Summations Only

I even changed the wording of that post because I knew it could be misread that way. Ah well, trust Dr. A to exploit it.

Too much going on in your post to deal with all at once. But the maps of the different layers do look interesting so I'll probably eventually get to it. But you ask how a worldwide Flood would explain the patterns in the maps, and the first answer off the top of my head is that a lot happened TO the strata after they were laid down, due to tectonic movement and volcanic activity and earthquakes and the rapid eroding away of some parts of the strata and so on, so I would expect some of it to be explained by those factors.But it's the Bible stuff I want to answer here. Actually, not the EVIDENCE, but the INTERPRETATION of the evidence. But absolutely, if anything clearly contradicts God's word it's wrong, period. Oh, there always is. Even fourth and tenth options. Compromisers are a creative lot. indeed, and you somehow assume the original context is overlooked by Bible believers? Not so. God is astute enough to address His nomadic peoples AND His twenty-first-century peoples in one message. God knows the mind of every generation including the scientific discoveries of the future. We never get to the bottom of anything in the Bible, it's always giving us new perspectives, IF we take it all on faith, of course, not if you treat it as just another book you can subordinate to your own opinion. I don't rely on my own reading of the Bible alone, I hear sermons almost every day, I've read many of the old books as well as the new books, it's not as if the greatest preachers and theological minds of Christianity just sort of didn't take into account the "original intention" of the passages. There is no way both sides of an out and out contradiction can be true. Anyone who honestly reads the Bible can see the contradictions with -- not science as such, I do have to keep saying that since I believe true science honors God -- but with evolutionist and old earth science. What compromisers REALLY do is simply get rid of what God said. Easy. Which is what you are doing by claiming Genesis could only speak to primitive people, which is essentially saying God lied to those people because, well, they're primitive so they're stupid and it's OK to lie to stupid people, which totally violates the character of God and destroys the reliability of His word, but despite that you think we should accept SOME of it? If He would lie to nomads He'd lie to me, but I know He's lied to nobody because God can't lie.it always IS a choice. There IS no way to reconcile the two. The thing is, when you hold onto the choice that it's all God's word you get vistas and depths you'll never get from rejecting any part of it.I don't claim my way of understanding how the GC formed is the truth, all that is my own speculation, but I do claim that a worldwide Flood occurred about 4300 years ago and since current sciences about the past deny it I try to understand how it may have happened. And it seems to me once you know it happened the evidence for it is absolutely everywhere, and the GC is a glaring bit of evidence for it whether how it happened can be known or not.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Since lithification is apparently a technical term, I'd rather say "hardened." But well-hardened from the compression of sediments above. No, I never said they lithified when exposed, you are making things up. They were already hardened enough not to slump, but quite easily sculpted by rushing water. Same thing happened to the Grand Staircase and to all the formations of the Southwest, the draining Flood water pared away huge quantities of the strata leaving the shapes, and of course over the millennia since then they've been subjected to further shaping by yearly erosion as well.That's a nice cross-section, I like it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I just want a word for hardening without lithifying.

I had a specific purpose for asking that, it isn't to be taken as THE way I think the canyon should always be looked at. You are wrongly making a general rule out of something that had a limited purpose. Which was, that if you look at some of the long vistas of the canyon walls from a distance you can see there are no disturbances to the layers, which proves they were never at the surface of the earth, not a one of them, which is an Old Earth belief. Disturbances to the strata occur to BLOCKS of strata, not individual layers. I still think that is obvious and a very important observation against OE theory. The slight disturbances between the layers that are taken as evidence for surface exposure can only be seen from close up and are far from the kind of disruption real exposure at the surface would have caused, which I kept saying would be visible from that distance if it had happened. They don't cut it, are easily explained by runoff from between the layers, and that's what I wanted to be seen. But anything can be rationalized if necessary when there is no way to actually prove it. Well, unfortunately you completely missed the point I was trying to make, but enjoy your hikes. There are many rivers in this world that are a lot more powerful than the Colorado that didn't even begin to cut a canyon. There is no way that river in its current form cut that canyon.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'll stick with hardened, thanks anyway.

I NEVER SAID THEY WERE "SOFT" EVER.

What's wrong with simple erosion due to the action of the falls on the rocks as explanation for the falls moving upriver?

Yeah disturbance on too small a scale to mean what the OE theory says it means, that's the point of getting back to appreciate that fact, really very simple and obvious if you don't have the OE blinders on.

Again, I never said the cascade caused meanders, I said the river did when it all settled down to the river.

Here's a rebuttal using a picture. It OUGHT to be obvious that the kind of erosion on the surface of the layers that you have to get up close to see isn't the kind of erosion that actually occurs on the surface of the earth, but here's an example of the real kind so you can see that it WOUJLD be visible from across the canyon on any layer if it had ever actually occurred:The Fantasy of Evolution: erosionEdited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, sorry, I really don't want to debate that.

Well, the following is message 367 and I wasn't accusing anybody of anything, such as refusing to acknowledge it. I did figure you weren't taking it into account so I pointed it out. I was noting a fact that has interested me all along: So nowhere did I say you were "refusing to acknowledge" this.As for the uplift on the cross-sections, itt might have been part of the general uplift but according to the cross sections it has its own local form, that mound into which the canyon itself was cut, and over which all the strata in the canyon bend, and under which the Supergroup directly lies. This mounded uplift has been my focus for quite some time, and it does look to me like it's related to the Supergroup which pushes up right under it. I believe it's quite clear on the diagrams that there was a separate uplift event right under the canyon area, whether it was related to the larger uplift or not. As far as I know it's not usually taken note of as any special thing though it has been of special interest to me as I've looked at those diagrams.Thinking I'm accusing you of refusing to notice it when all I'm doing is calling it to your attention IS some kind of misreading. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It is exactly what would have been the case at the end of the Flood which you deny ever existed. Why would lithification be interrupted and who said anything about lithification anyway? I've been talking about events I hypothesize occurred at the end of the Flood, which would include the strata being solid enough to hold their shape but not lithified as I've come to understand this term. It doesn't matter to me which words are used, I'm trying to convey something that only occurred once on the planet and can't fairly be compared with tiny little floods.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The Flood left a ton of evidence all over the earth. It left all the strata, it left the Grand Canyon and all the formations of the Southwest (It's really kind of amusing to think of the separate layers of which the hoodoos are built as each representing millions of years of time), it left the scablands, it left the traces of the huge lakes such as the Missoula and Lahontan and Bonneville, it left the dinosaur beds and the fossils.