t exactly hard to guess the motive.

quote:

---

But everybody's usual denial is just getting too tiresome. I wish I'd written it all out somewhere independently of this place where it's so hard to find anything. .

---

Don’t worry, you aren’t missing anything. Just more irrational nonsense.

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

Responding to several of your messages...

---

Replying to your Message 1702 to PaulK: Most everything you say draws a response because most everything you say is in error. You do not have a paradigm. You have a fiction, dogmatically adherent to a religious book by ancient nomads, that ignores almost all evidence and often perversely distorts facts and analysis. Marine strata with marine fossils are found in all levels of the geological record, from top to bottom, but the species differ. In fact, they become increasingly different from modern forms with increasing depth in the geologic column. Water does not have the ability to sort in this way, nor by radiometric age, nor by sediment type. There wouldn't be exceptions to what you describe because what you describe doesn't exist in the real world. Marine and non-marine strata are interspersed.

---

Replying to your Message 1703 to PaulK: You do not have a paradigm. You have a religious story unsupported by, indeed contradicted by, real world evidence.

---

Replying to your Message 1711 to Coyote: It isn't just radiometric dating that says you're wrong. It's also fossil order, the ways sediments originate through erosional processes, sedimentation order, sedimentation rates, strata with tracks, burrows and nests, Walther's Law as a slow process requiring long time periods, unconformities representing missing millions of years of time, sea floor striping recording flips in the Earth's magnetic field, sea floor spreading rates, slope retreat rates at canyons, sharp contacts between strata.And I'm sure we're all curious to understand your process in better detail. Do I have this right:

1. The flood sweeps across the landscape stripping it bare so that all sediments are swept into the water.
2. The water recedes from the land, then sorts the sediments by type and radiometric age, and the fossils by increasing difference from modern forms.
3. The water returns to the land in the form of a long sequence of successive waves that redeposits the sediments and fossils, but only of particular types each time. There's little mixing of sediments of different types, or of fossils of different eras, and none of sediments of different radiometric ages.
4. Even though the flood had earlier swept across the land to strip the sediments from it, animals still somehow inhabit the land so that they can run out onto the mudflats between successive waves in order to create tracks, burrows, nests, etc.

No, sorry, there are no creationists who address these things. And don't you tire of constantly having to resort to, "Answers exist, I just don't have them." There is no evidence that processes in the past were any different than they are today. In fact, today we observe sedimentary processes creating the same geologic structures that we find in ancient strata. Pretending that many lines of evidence pointing in the same direction don't exist is silly. You're engaged in a multi-year performance of denial. Stubbornly refusing to make sense of evidence or acknowledge evidence or even understand how reality works is guaranteed not to work as persuasion. Perhaps you see it as a way to testify for your God, but this is a science thread. You need to weave the many lines of evidence into a consistent whole.

---

Replying to your Message 1712 to Jar: I think you've got paradigm on the brain. Casting accusations of paradigm is not an answer. If you've got an interpretation of the evidence that is consistent with natural laws then let's hear it - otherwise all you're doing is posting a big fat, "I've got nothing." You're like a broken record. Crying "paradigm" is not a response. You've still got nothing. Oh, this should be good. Please explain how flowers and grasses in the same field ended up in different layers. You're just not going to stop with this paradigm nonsense, are you. There is no such thing as a Flood paradigm. You can't seem to answer any challenges, only invent names. The fossil order is not an illusion, and it isn't something you can explain as a result of the Flood. If the fossil order is an illusion then you should be able to show that it's an illusion. But you can't, because it's real.

---

Hmmm, been a bit busy, and before I had a chance to post this the thread seems to have up and run away from me - I'm now about 150 messages behind. It's no longer practical to respond to each of your misstatements, so I'll just post what I've got so far and read to the end of the thread.--Percy

Couldn't resist commenting on this one. PaulK is invoking the law of superposition, the one law of Steno that you still accept. Without some kind of tectonic inversion, how could fossils in a lower strata be deposited after fossils in a higher strata? What is wrong with you that you're rejecting not just science established and accepted for hundreds of years, but even just simple common sense.There is only one fossil order represented by the actual fossils in actual geological strata. As usual when you have no argument you confound discussion by insisting on nonsense that you argue for interminably. That probably explains the 140 messages I have yet to read.--Percy