Summations Only

There are different ways to prove things. If I have direct evidence of one part of the scenario I may only need to put the whole puzzle together to prove other parts of it.

quote:

---

There are different ways to prove things. If I have direct evidence of one part of the scenario I may only need to put the whole puzzle together to prove other parts of it.

---

Maybe. But when there is very strong evidence to the contrary - and there certainly is - it is very difficult to overcome it. Wild ad hoc assumptions are nowhere good enough. And really, what major parts of your scenario have you actually proved ?

Those are not strata.Even by your definition.

But all you are saying is that because you can't believe it, it must not be true.

The debate is hopeless because there has never been a world wide flood during the time humans existed, the continents divided long before humans existed, the Earth really is billions of years old and the universe even older and anyone claiming there was a world-wide flood or that the continents divided during the time humans existed or that the Earth is young is simply absurdly wrong.

No one is "getting" anything you say. Most of it is either fantasy or just plain wrong. You're determined to keep God out of the Flood, but your ignorance of how nature actually works results in impossible ideas, and so they may as well be miraculous anyway. For convenience, here's your favorite diagram again: When you call the Kaibab Uplift the "linch pin...of all the tectonic disturbance in the entire area", how could it have anything to do with the uplift at Cedar Break?How did the Supergroup layers tilt without affecting the layers immediately above, especially since the layers above had a lesser weight of layers upon them than the Supergroup and should have been easier to tilt or at least deform?How did the uplifting Supergroup layers cause the uplift of the Paleozoic layers to the immediate north of the Supergroup?Why do faults between the Supergroup blocks extend down into the Vishnu Schist but not up into the Paleozoic layers if the Paleozoic layers were already there when the tilting occurred?Where did all the cubic miles of missing material from the tilted Supergroup layers go? And the evidence that this isn't pure fiction is? What information (from the diagram or anywhere) tells you that the cause of the Kaibab Uplift and of the magma dikes were one and the same?What information tells you that the top strata of the Grand Staircase were broken up by "general shaking" causing geologic structures like the Pink Cliffs, the Grey Cliffs, the Vermilion Cliffs and the White Cliffs?The information we actually have tells us that the northern end of the Grand Staircase began eroding away with the uplift of the Colorado Plateau about 13 million years ago (see Geology of the Zion and Kolob canyons area). The uplift caused cracks in the strata which were opportunistically exploited by rivers such as the Virgin River. River flow in this region is episodic, being very light and slow much of the year but experiencing flash floods in the spring, hence canyon walls tend to be very steep because of rapid downcutting. What information tells you that the Hurricane Fault occurred at the same time as the general uplift of the Colorado Plateau, the Kaibab Uplift, and the magma dikes? By shaking you mean earthquakes? What evidence are you looking at that tells you the region experienced earthquakes that caused the cracks and joints in the rock? How do you know the cracks didn't form gradually from tectonic strain? Since a very common cause of earthquakes is movement along fault boundaries, the faults have to already be there before the earthquakes. It's hard to understand what you're saying here. Is there a granite layer you're referring to that is not the Vishnu Schist?And how do you have the layers forming at the same time as the uplifts? Don't the layers have to be present before the uplifts and erosion, rather than forming at the same time they're being uplifted and eroded. The Paleozoic layers couldn't form before the Vishnu Schist below them, so how could they be uplifted and shaken and cracked before they even exist? I don't know if you realize it, but the way you've described everything has deposition of strata happening at the same time as uplift and cracking of strata and of erosion of the strata. The impossibility of this should be obvious. What evidence do you have that says a tectonic event in the Grand Canyon region was responsible for the splitting of the continents? The dating of the breakup of supercontinents like Gondwana, Laurasia and Pangaea do not correspond to the dating for the uplift of the Colorado Plateau or the Kaibab Uplift. Since there have been multiple supercontinents that broke up in Earth's history, which one are you imagining is the one that broke up? There is no evidence that the movement of tectonic plates has ever been outlandishly fast. The speeds of the various plates ranges from 1 to 10 cm/year. I just provided the range of plate speeds. 2-3 centimeters per year is true of the North American Plate, but the Pacific Plate moves about 10 centimeters per year. There is no evidence that plate speeds have been dramatically different in the past than they are now - plate boundaries and sea floors provide copious evidence of plate speeds. Certainly speeds less than a centimeter per year are possible. Speeds greater than 10 centimeters per year are likely also possible, but not by a great amount, and certainly not the miles/day required in your flood scenario. What evidence and rational leads you to believe that rapid plate motion began when the flood waters began to recede? Where is the evidence of this "something happened on the sea floor"? "Under the continents"? Water draining? That it caused the Atlantic ridge?Why do you think volcanism only began with the breaking up of the continents, since volcanic ash and magma is easy to date, those dates don't support your scenarios, and there is copious evidence of volcanism throughout Earth's history. You can be as unconventional in your thinking as you like as long as you have evidence for what you think and your scenarios obey known physical laws and aren't miraculous.--Percy

Oh, I thought you were referring to something more than what you said in Message 1140. If that message is what you want to stand on, then concerning Walther's Law you said: The flume stream in Bertault's experiment is a) nothing like a flood; and b) does something that is not part of Walther's Law, which is to build diagonal sediments laterally. In Bertault's experiments a flume of sediment laden water build strata laterally across his tank at an angle of around 45 degrees. Look at time 5:50 to see the slant of his strata. Does that look anything like what we find in the geologic record? . Does that look anything like Walther's Law to you?About fossil order you say: This has a major problem all by itself without even looking at the video. According to you all fossils are the same age. If Bertault is exploring a scenario where the fossils are of different ages then he does not share your views.And floods cannot sort by age or by difference from modern forms. Floods will sort by size, density and shape, plus in a flood there's a large random element. So if you dump fossils of different ages and forms into a flood they'll be sorted by size, density and shape. That means that an older fossil could end up above a younger fossil. It means that a fossil very different from modern forms could end up above a fossil very similar to modern forms. But nothing like that is ever found in the fossil record.--Percy

quote:

---

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.

---

I will note that this doesn’t actually make sense. The age is from the date of deposition, so this would be claiming that the material that was deposited first was deposited on top of material that was deposited later.And of course, the timescales involved in Berthault’s experiments will obviously be far too short to be of any interest in geologist or palaeontologists. A difference of even a few days would hardly matter.I’m guessing that this is just more hydrodynamic sorting - introducing first fine material then, a little later, some coarser material that will settle quicker. Which doesn’t really work if fossils are included unless it is assumed that the fossil’s hydrodynamic properties just happen to match that of the associated sediment.

That wasn't really my question. My question contained important context that this ignores. My actual question was: That's the question I asked. Rephrased, if discussion here upsets you so much, why don't you find something to do that you enjoy more and that makes you feel good? Thinking must be based upon knowledge of the real world and driven by evidence to have value. Your thinking is based on an eclectic personal interpretation of a religious book that you try to impose upon the real world. When you encounter disagreement it often makes you upset and unhappy. This causes you to say things like, "The thought of trying to explain any of that to you gives me a stomach ache," and "You do seem to make what to me is a small point into a huge problem and it just seems endless and impossible to find a way to explain something clearly to you."--Percy

Well, it's only about the order of deposition, not any other measure of age. And I don't really get it myself, I'll have to watch it again, but the sediments are depositing simultaneously so there shouldn't be a discrepancy in age anyway.You sounds so certain of what "floods" would do, and how they wouldn't do what the flume does, but all the flume is doing is running water in a stream at different speeds, which rivers do and a rising Flood as well s far as I can see. It's moving rapidly up the land so it would be laying down strata just as the flume does. If you are talking about the foremost part of the strata as it moves through the flume when you say it's at a 45 degree angle, I don't see the problem since we probably don't get to see the foremost part of a layer anyway, it thins out at least.

My thinking on this subject is all about the physical world. The problem I am encountering in you is NOT disagreement, it's strange misreadings and making mountains out of molehills due to incomprehension and I think now just plain not recognizing what the contact is in that photo that we've supposedly been discussing.,Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Seems to me I'm saying something more like it's too absurd to be true.

What's my definition?>They are sediments that have formed separate layers, how are they not strata?

Did you notice that experiments in a confined flume are not applicable to open water?

And, of course, it never occurred to you to look. Berthault's "Stratigraphy" : Rediscovering What Geologists Already Know and Strawman Misrepresentations of Modern Applications of Steno's Principles Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix link (it had a " at the end).