Hello everyone

Uniformitarianism is usually used to deny an event such as the worldwide Flood of the Bible, to deny catastrophism on that grand a scale though they may find smaller catastrophes instead. It's really an assumption that CONDITIONS in the distant past can be extrapolated from those of the present, rather than the assumption that the physical laws are the same. Creationists have reason to believe there were drastic changes in the condition of the entire earth and perhaps even the solar system, as a result, first, of the Fall, and then of the Flood which was judgment for sin. Uniformitarianism is blind to such events because of the assumption that whatever is seen is what always existed.
So, for instance, it would never occur to a uniformitarian that the earth used to be dramatically different than it is today, with no deserts, no extreme high mountains, no dangerous extremes of temperature, lush vegetation everywhere and so on. There is actually evidence of an unimaginably more fecund environment in the strata, but that's interpreted away by uniformitarian assumptions as the record of what happened over billions of years rather than the abundance of life forms that existed all at the same time on the planet and were all destroyed at the same time in one catastrophic event.With all that evidence on our side and much more we deal with such things as dendrochronology as in fact interpretive of an entirely different environment in parts of the rings rather than the year by year interpretation of uniformitarianism.Decay rates are just one of those assumptions that are used to determine the past that cannot be verified because they ARE applied to the unwitnessed past. The amount of slippage and false dating in their use is hardly ever acknowledged either, which makes the whole thing laughable.And so on.

But you're all so used to it you just never stand back and actually LOOK at that rock you are calling a landscape.

Yeah, all that cross-bedding too, you wanna talk about that next? It was either already shaped so as to lie in the familiar cross-bedded patterns before the water transported it ...

They lie in the cross bedded pattern when heaped together because of their individual shape ...

There is no way a slab of rock, sandstone or any other, could be the record of a former landscape with its supposed flora and fauna.

Long time spans are not going to layer sediments to such prodigious length and breadth as we actually see.

That doesn't look like a section of beach to me, and I'm talking about flat to the naked eye, small narrow rivulets not changing that fact.

ALL of that must have been laid down in a very short period of time, a rather rapid sequence I suspect, days, weeks, months? and THEN the Canyon was cut, THEN the Staircase was cut etc etc. THEN!!! Nothing happened to the strata before, there were no canyons cut, there wasn't even anything you could call erosion, some rivulets, some runoff between the layers, some disturbances of a very minor sort, nothing like what happens on the surface of the earth.You can tell by LOOKING AT THE WALLS OF THE GC.

I'd ask you to think about the implications of that but you won't or you don't know how because you're blinded by theory.

I guess you simply have the usual learned inability to see what's wrong with the idea of a landscape being encased in solid rock, a whole stack of them yet, all different kinds of rock too.

Other Faith writes:There is no difference in their appearance one from another when you see a deep stack of them, such as in the Grand Canyon especially where the stack is a mile deep.

Other Faith writes:Different mechanisms for the formation of identical layers makes no sense.

I've been on many beaches, they don't look like that.

But it doesn't matter. All you are talking about is what happens to sand under certain wet conditions.

Again, as I keep saying, it doesn't really matter, it's all a bunch of red herrings, because the reality of the strata, the different sediments, the horizontality of the layers, the lack of anything like erosion of the sort we see on the surface of the earth, let alone a humongous canyon before they were all in place, the way the fossils are grouped and tumbled within the rocks, and so on and so forth, which I've been trying to bring to your attention, absolutely defeats the idea of long periods of time per layer.Again, if you would just think about what I'm pointing out you would have to recognize that your theories are delusional. I'm sure that's why you won't think about it.

You aren't going to get lithification if such a pattern sat on the surface for very long. Go on, show me one of those beaches that exist now with that pattern that has lithified in place or even preserved its pattern over a short period of time. Ha ha.

But again, these things are red herrings once it has already been shown that the structure of the strata as a whole couldn't possibly have been produced by long ages.

Also, go think about the Grand Canyon being cut into a mile deep stack of them, all remaining so nicely horizontal don't you know, if they are supposed to be a billion years old at that point. What a joke. At the very least that fact absolutely destroys uniformitarianism, but really it destroys the whole OE theory.

Nothing in your pictures answers anything I've said as far as I can see.

Go on, show me one of those beaches that exist now with that pattern that has lithified in place or even preserved its pattern over a short period of time. Ha ha.

And a cross section does not show that the ripples of the surface shown in the other pictures were preserved as neatly as they supposedly are in the strata, which I thought WAS your point.

So it's caused by the tides you say, fine, then it was caused by the tides during the Flood too.

Only there the rapid burial of the sand eventually caused the whole stack to lithify into rock.

Yes, that is my point, that it doesn't matter about the ripples because my point is that the different sediments, the horizontality, the lack of normal surface erosion, the way the fossils are embedded, all shows that the strata could not have been laid down over long periods of time.

Which you didn't in this post about the unlithified sand either. You just picked a side issue and made a big deal out of it and ignored my main point.

My point is about the stack of strata themselves proving that it couldn't have occurred over long ages

... and especially the fact that the GC and the other formations of the Southwest were all cut into pristine layers after a supposed billion years of their accumulation.

"Pristine" means they accumulated relatively undisturbed. There is no evidence whatever of normal surface disturbances between the layers of the strata ...

and in fact the strata wouldn't be at all in neat layers if any of them had ever been exposed surface. It would be a huge jumble as a matter of fact.

There is no way living creatures in such huge numbers would have died and been buried and been fossilized as they actually were on a normal time frame.

There is no way the strata would simply have accumulated over a billion years before a canyon decided to cut through them

Again, what you are calling erosion between the layers -- of the Grand Canyon for instance -- is not normal surface erosion ...

The only possible reasonable explanation for their actual form is that they were laid down in water in relatively rapid sequence but it's enough to point out that the accepted model can't account for it.

But the cutting of the canyon is still the biggest proof.

Stop listening to "people who have looked at the rocks"

and look at them yourself.

STAND BACK AND LOOK AT THE CANYON WALL FOR PETE'S SAKE.

And to ignore the implication of the time when the Canyon was cut, a really BIG sort of erosion that, after all those neat horizontal strata were in place to a depth of two miles, just makes you willfully blind.

Faith writes:THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE

Faith writes:The only possible reasonable explanation for their actual form is that they were laid down in water in relatively rapid sequence

Faith writes:THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE

Faith writes:in fact the strata wouldn't be at all in neat layers if any of them had ever been exposed surface

Faith writes:THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE

Faith writes:There is actually evidence of an unimaginably more fecund environment in the strata

Faith writes:THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE

Faith writes:The strata are also evidence of the Flood

Faith writes:THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE

Faith writes:Except, as I say above, it isn't "desert" strata, it's a lot of sand that was transported on waves or currents of water and deposited as a layer among the layers.

Faith writes:THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE

Faith writes:all those nautiloids in one humongous layer that stretches for miles in all directions. That makes no sense on the theory of long eras of time over which the creatures just died normally.

Faith writes:THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE

Faith writes:I don't care if the sand was formed in wind or water, it was certainly no desert landscape

Faith writes:THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE

Faith writes:there is no way a slab of rock, sandstone or any other, could be the record of a former landscape with its supposed flora and fauna. If you just LOOKED at the rock, really looked at it, instead of imposing your idiotic theory on it, that should be immediately apparent.

Faith writes:THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE

Faith writes:The actual formation of the strata STRONGLY SUGGESTS DEPOSITION IN WATER ALL AT ONE TIME.

Faith writes:THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE

Faith writes:Long time spans are not going to layer sediments to such prodigious length and breadth as we actually see.

Faith writes:THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE

Faith writes:periodic water inundations and risings and fallings of land, which is just a Rube Goldberg attempt to accommodate your idiotic theory, couldn't possibly accomplish what is actually seen

Faith writes:THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE

Faith writes:I do believe the Flood is the only reasonable explanation for the presentation of the strata, the evolutionist explanation is ridiculous as I have shown.

Faith writes:THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE

Faith writes:Again your disquisition on Aeolian deposits is irrelevant since there is no way they could have formed in situ. And I expect this to be recognizable if you just consider the appearance of the rock itself

Faith writes:THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE

Faith writes:my main point was that if you look at the rock and its contents reason should tell you the theory that it was once a desert landscape, which is what "desert deposits" implies, is ridiculous.

Faith writes:THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE

Faith writes:It would take a massive amount of water to form the strata with their separated sediments in horizontal layers and their familially assembled fossil contents.

Faith writes:THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE

Faith writes:the actual condition and appearance of the rock is sufficient proof that we cannot possibly be talking about former landscapes, desert landscape, any kind of landscape, that existed in some former time period.

Faith writes:THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE

Faith writes:it's obvious from the appearance of the stack of strata that they couldn't be time periods.

Faith writes:THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE

Faith writes:ALL of that must have been laid down in a very short period of time [...] You can tell by LOOKING AT THE WALLS OF THE GC.

Faith writes:THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE

Faith writes:THAT IS NOT THE SORT OF EROSION THAT WOULD HAVE OCCURRED HAD ANY OF THOSE LAYERS EVER BEEN EXPOSED AS SURFACE FOR ANY LOENGTH OF TIME.

Faith writes:THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE

Faith writes:The footprints are of course footprints, rapidly filled in and preserved between tides during the Flood.

Faith writes:THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE

Faith writes:the Karoo system is full of fossils and therefore represents the Flood deposits

Faith writes:THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE

Faith writes:Again, the appearance of the strata shows that they couldn't possibly represent long periods of time

Faith writes:THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE

Faith writes:And the fact that the Grand Canyon didn't get cut until after a supposed billion years or so of strata was already in place absolutely kills the old earth idea.

Faith writes:THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE

Faith writes:the different sediments, the horizontality, the lack of normal surface erosion, the way the fossils are embedded, all shows that the strata could not have been laid down over long periods of time.

Faith writes:THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE

Faith writes:My point is about the stack of strata themselves proving that it couldn't have occurred over long ages

Faith writes:THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE

Faith writes:They could not exist in their actual form visible to the naked eye now as flat layers of rock if they accumulated in any normal time frame whatever. There is no way such discretely separated different kinds of sediments would have accumulated in sequence in a normal time frame. There is no way living creatures in such huge numbers would have died and been buried and been fossilized as they actually were on a normal time frame.

Faith writes:THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE

Faith writes:The only possible reasonable explanation for their actual form is that they were laid down in water in relatively rapid sequence

Faith writes:THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE

Faith writes:in fact the strata wouldn't be at all in neat layers if any of them had ever been exposed surface

Faith writes:THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE

Here, I'll make it easy for you: let's start with one piece of observation at a time:Question #1: If you look at a section of the strata in the walls of the Grand Canyon, any place where they are at their most beautifully colorful and horizontal, from say the opposite rim of the Canyon, do you see erosion BETWEEN ANY OF THE LAYERS (above the basement rocks I mean, which aren't usually visible in these views anyway). DO YOU?