Have any Biblical literalists been to the American Southwest?

I just did. On the far left hand side of the diagram I see a layer of sedament labeled "V", likewise on the right hand side. However, between the two there is a fault line. The layers to the left of the fault are tilted, the layers to the right are not.However, the V layer has been laid down flat across the top of them.How is that possible in your Flood theory? If the angled layers changed after the flood, when did the V layer get laid down?If you successfully answer that question (by your own standards), then how do you explain the angled strata on the far right hand side of the diagram. They are clearly under ALL the other layers.This is a great diagram, but one you shouldn't have offered up as support of your theory.

Actually, there's a lot that needs explaining about that unconformity. Yes, it looks "eroded flat" at the top, but it also looks "eroded flat" in the vertical plane, up against the fault line itself where it is just as diagonal/slanted as it is on top, and clearly had to have lost its corners there too as it were. How did it get "eroded" there? Whatever the process was that sheared it off vertically is likely the same process that sheared it off horizontally, under the layer identified as "V" or #5, and obviously, being underground, the vertical process was not erosion -- it had to be friction from the fault shift itself. Yes, where's the rubble that would have created? I don't know, but in any case erosion didn't cause the sheer straight flattening along the fault line.Also, the whole thing is clearly the same stack of layers shown above and to the right, only tilted, and capped by the uppermost layers, the layer "V" on both sides and the part of a layer above that. The layer "IV" is marked on both sides, and you can see that the sequence of strata is identical though higher and curved upward in the direction of the fault line on the right and tilted straight and diagonal and lower on the left. I am curious how geologists explain all this.Even the magma intrusion a few layers above "IV" is identical on both sides. This means of course that the left side of the hurricane fault was tilted after the stack was completely laid down. Looks to me like the fault is the point at which forces from underneath broke the one side from the other and did the tilting too. Clearly "V" was ALREADY LAID DOWN when the fault occurred as it exists on both sides of the fault line, and on the right it's curved upward but maintains its parallel with the other strata, so it couldn't have been laid down after the fault shift occurred. So, I don't know HOW it happened, but the tilting to the left of the fault line occurred UNDERNEATH layer "V" while leaving it horizontal. The whole stack, whatever it once included, was in place when the shift along the fault line occurred. I'd guess there were once many more layers on top, and "V" was the bottom layer of a big stack when the fault shift occurred and the lower area tilted -- the tilting no doubt caused by the fault shift itself -- following my idea that the weight of an upper stack makes a counterforce to the tilting force beneath that causes the shearing off of the strata somehow or other. I keep trying to think of everyday examples of this sort of thing, and they almost occur to me but don't quite come into focus.So, how do YOU, or how do geologists, explain the vertical shearing of the tilted strata on the left since erosion can't be the explanation there?This message has been edited by Faith, 09-09-2005 12:17 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 09-09-2005 12:18 AM

See my Message 77 which I just laboriously wrote. The point is to prove that great ages are not needed to explain such uncomformities by showing that they occurred after the upper horizontal layers were in place. Explaining HOW is something else, but clearly it is what happened, and happened as a result of forces from beneath. Under the Grand Canyon it appears to have been magma bubbling up. Probably the same magma is what caused the fault line on the far left, pushing up the right side of the fault line and tilting the strata on the left in the same event. But the upper layers ("V" and the partial one above it plus probably many more) were already there, shown by the curve of "V" on the right. The idea that it could have been laid down after the faulting just doesn't fit the picture at all.This message has been edited by Faith, 09-09-2005 12:26 AM

The times I have brought this up were in response to YOU making the claim that sediments were soft when they bent. YOU made the claim. I am rebutting you with facts. Why is this not a legitimate point to you?

---

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

Sorry, Jazz, it's simply irrelevant after all. I don't care if it was lithified or soft. When rock looks gracefully draped or folded, as it does both in the Appalachian illustrations and the Grand Staircase illustration, I tend to think "soft," but if that kind of graceful draping and folding can happen to hardened rock, that's OK too -- it really doesn't make a whole lot of difference. It would help, however, if you would address the actual examples I'm discussing instead of giving examples from other places in the world.{Edit to add the link to the Appalachian diagramsThis message has been edited by Faith, 09-09-2005 12:37 AM

But I will tell you this. I never saw a man in the moon.What I saw was a covered wagon with smoke coming out of it.I still see it. And anyone who doesn't see it has been programmed to see a man in the moon.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 09-08-2005 11:40 PM

Just read 77.You're a plant. You're a very good plant, you tricked me, that's for sure. Clearly, you are a geologist or a biologist playing the role of a Creationist just for us to have a bad guy.It's the only explaination that makes sense.If you weren't a plant, then your post would actually be suggesting that the Flood set down layers, then some of those layers were upended without disturbing the above layers. Which, is ofcourse, so completely absurd.The same Faith that has a problem with my upside down evaporation theory wants us to accept her "magic moving rocks" and "hovering layers" theory? Not likely.You're cover is blown. But, good show nonetheless

So what? If the argument is conducted on the physical facts it doesn't matter where the premise came from and your harping on it is a red herring in this context. I should have by now, in Message 77

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that anyone who could come up with such silly caricatures should be logic challenged as well. What part of the argument that proves that the upper layers had to be there before the tilting occurred can't you follow? What part of the argument that shows that the "erosion" of the tilted layers had to occur along the fault line too can't you follow? Interesting that you don't address the substance of the argument, but continue to blow hot air.

It is actually quite simple. Yes, there will be shearing along a fault. That is what happens along faults. If you look to the right of the fault and up several layers you will see where the tilted layers match up with horizontal layers higher up. {The Roman numerals allow the layers to be matched up}. In other words the tilted layers to the left have dropped down relative to the layers to the right of the fault. There is nothing unusual about this. The Great Rift Valley that runs from the Red Sea south through East Africa was formed this way. {Parallel faults allowed the middle to drop down to form the rift valley.} This is all consistent with conventional geology but not with flood geology so I don't see how these layers help your argument. And geologists can tell the difference between shearing and an eroded surface but it won't necessarily be apparent from a photograph. Fortunately they don't have to depend on photographs as we are doing, they can get up close and study the surfaces themselves at many sites. I know I am wasting my breath but once again I would recommend a basic geology course if you really want to understand this stuff.

Nothing suprising. The hill is just an eroded syncline. They happen all over the place. In fact, I believe Wyatts "Ark" is is also a syncline eroded in a unique way. Syncline/anticline combinations are found everywhere there has been compressional tectonic activity. Plus, those layers MUST have been hard prior to deformation.http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/Display.cfm?Term=syn...As long as you say something that I know is false I will correct you. If you don't like it then stop repeating it when you have been shown to be incorrect.You still haven't addressed the issue of the erosional potential of the Rockies versus the Appalacians. You made an incorrect statement when you said: The Rockies, having more surfaces at steeper angles actually produce more sediment via erosion than the shallow angled Appalacians. This is a fact.Being that that is a fact, how do you then explain why the Rockes, which are eroding faster than the Appalacians, are so much less eroded? This is especially interesting since they must be the same "age" for YECism to be true when in fact the real answer is that the Appalacians are FAR older than the Rockies.

---

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

Thank you, RobinRohan. SO glad when somebody on the other side of this argument shows straight thinking. (You ARE on the other side I believe?)

Oh my. Talk about faulty logic. Yes, it does matter where the premise came from. Excellent logic is worthless if the premise is faulty. If the premise is itself unscientific (not based on observation or sound scientific theory) then there can be no valid scientific argument.

Don't get snippy just because I don't buy into your fantasy. If you want a point by point refutation, I'll give you one. Yup, because it WAS. So, exactly what force of nature "cubed" this particular area of land? How was it sliced both horizontally and vertically at the same time? How did it happen without disturbing the "V" layer?Your answer to this is simple. It's the same answer you give for what happened to all the missing material that was sheared away -- Exactly, YOU DON'T KNOW. Here's an idea, if you don't know what you're talking about stop talking about it.You keep saying that I'm making up ridiculous theories, but at least I can explain how they work. And those are just jokes.You're pretending like your theory is true, and you can't even explain the mechanics behind it. When faced with evidence that YOU PRESENTED which counters your argument, your answer is "I don't know but I'm still right."Laughably arrogent, willfully ignorant.But, like I said above, all this is predicated on you being a Creationist. As you clearly are faking it just for laughs, I commend your commitment to character.

Why don't you actually THINK about the argument? I'm arguing that the unconformity at the bottom happened AFTER the strata above were in place, and part of my evidence for this is 1) that the strata were already in place when the uplift occurred that caused the hump and slope to the north of the Grand Canyon (otherwise they would not have been laid down in neat parallels as they are);and 2) the force that caused the uplift would explain the tilted unconformity at the bottom too, so that it too was created after the upper strata were already in place. This is because of how it looks in the diagram, pushing up under the canyon strata as it does. That could be merely coincidental, however. That is, the unconformity could have been created and eroded and the stack built on top of it and THEN pushed up along with the whole stack much later.BUT 3) in discussing the left end of that diagram as I also just did, another piece of evidence emerges: Clearly the layer "V" was already in place when the left side of the fault line was tilted. This is obvious by the curve it makes upward toward the fault line on the right, showing that it was in place to be deformed by that fault shift, which pushed both sides upward, but the right side kept rising higher -- OR the left side dropped, or both.AND 4) the idea that erosion had to occur before the horizontal layer "V" was laid down is disproved by the fact that the same kind of shearing had to happen to the tilted strata at the vertical interface created by the fault line, where erosion could not have been a factor.This message has been edited by Faith, 09-09-2005 01:15 AM