Summations Only

As I just said above, I only deal with what I want to deal with that I think proves what I want to prove. There are dozens of people here who can heap on the supposedly definitive proofs against the Flood that I don't have answers to, and why should I focus on those when I have others that I CAN answer? And in this case an argument that I feel PROVES rapid deposition? And if anything proves that, then the other arguments ARE irrelevant.

1) In science nothing is ever "proved."2) In science, one "argument" can disprove an hypothesis or theory.In other words, in order to make a scientific argument for a global flood you have to account for all the evidence, not just one small bit of it. And one small bit of contrary evidence is all it takes to disprove a global flood.If you're going to pretend to do science, at least pretend to follow the rules.

I think you'll agree that my most recent post was perfectly courteous. As I will endeavor to make future posts. I'm promising to play nice with the hope that you will not use my past indiscretion as an excuse to avoid responding to the points I make.Now, you haven't actually given any explanation for why the strata that comprise the canyon are significant but the canyon itself is irrelevant, you've merely restated it. You say that looking at the big picture is sufficient to prove your model, but when I ask you to look at the big picture it is suddenly irrelevant. That seems like a double standard born of a desire to ignore evidence that disproves your theory. The fact that you are unable/unwilling to explain yourself only serves to reinforce this impression.

Good grief, man, you can't define my arguments for me.

Feel free to point out how I have mischaracterized your argument. I'm pretty certain that it is not a misrepresentation to say that you have deemed the structure of the canyon itself to be irrelevant. You have tried to explain why it is irrelevant to you personally but have offered no explanation of why it is irrelevant to the issue of what the GC tells us about the validity of the Flood model.I think your approach of refusing to discuss anything besides one particular point is dishonest. Imagine the following:You came upon this thread already in progress and various points were being discussed like the angle of repose of sediment or in situ, terrestrial dinosaurs or the meandering path of the GC. You join the discussion by posting your favourite point about the strata. You consider it to be good evidence for your position but to your surprise you are told it is irrelevant and doesn't bear discussion or examination. Wouldn't you consider this a dishonest tactic? Wouldn't you think it was merely an attempt to avoid a difficult question? Wouldn't you feel that your point deserved to be addressed? If the answer to these questions is "yes", then how can you justify ignoring the various points I have made, including one that concerns the very canyon you say proves your point? If your answer is"no", then why should anyone give the points you raise any attention? This is why I accuse you of dishonesty. It seems pretty clear that you are operating under a double standard.Edited by Atheos canadensis, : formatting Edited by Atheos canadensis, : same dealEdited by Atheos canadensis, : No reason given.

Yes, could I possibly be talking about the erosion when I show you photographs of erosion and say "Look, here's the erosion, it's right there where the erosion is"? No you don't, as you can see from the photographs which show the unconformities but not this "disturbance to the whole stack" which you made up in your head. That's not so much an argument as an assertion. Nor is it a request. What a strange lie.

If it were an overhang then there would be a shadow below it -- you can see shadows of the tops further to the right, and from this you can estimate the angle to the sun.It is high enough that any overhang would have a shadow.Starting from the left end and looking just over the first white dusting mark you can see every layer without shadow, the second and third white dusting locations have shadows above them that match the top edge shape being cast down and to the right at a high angle from the vertical cliffs at that location.So I don't see any overhangsEnjoy

In other words you cherry pick the evidence you can interpret according to your beliefs and ignore anything else ...Enjoy.

It's not long enough to be two billion years. AFAIK, the Claron (note spelling) was deposited after the beginning of the Laramide Orogeny. But yes, most of the Grand Staircase sediments above the Great Unconformity were deposited between the end of the Grand Canyon Orogeny and the start of the Laramide Orogeny.If you have even the flimsiest shred of evidence to suggest that there was or should have been another orogeny in the Grand Canyon region between those two, now would be a great time to produce it.

Where is the rubble from that erosion? What I see is a clean demarcation between layers in the supergroup (that -- other than being tilted -- are as undisturbed as the other layers) and the layers above.A lot of rock had to be removed -- where did it go?Enjoy.

So you're like a man who wants to prove that all birds are flightless, and so only "deals with" ostriches, kiwis, emus, and penguins. And we could show your ornithological counterpart lots of birds capable of flight, but why should he focus on those?

Interpretation is pretty straightforward in this case, RAZD, either you think it possible there could have been nearly a billion years during which strata covering hundreds of square miles or maybe even thousands were quietly being laid down without any major disturbances such as earthquakes, tectonic movement, volcanic intrusions and so on, or you don't. I don't.

That might even be interesting if anyone thought that Faith. Get serious. Do you even know what an unconformity is?

And I think the fact that you can see layers of undisturbed horizontal strata (the disturbances occurred AFTER they were all laid down) to such a great depth and distance in the GC area disproves the idea that it took millions of years to form. That's all it should take.But that creed about "theory" not being provable only applies to this sort of argument, that is, arguments about the past that cannot be replicated where all you have is speculation and argument. Some things in science have definitely been proved but these things can't be. The shape of the DNA molecule has been proved, gravity has been proved etc etc etc. Yes I know about new persepctives over time, but those things have been proved in a way evolution and old earth can't be because you can't observe the past.

Oh, right, EXCEPT for the unconformity, my mistake.Except of course I do believe even the unconformity occurred afterward, at the same time as the other large scale disturbances, but I can't prove it so I let you have it.AND there are no unconformities in that long stretfch of parallel layers, so my point still stands. Those start above the unconformity and stretch hundreds of miles north and climb to the top of the Grand Staircase without a disturbance to their neat parallel placidity.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.