Have any Biblical literalists been to the American Southwest?

NO! All science topics should be restricted to science fora where you are required to support your assertions with SCIENCE.Faith has shown herself to be completely incapable of holding any sort of scientific discussion. I can't believe she gets away with that HERE of all places.

If you don't address the actual example, you can't claim to have shown me to be incorrect. You haven't shown the stress marks caused by the buckling in the Appalachians that you say are there when rock is bent or otherwise stretched, only in other places, you are merely asserting that such folding occurred in hard rock. Why not show the stress marks as you did in the other examples? However, hard or soft isn't a crucial point.Also, you apparently didn't look at the entire page at the link I gave, as your link merely repeats the same information there, and again fails to address the actual example of the Appalachians. It is also a fact that the Appalachians HAVE BEEN eroded enormously from their original folded configuration, to judge by the link I gave, where it appears you only glanced at the road cut illustration and didn't see the diagrams of how the area was eroded. I explain it by reference to their different formation which exposed more easily erodable surfaces to erosion in the Appalachians. They therefore have eroded much faster down to the point where they are no longer as easily eroded. So the process has slowed though it was quite a bit faster soon after their formation. Read through the whole link I gave, which I believe was originally given by deerbreh on another thread.

WHY WHY WHY!!!!WHY does anyone (me included) respond to this utter fucking garbage written by an ignorant armchair geologic-know-nothing who couldn't tell the difference between shit and schist?WHY?Yes, I know I will likely be suspended for this. I no longer care.I'm leaving for a week in the field doing REAL geolgy and I won't have internet access. Take care. Later.

Ok, I decided to provide this quote to help you understand what I am asking about. I have read the whole thread so I know no-one has asked you this question. Additionally, I don't know a lot about geology so my questions may seem a little rudimentary to you.It appears you are saying that a number of layers were deposited on each other in the tempestuous Flood and as the waters receded. This produced the layers at least up to the one marked "V". After that deposit, there was an upthrust from below that bent the layers on the right and split the deposited layers from each other causing the hurricane fault. You also say that when this occurred, the layers below "V" also tilted without causing "V" to tilt.I know that the diagram is only a drawing so some of these questions will require more research.1. What force/phenomenon kept "V" and the layers above it from tilting with the others?2. What should we look for as evidence that this event occured?(ie...lower-layers-tilting-while-upper-layers-don't)3. Has the evidence named in 2 been observed in the field at that location?4. Is there an experiment that we could perform that might duplicate this effect on a smaller scale?Thanks for your help in this.

Trying to turn over a new leaf with my conversations with Faith...We'll see how it goes.Re: Faith's Theory of the V level and the Fault.Living in Los Angeles, I can let you in on a little secret. Fault lines can be active more than once. You don't have to assume that the fault line in the diagram only triggered one time.Side note - remember, this is a diagram. It may be very accurate, but it's never going to show all the detail of the real thing. For example the fault line here looks very very clear, but how fine a line is it when you are standing face to face with the rock?

I've done my best to explain this many times already. And the reason it needs to be explained is that there are clear signs that the stack was completely in place before the forces that caused the tilting occurred.I'm hypothesizing that the tilting was caused on the far left by the faulting and on the far right under the Grand Canyon by the rising magma. In both cases it is clear that the horizontal layers above were already in place at the time of the violence -- on the right this is made clear by the hump and slope to the left of the GC that the layers conform to, which maintain their parallel formation although their horizontality has been destroyed, which could not have been the case if they had been built after the magma eruption which caused the uncomformity at the bottom; and on the left it is made clear by the obvious appearance of V's having been sliced by the fault in the same way as the tilted layers were sliced from the horizontal layers on the right side of the fault line, showing it was already there when the faulting occurred which caused the tilting. It is also shown by the upward curve to the right of the fault in the direction of the fault, that is parallel in all the layers on that side, both the upper V layer which remained horizontal on the left and the lower layers which were tilted on the left. This curve would not have occurred if V had been laid down after the fault occurred. Obviously the fault caused the tilting on the left and the curving on the right of the line when the stack was sliced and separated by the fault. Where did the rubble go that would have been created by the vertical shearing of the fault line? Same answer. I think you need to think it through again. REALLY think.

Oh, this just occured to me.Let's assume that your theory about the lower levels tilting and the V level stay the same is correct.Let's extend the diagram to the left.We both accept that the layer just below V on the right (I'll call Sub-V) also exists on the left.However, continuing the diagram to the left, that layer continues to extend downward at a steep angle, while V continues more or less flat.By your hypothesis, if we follow the rock wall, what should we expect to find in the ever widening gap between V and Sub-V to the left.The further away from get from the fault, the larger that gap should be.Take a stab at what we should find and why, then let's see what we do find, and figure out if those two match up.

But on the right it is curved upward toward the fault line, in exact parallel with the layers below. This would not have happened if it had been deposited later. It would have a horizontal top surface in that case. Also it simply appears that V was sheared at the same time. Why would it have accumulated identically on both sides of a sheer cliff, so low on the left and so high on the right, without any drifting or settling against the fault line on either side?Your argument rests on ASSUMING what you are trying to prove, that "otherwise the V layer above the tilted layers would be tilted also." You believe that the mere fact that it wasn't tilted proves that it was laid down afterward. But that's exactly what I'm arguing against. I've given reasons to believe that the upper horizontal layer V was in place already when the fault occurred on the far left of the diagram, and that the whole upper stack was in place when the magma rose on the far right under the GC, and that nevertheless the fault caused the tilting on the left and the magma caused it in the uncomformity on the right.Since this appears to be the order in which it happened, THEN it is time to try to explain HOW it could have happened that the tilting occurred without disturbing the horizontality above, but if I've shown that the order of things is correct, explaining how is not really crucially necessary at this point; I've made my case and the mechanics can be worked out later. However, I have suggested that the weight of the upper layers would create a counter force to the force of the fault on the one hand and the force of the magma on the other, and that slippage between layers would contribute to the ease of dividing a tilted segment of layers below from a horizontal segment above.This message has been edited by Faith, 09-09-2005 03:49 PM

I didn't suggest that you would deny it, and perhaps I shouldn't have used the term "admit." The point was that Nuggin wouldn't admit the similarity. And the flood has nothing to do with shearing along a fault line and I didn't say it did. I'm trying to show that the horizontal V layer was already in place when the shearing occurred, both the fault shearing and the shearing between the tilted layers and the upper horizontal layer. But they may be sure of this because the mechanics of how it could have happened otherwise seem impossible. But if it can be shown that the horizontal layers had to have been in place before the tilting occurred, then the mechanics become a problem to be worked out later, and I believe I've been giving pretty good reasons to believe that the horizontal upper layers WERE in place when the tilting occurred, both under the Grand Canyon and on the far left at the hurricane fault.

This has been answered many times before. Hearsay is a handy way to dismiss the Bible for some, but ALL of the Bible is hearsay by the time it gets to us, and Jesus was clear that we are to believe the accounts we have been told neverthelses. Christian faith is based on testimony, and after one person has believed witness testimony and passed it on, it becomes hearsay by your standards, but it's still witness testimony to a believer. But this is off topic. Back to the topic for me.

Very very rarely but I don't despise them absolutely, and I'll use one once in a while.

Yeah, we've had this discussion here before too, and you have a point. But the Bible's witnesses have the fear of God in them.

quote:

---

and on the left it is made clear by the obvious appearance of V's having been sliced by the fault in the same way as the tilted layers were sliced from the horizontal layers on the right side of the fault line, showing it was already there when the faulting occurred which caused the tilting.

---

This is the problem. There's no such evidence. If V was deposited later then it would butt up against the fault. And when the fault slipped again it would go with it - producing what we see. So there is no evidence on the left that V was deposited before the fault.On the left V was clearly deposited AFTER the layers had been tilted and flattened off.

I wasn't dismissing the Bible because it is hearsay. I was disputing your claim that you have eye witness evidence.As for the Genesis flood story -- I take that as a fable. That is not because it is hearsay. It is because it is so obviously a fable (as are the creation story and the tower of Babel story).Biblical literalism makes no sense to me. I can understand the idea that the Bible is inspired by God. But that wouldn't make it literally true. Many people would say that Billy Graham's sermons are inspired by God, but few would say that he was infallible. Some fundamentalists might even grant that the Pope is inspired by God, but they would vigorously deny papal infallibility. And why should we not say that C.S. Lewis's "Chronicles of Narnia" is inspired by God, even though it is clearly fiction.God gave us brains. We should use them. To swallow Biblical literalism is to dishonor God, by not using our brains as they were intended to be used.

I don't even understand what you are trying to show with that example that is so suprising. All it is is an eroded syncline. So what? They are everywhere.I am very sorry Faith but you continually make no sense. Mostly I am just responding to the parts of your posts that are just blatantly wrong like how sediments need to be soft when they fold. Well that is why I was telling you that the rule is bent rocks are bent before lithification. If you need specific references for strain in the Appalachians then here is a few that I was able to dig up.{ABE} Removed gsa link due to weirdness. {/ABE} Strain in the Appalachian PlateauEvans K.F., Engelder T., Plumb R.A., (1989): Appalachian stress study 1: A detailed description of in-situ stress variations in Devonian shales of the Appalachian Plateau, J. Geophys. Res., 94, 7129-7154..Evans K.F., Oertel G., Engelder T., (1989): Appalachian stress study 2: Analysis of Devonian shale core samples; Implications for the nature of contemporary stress variations and Alleghanian deformation, J. Geophys. Res.,94, 7155-7170.Should be enough to convince you I hope. When rocks deform they always do so lithified. Once again, fact. Would you like me to find references that show that the sedimentary rocks of the Rockies were lithified before they deformed too or will you finally understand that we are talking about evidence that is pervasive? It is the rare occurrence that deformation happens to unlithified sediment. So rare that I try as I might I cannot even find an example on the internet of it happening. Maybe rox or someone can help with a good example of what it looks like when unlithified rock is put under tectonic stress. I can tell you one thing, it is not going to look like you neat syncline/anticlines of your Appalachian example. I did look at the whole page. What is there to address? What is so weird about it? Those kinds of formations are common. Did you expect me to be suprised by an example of a syncline?Did YOU look at the whole page? Do you understand what a syncline is and how they form? If you don't then please ask because it seeming more and more like you really have no idea how to interpret geologic information. I will be happy to answer any questions you have about syncline formation. What is nice about that is their method of formation is entirely factual so once again we will be talking about facts rather than theory. No room to argue. I saw it just fine. I just don't know what the big deal is. That still doesn't address why the Appalacians "beat" the Rockies in terms of erosion given that the Rockies today are eroding faster than the Appalacians. if the Appalacians started out with more erosional potential than the Rockies then why did it continue as it has rather than slow down once it was eroded enough to reach the same potential as the Rockies. You have a race condition here that is impossible. Even if it rained 24/7 on teh Appalachians and there was no wind or rain at all on the Rockies you would still be hard pressed to erode millions of tons of granite and other types of rock over a couple thousand years since their formation.One thing is for sure. You are better off proposing some kind of other outrageous, mid/post flood craziness for why those two ranges look the way they do in comparision because the alternative that the Appalachians simply eroded faster post flood is a no go.{ABE}Tried to fix the gsa link, failed. {/ABE}This message has been edited by Jazzns, 09-09-2005 02:27 PM

---

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show