Have any Biblical literalists been to the American Southwest?

Never would have known. On an English proffiency scale of 1-10, you're about an 8 (I'm like a 6).You're doing great!

A strawman is when I make up a ridiculous arguement just to knock it down. I don't have to make one up, you're presenting one all on your own.

Your second statement is what disproves your first.Saying - "This happened, now is there evidence for it" is completely basakwards and therefore makes your entire perspective non-scientific, and be default makes everyone else's MORE scientific. We don't change definitions just because someone doesn't like them. If you don't understand what science is, it doesn't mean the entire rest of the world has to dismantle it to fit around your lack of education.If I decide the television is a type of fruit, it doesn't make it so. It doesn't mean that people should change the definitions of the word "television" or "fruit". It would mean that I am wrong about television and fruit.

I disagree Paul. She doesn't need to REthink her idea. That would imply that there was thought involved in the first place

We'd love to poke holes in the "Godidit" case, but you guys haven't presented it yet.Instead of trying to disprove us, how about trying to prove what your suggesting.

Maybe, but I'm through pulling punches. I'm through with having my theories called ridiculous by people proposing "Magic Wand" theories.By the way, the Bible may say, may he who is without sin throw the first stone, but in this case I'm just returning fire.

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?

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.

Maybe you missed it, maybe you skipped it, I've noticed you are replying to posts after my 142, so I'll just ask again here.If the layers beneith "V" tilted and left "V" flat, then the area to the layer directly beneath V (Sub-V) should be sloping away from V at the same angle as all the others.My question is, given your theory, what do we expect to find in the space between V and Sub-V, as the further we travel to the left of the diagram, the more vacant space should appear.If you are having trouble visuallizing what I'm talking about. Take two pencils and set them on top of one another. Now tilt the bottom one down away from the top. See the openning it creates? Something's gotta be in there.

My point is that your theory does not need to rely on a single shift of the fault. Try reassessing it from the point of view that the fault has shifted more than once and see what you come up with.

For the record - I have NO IDEA what is to the left of the diagram and have not tried to find out. I will try to find out after I post this. I'm trying to be completely fair to your theory here, so I don't want any foreknowledge of what the data might show. Because if V is already in place then we would expect to see certain things to the left that we would not expect to see if V was not in place.Here's your suggestions broken down. In that case, we'd expect to see a jumble of rocks from each of the sheared off layers in roughly the same proportions of the missing material. In this case, if I'm reading you right, we should expect to see the "V" layer further to the left sloping along with the layers beneath it. In other words, right at the fault it's level, but further to the left, as the sub-V tilts, there's nothing to support V so it would drop down.Or, alternatively, if I'm reading you right, you are suggesting that we should see another set of layers in the same order as the first set, where the top of the first set now rests at the bottom of the new set. As if the layer was chopped into bricks, then all the bricks were tilted and slid under each other. I can't picture this scenario. Wouldn't this entail the V layer hovering in mid air?I'm going to try to find some info, be back later

I'm back.Though I could not find an illustration of the exact area we are discussing (I could find pictures but they all just look brown from a distance)I did find this illustration of the same effects we saw on the far right of the original illustrationwww2.nature.nps.gov/geology/education/foos/grand.pdfYou'll notice that the tilted layer is not eroded flat before the layer around it was desposited. "So it pushed through it" I can hear Faith say.But if you look to the right, you'll notice a wedge of completely different material. If the tilted layer pushed through the flat layer, where did the new material come from? Spontaneous generation?

Blaspheme! Again you utter the name of your dark false God, this "Odin"?! HeresyPoseidon is the one true god!

Um, excuse me, but only one of our gods live on a RAINBOW.