Summations Only

NO, not just the horizontality, but also the flatness, the way the fossils are embedded, tossed and tumbled and of all sizes and ages in some cases, the fact of the different sediments and that they are so neatly separated and demarcated by sharp dividing lines between them. Also the fact that the strata follow the contours of the uplifted areas, maintaining their thickness over the curves, which certainly wouldn't happen if they'd been laid down after the land was raised -- in that case the layers would have butted up against the contour. This proves that the strata were all still wet enough to be malleable, which proves that they are not millions of years old. There are crosssections showing this online. The following of the contours of the uplift is just one piece of evidence that the various disturbances to the canyon area, such as the uplift, and such as the canyon itself all occurred after all the strata were in place, and this includes the formations of the Grand Staircase to the north, which on your theory requires you to accept the idea of a totally passive planet for a billion years or more, after which an amazing variety of activity just suddenly occurs, all the tectonic and volcanic activity, the earthquakes and so on. I kind of don't think that's what you imagine for those billions of years, but the evidence IS that the activity occurred afterward. Except for the Great Unconformity and the minuscule erosion between layers as Dr. A points out, but I believe the GU occurred at the same time the canyon was cut, and I've often given my reasoning for that here.So there's some of the structural evidence, and to my mind these structural facts about the strata and the canyon defeat the Old Earth interpretation so that's what I focus on. Nobody really addressed my Experiment at the other thread except Stile, and I'll probably bring his post over here eventually and answer him here.Because I believe the structure of the strata and the canyons and other formations of the Southwest defeat OE theory I don't try to answer every objection to the Flood. The objections you are raising are of the trees-blotting-out-the-forest kind anyway, the orientation of the grains in the sandstone for instance. How a dinosaur nest survived the Flood, IF that is what happened, I don't know and I don't care as long as the strata themselves support the Flood and argue against the Old Earth. Those other things are flukes and anomalies to be considered at some other time.So, I'm sorry but if this thread is for me to answer those things, and to give you citations you will probably be disappointed, and perhaps my answers aren't scientific enough for a science forum anyway, in which case this discussion will be over very quickly.About tides and currents which you mentioned as if I was somehow contradicting the Bible, the Bible doesn't describe the Flood in any detail so that leaves it open to imagining how it happened. A worldwide flood means it became one gigantic ocean. Oceans have waves, tides, currents and even layers. We assume a single land mass at the time of the Flood, over which very long waves no doubt washed, laden with sediments and dead creatures etc etc etc. Waves long enough to spread some of the sediments over great distances, which is in fact what is actually observed of some of the strata.I'd really like to stick with the descriptions of the strata and the canyons etc.You also asked what I think of a post by Dr. A: Message 378 So I thought I might start there: First of all Dr. A is answering my claim that NORMAL EROSION that occurs on the surface of the earth OBVIOUSLY did not occur to any of the layers of the Grand Canyon in any lengthy stretch of the sort I asked everybody to consider, which of course Dr. A. did NOT consider, but instead he chose a completely different section of the GC figuring it would demolish the idea of the Flood and that's what this post is all about. Meanwhile my request that the undisturbed section of the GC be considered is continuing to be resisted.Karstification is not the NORMAL sort of surface erosion I was talking about, that would be VISIBLE from clear across the canyon if it had occurred to any of the layers in the section I proposed thinking about.HOWEVER, there is no problem with the idea that limestone dissolves in water which can lead to the formation of all kinds of holes and caves, and had that occurred visibly to any of the layers in the section I had in mind THAT would be the explanation, NOT normal erosion. This would happen even if the limestone was never at the surface of the stack; why would that be a requirement? If the whole stack was laid down in the Flood the limestone could start dissolving very soon after being laid down, in this case being filled in with the red mudstone sediment from above as it got deposited in its turn, and there is no reason to think it would take millions of years. I'm sure 4300 years is QUITE sufficient and probably much much less, probably days, weeks, months at most. Even they saw that 30 million was a tad excessive and shaved off 25 million. They just didn't take it far enough. Apparently I was not clear. I mean that if even one of the layers had been exposed for many years, let alone millions, at the surface of the earth, it would have been so distorted by erosion of various sorts that it would not lie neatly level and horizontal, destroying the appearance of the regular level horizontal strata. So that layer getting that distorted would also distort the appearance of neat horizontality of the whole stack. Then all its gullies and canyons and gashes and river beds and whatnot would get filled in by the sediment supposedly depositing on top of it (although how that could possibly happen under normal circumstances remains a complete mystery to me, let alone how it could happen to all those different layers we see in th Canyon) and we would NOT see that nice straight line between the two different kinds of sediment that we do in fact see, we would have a very rough line of contact indeed, and we could see it from all the way across the canyon. Multiply that effect by many other supposedly similarly exposed layers and the whole stack should be a vision of zigzags without a single neat straight horizontal contact anywhere. At first I had NO idea why on earth you would say something like this but now I gather you simply misunderstood my statement above which I hope I have straightened out. My argument is that the layers way down in the stack now were never at the surface long enough to undergo NORMAL erosion in NORMAL time -- brief periods of exposure between waves and tides, yes, but never surface the way the Kaibab is surface. It never crossed my mind for half a second that erosion of the actual top surface layer would in any way affect the layers beneath. You would guess wrongly because I actually enjoy that part of my argument, but it gets extremely convoluted and I still want my Experiment dealt with. This discussion has already wandered a long time and I'm tired.I did think the "basement" rocks begin at the Great Unconformity but I'm sure you can correct me. Quite foolishly because it's a good argument.

Yes.

Hi there Dr. A. It's very possible I don't always get my point clearly expressed but I really don't think that's an excuse for you to suppose that I could have meant that a sediment filling in irregularities in a lower layer would not have a level surface itself. I don't know what I said that permitted you to accuse me of something like that but being accused of such silliness along with all the other things I'm regularly accused of here doesn't inspire me to enter the discussion. I believe the point I was trying to make is that the upper level would have also been eroded if it had been exposed on the surface in the same way.

Would certainly be a problem for the fish and other sea creatures which we assume died in huge numbers in the Flood too.

Since you are in a gracious mood, would you care to correct your other statement that I required that only the Grand Canyon be the subject of discussion? What I asked was that a particular sort of Grand Canyon vista be the subject of discussion and since you didn't stick to that request it hardly matters if we discuss the Grand Staircase too.If you are nice enough to do that then I may post something about that whole area, since I love that particular cross section you posted -- well, really another one that covers the territory better in my opinion, if I can find it. And then you can insult me to your heart's content, only at least try to represent what I'm saying accurately please.

I answered your points.You think the orientation of the grains defeats the idea that they were deposited in the Flood.I believe that many other things about the strata prove that they were deposited in the Flood along with all the other strata and all my effort goes into trying to make that case. If the structure of the strata proves either no Old Earth or possibility of Flood, you'll have to rethink your certainty about the interpretation of the orientation of the grains.There is nothing more to say about it.There is a lot on this thread and I've been busy elsewhere and still have to decide whether and what to post. I post small posts because they don't take time. Nothing at all strange about it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I happened to be here for that thread and there are ten of my posts on it which you can see from the "Thread details." I had to move my posts to another thread.The thread was the standard establishment interpretation, a lot of tedious Rube Goldberg type explanations.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There are hundreds of points people argue to prove the Flood couldn't have happened. I may or may not have some answers to some of them, but what I said is true: I have been pursuing my own line of argument for years because I think it defeats the Old Earth explanation of the strata absolutely and fits the Flood model very well. Nothing has changed my mind about that and I keep learning things that contribute to the argument every time I come back to it.You know what, the strata themselves ARE evidence of the Flood. Yes, it's that simple, and if people weren't blinded by the theory of long ages per layer I think it should be easy to get it across. You want something more complex, citations and so on, but no, evidence of the Flood is everywhere really, but most tellingly in the strata. You think I'm just being rude I guess but when I say the Old Earth explanation of the layers is "ridiculous" I mean it IS ridiculous, and I actually wish it would be taken as a serious criticism. I do think simply thinking about the physical structure could lead to an awareness of the obviousness of the Flood explanation and the ridiculousness of the OE explanation but I point out the features that lead to that conclusion to help you out. And I am quite serious, very very serious. The timing of the disturbances, of the cutting of the canyon, of the volcano beneath the GC that I believe brought about the Great Unconformity, all that contributes to the basic picture, and there's a lot more than that. Armed with such facts and a willingness to consider that maybe I'm right you could see it the way I see it. Grains of sand would become quite irrelevant.This is a reasonable way to approach the problems in my opinion. You are focused on minutiae, I'm trying to focus on the big picture. Even if the minutiae seem to be ironclad they will have to give if the big picture can be established.The minutiae are small things that you have observed in the present, you have no idea how a Flood would have affected them, none, you simply extrapolate from the present to your idea of the Flood. That's not an unreasonable way to approach it but it is never going to definitively defeat the Flood, but if I could get the big picture across that WOULD definitively defeat the Old Earth theory.In my experience half my problem is just getting across what I mean, everybody thinks they understand when they don't, or they ignore it or change the subject or whatever. It does get tiresome being accused and misrepresented. I don't even know what you think you've "pointed out about my position" because nothing you've said hit me as relevant. And I have to deal with a small army of critics, you know, not just you, and you're new and somehow expect me to regard your arguments as something special too. Why should I?By the way since you ARE new you may not know that the dinosaur nest is an old argument; the sand grains have also come up many times before although I think you have more variations on it. I haven't even read enough of your argument to try to think of an answer. I simply don't try to deal with that kind of argument here. I never have and I'm not starting now.Anyway, I haven't decided yet what to do on this thread if anything.ABE: After reviewing the last column of posts I'm in a mood to hang it all up. Wow. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If structurally the strata could not possibly have formed according to the Old Earth interpretation (which looks like an open-and-shut case to me) but could clearly have formed in a huge deluge that covered the planet, then all the minutiae that suggest otherwise have to be reinterpreted. People who think you don't have to abandon your faith to embrace the Old Earth and the ToE have no idea what Christian faith is all about. It's about a very specific revelation -- given by God Himself, you understand -- that contradicts those "sciences" that purport to reconstruct the history of the earth. (The "sciences" of the past as I keep saying, there's no problem with the sciences that study anything that can be replicated in the present).God gives us enough of the history of the earth in His revelation to contradict both the Old Earth and evolution, and those "sciences" reject it. They don't have to. True science should affirm the Biblical revelation, that's why there is such a thing as Creation Science.You definitely have to choose. God or fallible "science." That's your choice as a Biblical Christian. You don't have to argue the issues of course, you can ignore it all, but some of us find them interesting enough to try. [As I was writing this I realized something that I tend to forget when I'm here, which is that Christianity really is about a radical choice one makes between Christ and the world. I keep wanting to be able to persuade evolutionists to the Biblical perspective, but what happens instead is that I am met with a solid wall of rejection. Meaning God is forcing me all the time to that radical choice and isn't going to let up.

​

As Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, "Come to Christ and die." As Jesus said in many ways, "You must take up your cross (that is, embrace your own death) to follow Me," you must "die to yourself," you must "hate" everyone who would draw you away from Him.

​

Well, that seems to be played out even on the "scientific" front. God isn't going to let evolution be defeated because it's a very effective "cross" for us to die on. EvC is a daily "ego death" for a Christian. Not that we submit nicely to it, we often fight it, but this is what I mean about how I forget what the Christian life is all about. It's not about winning the argument, it's about dying to self. I hate it, I fight it, but every time I come here I'm staring it in the face and it's staring back at me: Die, die die. Maybe I'm finally getting it. There is no way to win this argument, and I would lose something precious if I did.

​

But wouldn't winning the argument lead some people to Christ? That IS the idea behind it all. But no, you come to Christ and DIE. That's how we ALL come to Christ.

​

This is why it's very sad when a foreveryoung or a scienceishonesty capitulates to evolution. It's a refusal to die, it's a refusal to accept the radical division between Christ and the World. You win the world and lose your soul. "He who saves his life will lose it but he who gives up his life for My sake will save it for eternity." You get the approval of everybody at EvC but you've lost the approval of God.

​

Come to Christ and die.] Sorry, I know this is a science thread, but I think maybe I just came to a point where I see that I don't need to argue all this any more. Can't win the argument and wouldn't want to if I could, understanding it this way.

I've been trying to do that for years here and not succeeding at getting it across, so I don't think I could do any better with it now. I just like to state it from time to time so it won't get totally lost in the shuffle. I think it's "obvious" but I know that isn't going to make the case for you. Sorry. Oddly enough, I think some of the evolutionists here could explain what I mean about that, maybe Dr. A. He'll lard it with all his objections, in fact he'll probably bury it in his objections a mile deep, but I think he might be able to get it said at least. Perhaps he can be persuaded to try. Simply because the Old Earthers don't believe the planet was totally inactive for a few billion years. They believe that the activity we see ongoing in the world today has always been going on, the volcanoes, the earthquakes, the tectonic disturbances, the destructive weather patterns. I think, on the other hand, that if any of that happened during the formation of the stack of the Grand Canyon you would not have that nice neat stack a mile deep that is visible in various places in the canyon. You're right, it doesn't, it was a one-time event, which is what makes the GC such a fantastic example for creationist purposes. The canyon shows how the strata all over the earth were originally laid down to a tremendous depth/height, and how neatly flat and horizontal they must have been originally everywhere else too, and how they weren't disturbed until after they'd all been laid down, which I think all would agree is simply an impossibility on the Old Earth idea if we think of this planet as active all along, so for that to be the case the strata had to have been laid down very rapidly, which fits with the Flood model rather than the Old Earth model. OK. The cutting of the canyon is just one effect of the kinds of disturbances that occur all over the world. In the case of the GC I believe that volcanic and tectonic disturbance cracked the strata that began the opening of the canyon, and, also according to my theory, receding Flood waters rushed into the cracked strata carrying tons of broken strata with it and carved out the canyon. Same sort of thing happened to create the Grand Staircase area to the north with all its canyons, and sculpted out all the odd formations of the Southwest, though yearly erosion since then has also contributed to their shaping. If that much ever got considered as a plausibility at least, then I think I could go on to show that wherever we see strata whatever disturbances occurred to them can be shown to have ALSO happened after they were laid down. You see a block of six or seven layers perhaps and the whole block is folded and warped. All six or seven were there already obviously before the folding and warping. And so on. The thing is you never find such a complete stack of strata anywhere besides the Grand Canyon because they've all been broken up by one disruptive event or another since they were laid down. OK, you don't. I haven't persuaded you. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes I realize all that, RAZD. I have a different theory about it all.But since you mention that the river cut through after they were all in place to a mile deep or some billion years according to OE theory, how do YOU explain the appearance of the exposed strata as so nicely unruffled by the buffetings of time during which they would have periodically been at the surface of this very blustery unstable earth? -- such a LONG time? There is clear evidence of volcanic activity in the canyon, earthquakes have been reported there, your river isn't enough to cut through all that of course but water DID cut through it, so how did all those once-surface layers of sediment remain so unruffled? And how do YOU explain the neatly demarcated different sediments while we're at it?I also have a different theory about how the land rose and when.Yes, I'm aware of all that theory.

Well, believe it or not two participants on this forum specifically contradicted my statement to that effect a few years ago and then I was kicked out of the forum so I couldn't answer. I assume they misunderstood what I was saying but boy was it a shock. I don't know if I could find those posts, maybe I'll try later.

It's an ENGLISH term, RAZD. Undisturbed is probably the best synonym.

All that depends on your already-accepted assumptions but is not true on my assumptions. If the Flood created ALL the strata, the entire stack from bottom to top, then that band that occurs at a particular level of those strata (not a time period but a spatial level of sediment) would have occurred at a certain point during the Flood when the strata were being laid down.The explanation then is that the iridium was dispersed on the water at that point in the Flood and ended up in that level of the strata everywhere.The Flood theory I pursue has each of the layers of sediment laid down in its turn by currents or waves of ocean water, between which would be some gaps in time, even very long gaps between very long waves that washed over thousands of miles of the land mass. The different sediments were carried on the water and deposited this way and so would a thin layer of iridium be carried on the water and deposited that way.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Since your time period is wrong everything else you say about it is wrong too.