Summations Only

Well, apparently I misjudged it then, it looked good at first glance.ABE: Here try this one. It's audio though. First talk in a series, or second, I forget. Lays out the principles by which one GETS to the conclusion that article unfortunately starts with.Brian Borgman | Grace Community ChurchEdited by Faith, : Add ABE

Well then there is quite a definitional disconnect going on here that I certainly wasn't aware of. I thought the term was mainstream. Do you then call it the Geological time scale?I dispute that interpretation of the igneous layers. The volcanic action all occurred after the whole stack of layers was in place, it rose through the strata making dikes and sills and sometimes it didn't reach to the uppermost layer.That IS one of the points in Dr. A's course I noted that I would argue with.

Well let's agree on a term then. What do you want to call it, the stratigraphic column as Boof suggested he sometimes uses? I prefer to avoid Geological Time Scale because of course that's tendentious.I'm willing to DESCRIBE the strata as including the igneous layers but since I believe they are more recent than ALL the other layers that can be a tendentious definition too.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I had NO idea that was a problem. I simply couldn't make any sense of what you were saying. I had NO idea why there was such a disconnect. You never said you didn't recognize that term so how would I know? I'm sure this still needs some sorting out for the sake of clarity. Don't just start shooting out objections at me again. I have reasons for thinking as I do and you may be talking from some completely other frame of reference. You can't deal with this argument that way. If you're so impatient about someone challenging your expertise and just want to slap us down with mystifying assertions I don't want to argue with you.

I'm always focused on the STRATA, the LAYERS as a physical phenomenon. They're made of sedimentary rock (except for the igneous sills) but that's not the defining idea. It's the layering itself that I consider to be major evidence for the Flood, and the old earth explanation of the layers is inconsistent with the mechanics of how layering could occur and imposes fantastic scenario-building nonsense on what is nothing but a mechanically produced slab of rock.Also, the schist at the bottom of the GC WAS a sedimentary layer but now is a different kind of rock. I don't want to exclude that layer from the definition.

Obviously you had no way of knowing I assumed you used the term just as I did, and I had no way of knowing it wasn't familiar to you. I just took you to be doing the usual thing I encounter here, insisting that I explain something you already know the answer to. That is, you wanted me to define the geological column just to catch me in some different understanding of it than you consider orthodox, not because you didn't even know the term.I've already said I confine my argument to the Grand Canyon so when you bring in granite boulders and don't define their location except "conglomerate" - that's just mystification. Is it in the strata of the Grand Canyon or not? If not, then why do you expect me to have an explanation for it?No, you aren't interested in the creationist perspective at all, just making creationists toe your line as everybody here does, as the Road Trip itself that started this thread aimed to do. You don't listen for half a minute to the creationist argument before you're putting out the next objection you think will really do us in. That's the modus operandi here, you're just doing your own version of it.As you said from the moment you entered this discussion, your objective was just to slap me down for daring to challenge your sacrosant Holy Science and all its holier-than-thou priests. That's why you brought up eclogite and thats got to be why you are bringing this up, NOT to find out what a creationist view of it might be but just to find a way to blast me for not having an advanced degree in geology and having a creationist opinion at all. Which you refuse to think about, just telling me I "misunderstand" the Grand Canyon and need to study things I've already studied.I'm not playing.I'm getting off EvC for the night.

There had to be stages in the laying down of the strata to account for the footprints. They were obviously rapidly filled in by the layer above, which is how they got preserved. What's the problem with fossils? They got transported with the sediment to their final location in the strata. The only reasonable explanation for all those fossils is a catastrophic buriaL and it all fits perfectly with the Biblical message of the Flood as judgment on the whole world as well as reasonable conjectures about how a worldwide Flood would behave.And again, the old earth explanation that conjures millions of years flies in the face of the general condition of the strata, the fact that there is no difference in their condition from bottom to top of the canyon, also that the so-called "erosion" of the strata is a minuscule roughing-up of the surface which is easily accounted for by runoff between the layers, while REAL erosion... cuts canyons, washes away at least a mile more of the strata above the canyon, as evidenced by its presence north in the Grand Staircase, carves the "steps" of the Grand Staircase and the hoodoos and the buttes and so on.Please note that in all these examples the STRATA are neatly horizontally present to a great depth before any of these cutting and erosive processes began, so that the cutting and erosion acted on the entire stack.So the hoodoos are standing columns of strata untouched until the erosion that shaped the hoodoos themselves, the GS climbs to a great altitude before the stairs are cut into it, the Grand Canyon walls are all neatly horizontal layers all the way up to the rim at the Kaibab Plateau before the canyon is cut, undisturbed by any comparable action until that point -- but you interpret all those placid layers as representing a few billions of years against all reason. What changed to bring about such a huge disturbance at the level of the Kaibab that hadn't occurred in all those billions of years? I keep asking this over and over. It's like you can't think about it at all. Can you, or are you so attached to the time paradigm you can't deal with the question of what actually happened spatially? That's a whole big discussion unto itself. No, the argument is not that they couldn't have been formed until after the Flood because they didn't exist before, the argument is that you can SEE in the many diagrams how the volcanoes in the Grand Canyon-Grand Staircase area erupted beneath the stack and sent magma dikes up through the strata.At the GS the magma goes to the top and spills over, in the GC although there is an area in the canyon where it spilled over, for the most part it clearly was contained underground, resisted by the weight of the strata above. It simply displaces the lowest strata, creates the Vishnu schist and the granite rocks, creates the Great Unconformity and is responsible for the uplift of the entire stack of strata above so that it forms a mound shape, also visible on all the diagrams. (The strata conform to the shape of the mound, following its rounded contour, which is evidence that they were already in place when this mound was formed; otherwise they would have been laid down in a way that butted up against the slope of the mound.)It looks to me like it was this force of the volcano beneath the area that actually created the canyon because it caused stress on the upper layers -- again all the layers that you can see in the GS had originally to have been present above the current rim of the GC.The stress caused by the uplift caused by the force of the undergound explosion cracked the upper strata, probably in a number of places, and let in whatever water was still standing after the Flood. This could have been water the strata were still standing IN or it could have been a remaining reservoir of water at a higher elevation -- there's a diagram that shows the drainage pattern of that area to suggest that possibility. But either way a massive amount of water would have rushed into the cracks in that mound, pouring in from the east but probably from all sides of the cracks, breaking up those uppermost layers and washing them down the now rapidly widening canyon, the layers themselves acting as a carving tool, carving out a vast vast canyon.That scenario is consistent with the actual physical situation of that area. And it looks to me like it was the volcano beneath the canyon that caused the stress that caused the cracks that became the canyon. Well, volcanoes begin deep in the earth when the crust (? or more accurate term) is disturbed to allow the magma of the core (? or more accurate term) to erupt. Tectonic action after the Flood, which is part of the creationist understanding of the Flood, could have triggered the volcano which pushed up the strata which made the cracks which became the canyon.In the case of the GC the magma only intrudes to the base of the actual canyon. It intrudes into the schist and obviously it formed the granite. The force would have been great enough to tilt the lower strata, forming the Great Unconformity, and all of that upheavel under the area is all part of the stress that pushed up the strata that formed the crack etc.To the North you can see the volcano at the farthest end of that formation push through the strata to the Clarion formation at the very top of the GS, showing that it occurred after that stack was already in place. There's also a very interesting unconformity at that end of the GS which was most certainly a result of that volcanic eruption, again after the whole stack was in place.All that volcanic activity in the region disturbed the upper strata so that it completely washed away from the GC area, carving the canyon and denuding the Kaibab Plateau, but in the GS area it broke off pieces forming the stairs, and cut a few relatively shallow canyons as compared to the GC. Those canyons COULD have become stairs but their southern walls stayed in place. You can see all this on the diagrams of the area. T'is indeed "basement" but its formation is more recent than the strata above as I just explained. It shouldn't be at the top, who said it should? The eruption formed a gigantic pluton beneath the canyon, formed the Great Unconformity, the schist and the granite, pushed up the stack of strata which cracked the upper layers, which allowed a cataract of water into the cracks along with megatons of broken up strata ... etc etc. etc.It fits the actual situation very nicely. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Percy that remark about redissolving the strata of the GS came after they accused me of thinking in terms of dissovling rock, which I hadn't, it was an afterthought to see if I did think it might, and I thought the strata might re-dissolve but certainly not marble or granite. Again it was an afterthought, I'm sorry I mentioned it. But it is NOT the reason for what they were saying and I still don'tknow what was. It was very frustrating because ALL i was trying to say is that the LAND MASS would have been the source of the sediments that became the strata, and I had LOOSE material in mind.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The flood didn't "form" the strata in the sense you mean. It only only "formed" the strata by moving the sediments and depositing them. It did not create the sediments themselves unless by breaking up the land mass. It picked up clay, it picked up sand, it picked up calcium carbonate sea creatures and moved them, from wherever they had initially resided or formed, and carried them most likely in currents of the Flood waters -- that occur naturally in layers in the oceans and do transport things -- to be deposited as layers over the continents where they piled up very deep and eventually became rock.Correction, the currents do occur at various levels, but the layers I had in mind are formed by the different temperatures at various depths and are a different phenomenon from the currents.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Dissolving "stuff" somehow equates to dissolving ROCK for you guys? "Stuff?" I'm thinking MUDSLIDES here, not ROCK.

The Coconino Sandstone, contrary to old earth lore, is a FLAT SLAB OF ROCK, flat on the bottom, flat on the top, not SAND DUNES, which don't lay themselves out in flat layers. The sand had to have been formed elsewhere and transported to its current layer. Surely there is a principle by which the sand, which had been shaped before being moved, has a way of laying itself in the position that makes for crossbedding, just because of its orientation, that is, the orientation of its separate shaped grains.Ocean water has tides, waves, currents, layers. It carries things. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, they are not composed of soil, they are composed of sand and calcium carbonate grains and clays that lithified into rock. Sand and clays certainly DO occur in soils however.In any case they are not "records of regions" of anything as if time has a way of laying itself out in flat slabs of rock. They are sediments that were mechnically transported and lithified in layers. The idea that they represent scenarios and landscapes is ridiculous in the extreme.As I keep saying, just LOOK at them (in the walls of the Grand Canyon where they're so nicely visible), they are FLAT SLABS OF ROCK that show NO differences between them in CONDITION so there's nothing to demonstrate AGE differences.AND they just lie there quietly too, to that great depth, and nothing happened to them until the canyon was cut through the entire stack. Somehow they were all undisturbed through millions upon millions of years and then suddenly finally this canyon happened to them.Really, that ought to alert you all that the old earth scnarios about former landscapes might be a little on the fantastic side. Ah well, the iron grip of a paradigm.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Mud is dissolved stuff.

I don't claim to know how the water laid down the sediments. I certainly doubt all the simplistic explanations here are sufficient. This is not just another flood, as some keep comparing it to, which ought to be obvious. GLOBAL, ya know, GLOBAL, endless rain for forty nights and day AROUND THE globe. Ah well.Anyway, the mechanics of deposition aren't obvious. Could involve precipitation but could involve deposition by waves, long waves that moved a great distance across the land area before depositing their loads of sediments the way waves deposit sand on a beach, I don't see how you could know for sure.It's just that there is no way that stack of layers got put there over millions of years per supposed time unit, it HAD to have been deposited in the Flood because that's what that much water would do.The old earth scenarios that read complex histories and landscapes into slabs of rock are sheer fairy tale. Again, NOTHING HAPPENED TO THEM until the canyon was cut.Ah well.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Try thinking in ordinary English instead, as I explained up thread. Your distinctions are not important to the basic message. They are merely introducing irrelevant technicalites. Sheer pedantry. I suppose it would help if I did use all the terminology correctly as a scientist would, but it isn't going to happen. In my ordinary world, mud is dirt dissoved in water.