Have any Biblical literalists been to the American Southwest?

If you are going to impute insulting idiotic straw men to me, expect to be called on it.And deerbreh at least had the grace to admit that shearing occurs along fault lines. That is also what happened under the horizontal "V" layer, and that is all the more likely with many more strata having been there at the time.Good night. All for me tonight.

OK, that's what I was remembering about your position. I suppose they could fit together, sure, but if the Bible is the word of God, they don't, and I guess I've made clear where I stand on that. Except that if the Bible IS the word of God, and He gave it to explain what we have no hope of figuring out for sure on our own, then some of us DO really know for sure about the big question. Otherwise I agree, we're pretty much in the dark, some intuiting that there must be a Creator, some sure there can't be, nobody being able to prove any of it. I agree completely that is significant, even crucial. The idea that we "tend to believe" in anything for no good reason has always annoyed me, however, despite the fact that I know we're prone to do some outlandish theorizing. But I tend to have more faith in human intuition and smarts and honesty than some. It is no doubt why I found it easier than some to believe in the simple testimony of the writers of the Bible.But this is off topic, and I'm quitting for the night, so bye for now.This message has been edited by Faith, 09-09-2005 01:45 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 09-09-2005 01:46 AM

There's nothing wrong with knowing there was a worldwide flood. I know there was a worldwide flood. You doubt it but I don't. That doesn't make you right and me wrong, or you more scientific, it simply makes those the questions being pursued."Was there a flood" may not be the question I'm asking, but the question -- or questions -- I am asking are nevertheless just as scientific as that one, and they go something like this:Since there was a flood, how did it happen, is there physical evidence for it, what is it and if it's the geological column, how are evolutionist geology's explanations for the geological column wrong? There's plenty of room for falsification of any given theory about *how* it happened, and what if any physical facts demonstrate it, just no room for denying that it happened altogether.I think you and others here need to rethink your definitions of science.

I explained all that. Rethink it. Reread at least a couple of my posts on the subject. It's been explained. You aren't following the argument. Rethink it.This message has been edited by Faith, 09-09-2005 04:17 AM

Very true Iano. I just about never appeal to "Goddidit" in an argument here, though I get accused of it. For one thing the opposition tends to spin it to refer to something miraculous rather than ordinary facts. But your point is true: Knowing they are wrong because the Flood DID happen because He said so IS the certainty any YEC operates from. Thanks again for the support.This message has been edited by Faith, 09-09-2005 02:50 PM

I didn't take anything personally, and your thinking so doesn't speak well for your judgment. You are treating the subject with contempt, not me, as I said.This message has been edited by Faith, 09-09-2005 02:23 PM

If you are going to comment, I think you should answer the points being made. Simply dismissing them as old doesn't contribute anything to the discussion. Since when has EvC objected to rehashing old ground anyway?

I've answered this already but why not again? V was clearly severed by the fault shifting just as the tilted portion was. Also the right side IS tilted, curved upward toward the fault line and V is also curved right along with the whole stack, which shows that it was not laid down after the faulting occurred as it would have laid down horizontally and not curved like that. Also if it had been laid down after the two sides had shifted why would it look so neatly sheared by the fault line on the left side? How would you get a neat layer on both sides of the fault after the fault occurred?So, the fault obviously occurred after the entire stack was in place, and probably when there were more layers at the top that are no longer there. The fault caused the tilting on the left and the curve on the right as well as shifting the two sides, and it simply sliced "V" (along with anything that was above it) along with the whole.How did it stay horizontal? Well I think the same thing probably happened at the bottom of the Grand Canyon too, as I've argued. I think the weight of the upper stack acted as a counterforce that caused sufficient resistance between the lower tilting portion and the upper horizontal layers to allow the tilting without disturbing the upper layers to any great extent.I also suggested that perhaps the content of the now-lowest layer above and the once-uppermost layer below could explain a greater slippage factor at that point along with the weight factor if the contents were particularly slippery somehow. This I'd have to read up on.So on the left side I figure the same thing happened, and that there were many more layers above "V" at the time of the faulting than remain now to provide the counterforce weight against the tilting force. I explain the tilting on the left as the result of the faulting, and the upward curve toward the fault line on the right as the result of the faulting. I also think it's obvious just from looking at the diagram that "V" was already there when the fault occurred, and since it is no doubt the force that caused the tilting, voila, you have an uncomformity that was created beneath an existing stack after all was in place. I'd already explained this before you posted this, and explained it again afterward, and now I'm explaining it one more time, above. I hope it is clear.

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.

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.

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.