Have any Biblical literalists been to the American Southwest?

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.

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.

Sorry I missed reading that paragraph but nevertheless my arguments stand. You are wrong about thinking the V layer to the right had to have formed before the fault. It likely did not. It appears that the fault occurred, the V layer was deposited later. Otherwise the V layer above the tilted layers would be tilted also. It isn't. It is nearly horizontal. The left elevation to the right of the fault likely happened after the fault slip as well.

You will grasp at anything won't you? Why would I deny that? Shearing along fault lines is conventional geology; no need to invoke a flood as you seem to think.On edit: I would again point out that geologists can tell the difference between sheared and eroded interfaces even if it is not always apparent on photographs and diagrams. And geologists are also quite sure that upper layers are deposited after the formation of an unconformity, not before.This message has been edited by deerbreh, 09-09-2005 01:53 AM

Actually this is not true. I served on a Grand Jury and the prosecutors were emphatic that they would rather have physical evidence than witness evidence. Witnesses forget, they "see" things in a biased way, they fail to see things, they make up stuff, they hear things and remember that they "saw" them. No, I will take physical evidence (such as rock layers) any time over witness evidence.

Being born again doesn't mean one has to say "God did it" if one means by that a finger-snapping magical action. I get a little tired of the assumption that one has to be YEC if one is a Christian. Why would God step in to overrule what he has already given me a rational mind to figure out for myself? To think that God would give us a rational mind and then expect us to accept that he does things using magic rather than the laws of nature is a perverse diabolical view of God, imo. The collective rational mind of Science is just as much a part of creation as anything else and deserves just as much respect. It does not enhance the beauty of the Grand Canyon or the rest of the physical creation to deceive ourselves as to how it was formed just to make it fit into a model based on a literal reading of allegorical text. We know it is allegorical because a literal reading contradicts the revelation that is apparent in the physical creation. If one takes the witness analogy that Faith raised - We have the physical evidence and we have some text from unknown witnesses. I believe both are true but only the physical evidence is literally true. And when it comes to physical evidence in every other case we accept the testimony of experts in the field. In this case I choose to believe the testimony of the overwhelming majority of geology experts. We can argue the finer points of the layers of the GC until we are blue in the face and we have. But at the end of the day it doesn't matter. The impossibility of a global flood is settled geological science and those who say it isn't are deceiving themselves.

Hey! You left out the part that says "and believes in YEC and Noah's flood." Oh, it doesn't say that, does it?

I am starting to get there too so maybe it is time for me to vacate these threads for a while. What is discouraging is when one finds oneself having to make the same argument over and over again for stuff that is quite well explained in any high school earth science text. (for example, see all of the discussion of unconformities)On edit: - even worse example of that - time needed for repeated cycles of erosion, sedimentation, lithification and deformation.This message has been edited by deerbreh, 09-09-2005 12:04 PMThis message has been edited by deerbreh, 09-09-2005 12:05 PM

This is the kind of statement that illustrates the problem in trying to discuss geology with you Faith. You presume to have more knowledge based on looking at a few diagrams and pictures then an army of geologists who have spent lifetimes studying the ACTUAL ROCKS, the interfaces, chemical composition, radionucleotide content, etc. Yes they are sure of this because the mechanics are impossible. There is no "otherwise" about it. The mechanics can be tested and observed. Sedimentation and magma intrusions have been directly observed. It is known what happens when magma cools in air versus what happens when it cools inside a rock formation. It is known what an eroded interface versus a sheared interface looks like. But even a trained geologist cannot be sure of such things from a picture alone let alone a diagram. You have incredible chutzpa thinking you can second guess field geologists using a diagram from your wannabe geologist armchair perch. On top of all that you have a completely unrealistic notion of geological time that no competent geologist accepts - that is refuted with multiple dating techniques including tree ring data. Ok. Rant finished and so am I with you as far as geology discussions go. We are getting nowhere.

You are in no position to judge either my Christianity or the genuineness of my belief in the Bible. Belief in the Bible is not contingent on what parts one takes as literal historical truth and what one treats as allegory. We all pick and choose to one extent or another. Besides not all Christians even accept the same Bible so which "whole" Bible do you refer to? I know, off topic so you don't have to answer but I could not let that presumptious statement slide.