Summations Only

If I'm seeing what you have in mind, it looks to me like a slight beveling of the Hermit rock just below the contact, that happens to be catching the light so it stands out.ABE: Now I'm wondering if you are talking about the contact we've supposedly been discussing all along, which is nothing but a fine line, very very straight and without any erosional channeling. That is what is "between" the layers but it is most certainly not a layer, it's the contact line.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So you are saying that it's common knowledge among geologists that strata can form in running water simultaneously rather than one on top of another separated by time? Funny nothing you've ever said or anyone else either has ever implied such a thing.Also the experiments showed that older strata and therefore their fossil contents can deposit on top of younger strata and their fossils and I don't recall ever hearing that from you or any other geology source.

Everthing I've seen indicates that this short section of the contact is the only place where there is no erosional channeling, that it is unique in its tightness, which of course Baumgardner would know, so he certainly would not be "implying" anything else.. And Baumgardner did not say it was, you misread him. He has no reason to "tacitly concede" something everybody already knows and certainly he does too.He is commenting on the common knowledge that there is in fact very "little" erosional channeling at most contacts, and wondering why that is so, a fact that makes this short section unique in being absolutely free of it, although in general there is hardly any erosion anywhere else anyway, far from the "great deal" you are claiming. Garner mentions this phenomenon at the end of his talk, saying that a creationist colleague has been studying it and thinks it was probably created when an earthquake occurred while the rocks were still damp that cracked the Hermit and allowed Coconino sand into the cracks. There are apparently other cracks, not just one.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But nobody else is as confused about what I'm saying as you are. However, the general paradigm blindness here is indeed what makes my efforts nightmarish, and my constant hope that somebody will finally be smart enough or honest enough to get it is no doubt futile.

Of course not. I've always attributed the small amounts of erosion to runoff between the strata after they were laid down, or slight tectonic movement after they were laid down. I don't do evo style interpretations, I'd think at least you would know that much by now. I never said one thing about gaps as far as I recall but of course it doesn't have gaps, it doesn't have gaps, it doesn't have erosion, it's so tight it's one single fine line. And I've been coming to think you don't even know what the contact is on that picture. If "improvements" in computer science hadn't utterly defeated my ability to navigate such things I'd blow up the picture and highlight the area closeup of the contact and ask you to put an arrow indicating what you think the contact line is. Perhaps you could do that? As I already said he didn't "concede" anything because that erosional channeling is common knowledge. He said it's interesting how little erosion there is in the contacts, meaning all the erosional channeling, but also said it in a way that meant he regarded that section of the Coconino-Hermit contact as unique in having absolutely NO such erosion. . Percy, it's hard to believe you are this out of it but over and over you say stuff like this that shows that you are. You are so miserably misreading me it's beyond beyond. Where have I said one single thing that implies that I wouldn't know that? Oh don't answer that, you'll have some utterly bizarre way of misreading me I don't think I even want to know aboutt. This whole series of questions is just weird and wacko. Your tediousness and nitpicking are problems I have with your posts, but bizarre misreadings is another.I haven't EXTRAPOLATED anything. I've said over and over and over that it appears that short stretch of knife-edge tight contact is probably unique in the Grand Canyon. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

But nobody else is as confused about what I'm saying as you are. However, the general paradigm blindness here is indeed what makes my efforts nightmarish, and my constant hope that somebody will finally be smart enough or honest enough to get it is no doubt futile.

---

The thing that makes your efforts nightmarish is you. Your method is to do everything you can to pretend that you are right. Without making anything like the effort you would need to BE right. To mention just one example from this thread, you literally tried to argue that a fantasy you made up was sufficient to disprove conventional geology. And that is not even the stupidest thing you’ve done in this discussion.Your false accusations against your opponents are, of course, the opposite of the truth. Trying to pretend that ridiculous falsehoods are true is neither smart nor honest. But it’s what you want.Instead of trying to blame everyone else for the fact that you are wrong all the time perhaps you might let go of your delusional pride and admit to your own failings instead.

Oh well what else could I possibly expect from EvC anyway?

If you won’t deal with the problem then you will be stuck with the consequences.If you make ridiculously false claims they will be shot down.The solution is not to make ridiculously false claims.I know that that isn’t easy for you, being trapped in an irrational apologetic mindset. But even recognising your problem would go a long way.Denial and evasion are not solutions. They are just excuses to avoid accepting responsibility for your own mistakes.

Sorry, you're wrong.

Unfortunately for you I’m not wrong.I’ve already pointed out examples in Message 954

I make mistakes but I am right about the overall scenario. I even believe I've given enough evidence to make the case, but if you don't accept it, no problem, I just keep working on it and seeing new angles on it. You are simply wrong about the basic argument. And Percy keeps bringing up side issues and getting them wrong which is driving me to distraction. There's no hope of convincing someone whose head is so wrapped up in the establishment paradigm he can't even step back from it long enough to recognize the other point of view. Sometimes this applies to you too but it certainly defines Percy's point of view and that of a few others here.Sorry, you're wrong.

quote:

---

I make mistakes but I am right about the overall scenario.

---

In fact you make completely ridiculous mistakes, which anyone seriously considering the scenario would not. And the real evidence hardly supports your scenario.For instance, even if we restrict ourselves to the Grand Canyon area the evidence indicates a number of tectonic events, widely separated in time. And there is plenty of other evidence that kills your scenario, yet almost nothing that supports it over the conventional view.

quote:

---

I even believe I've given enough evidence to make the case

---

And that is another of those ridiculous mistakes. You would have to be seriously deluded to consider your model anything more than a desperate rationalisation, unworthy of serious consideration.Seriously. Go back and look at this thread. Look at all the claims you’ve failed to support. Look at all the rationalising you have to do, and how ridiculous it all is.And yet you dare to suggest that any smart and honest person would agree with you ? Really? Why ?

By now I'm so used to my own way of thinking about all this I can barely read your description at all because it strikes me as so meaningless. In my scenario NOTHING happened in or "sometime after" the "Cretaceous" because the Cretaceous is just a name for a sedimentary rock that got deposited at a certain level in the geological column. It isn't a time period.The idea that the "ancestral Colorado River" could have removed that enormous amount of rock in the Grand Staircase area hits me as just impossible, no matter how many millions of years you give it, unless you are saying the river was at Flood proportions then, which would work with my scenario since I believe all that erosion above the Permian was caused by the receding Flood water.I often find your information about physical geology to be very useful, just not Historical Geology, and I don't know what to make of your notions about the timing of things, except that of course if the Flood was the actual cause I don't see the two phases thing working. But it's interesting to see that you allow yourself to speculate about possibilities that aren't part of the standard thinking.Anyway I'm writing this because of what I just wrote in response to PaulK about the paradigm clash here. I'm beyond any point where I can even read about millions of years without rolling my eyes and regarding it as so fantastical I've been having trouble even trying to characterize that point of view for the sake of discussion. And on your side I see how hard it is for you all even to get what I'm trying to say.

I don't think of myself as even trying very hard to make the case on this thread, I'm saying I've made it a million times before. I've sketched it out here to some extent but that's about it.; Even if I went to great lengths to lay it out you'd have the same response so what's the point? I take it quite seriously but you never will. You think the evidence supports many tectonic events in the GC, but I know I've proved that false, and I'll never get you to see that. I need to spend time making my case where it will matter.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

You think the evidence supports many tectonic events in the GC, but I know I've proved that false, and I'll never get you to see that.

---

And here you are claiming to know something that is ridiculously false. Can you prove that the tilt of the supergroup occurred at the same time as the Kaibab uplift ?
Or are you reduced to making wildly implausible ad hoc speculations to deny the evidence to the contrary ? (Hint. It’s the latter)Complaining that you can’t get me to believe your crazy delusions hardly shows that I have a problem.