Summations Only

Such as the following fantasy sequence, I would suppose? Surface is deposited? You mean pure calcareous ooze is deposited over a huge area? But that occurs in "shallow seas" as I understand how limestone forms according to orthodox establishment Geology. So how is it that the next thing that happens is that "rivers form" in this calcareous ooze? Did you leave out the step of the ooze being exposed at the surface to dry out or something like that, cuz otherwise you aren't going to get any rivers running across it.How does ooze lithify by the way, with nothing pressing on it from above?Then later, like clockwork, hey it occurs to EVERY layer in the stack somehow or other, kind of like the Emperor's New Clothes I'd say, this DIFFERENT sediment, well, in this case it's just another calcareous ooze that's going to form a different limestone but it COULD have been sand dunes, har har har, ahem, so this sediment just magically appears and deposits itself very very neatly and flatly over this landscape with the running river, gosh I could nearly choke on my amusement, but anyway this sediment covers up everything, which oddly enough doesn't preserve the shape of that everything because when it's all hardened into the strata stack it will have this nice straight line below and above it -- oh of course except for that half moon "riverbed" but the pure limestone "land" around it will somehow have been magically flattened out, no hills or valleys or gullies, just the nice straight line between the rocks so that the new sediment that then magically appears after all this will make a nice flat connection with the Muav/Temple limestone... ah well. Of course it's ONLY in limestone that we see these "riverbeds," it's got something to do with that particular sediment or its rock form, oddly enough. Well calcareous ooze doesn't normally get traversed by rivers anyway being as how it's underwater don't you know, but in RAZD's universe somehow this happens quite regularly, along with this clockwork-predictable "sedimentation" that always shows up to bury the former "landscape" so that we can have an entirely NEW rock above it.And it shows up RIGHT ON TIME, too, never too early so that it mingles with the calcareous ooze, but just in time to neatly and cleanly cover it completely with brand new sediment. Shouldn't Science formulate a new Law to express this absolutely predictable occurrence? Except, of course, for the facts I've suggested above. Such as that calcareous ooze deposits underwater, and that it is only in limestone that we see these odd "riverbed" type dips. Nice simple processes, yup, but truly fantasy processes when you actually THINK about what is being said.Now of course you CAN get a meandering stream between the layers of limestone, in the real world that is. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Somehow you LIKE that idea. But the fact is that the Christian religion instructs believers against acts of violence, so that when it occurs it is in violation of what Christianity teaches, whereas the texts of Islam itself teach that it's good to murder "infidels." Doesn't matter to you of course, you LIKE thinking it's all the same.

I really can hardly believe the nuttiness of what you are saying. There IS no erosion between layers of the strata of the sort that would have occurred on the surface if exposed for a long time. That "riverbed" is NOT erosion, it's some kind of formation that occurs in limestone, no it is not merely incidental, it has something to do with its being limestone, and otherwise the lines between the layers are flat. Erosion does not flatten things. That is NONSENSE.Oh well. You keep accusing me of unreality but it's you that live there, not I.

HBD himself, not I, identified the Mississippian as the Redwall limestone, and that particular deposit, the sediment itself, was said by UK creationist Paul Garner on the video I've posted a few times to be recognizable across the US and even in the UK. HBD also identified the Devonian as the Temple Butte formation, not I.He repeated these identifications in his Message 645 as well.He didn't include the Coconino but that has been said to extend through a number of Southwestern states.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The Kaibab is pretty flat even after thousands of years of exposure, yes, but that's because it's ROCK. Same with the Coconino upper edge in the same picture, also apparently exposed a very long time judging by the eroded material that has collected above it, and it has a similarly basically flat but slightly irregular surface visible at the front upper edge. Because it too is ROCK.The layers, those that supposedly deposited above water, would supposedly have been exposed while they were still depositing as sediments, which ought to exhibit more dramatic erosion. But the reason erosion became an issue was because it keeps being insisted upon, when most of the contact lines between layers can be shown to be quite straight and tight, and the kind of erosion that is pointed to, besides the clearly massive erosion that occurred to the whole stack after it was laid down, is small amounts of rubble that could more easily be explained as caused by water running between the layers.I just reviewed a number of your posts and at least half of what you write, possibly even more than that, is just rhetoric condemning me for this or that, all clever terminology without giving any evidence of what you are attacking me for, and not many actual arguments at all. And often you aren't clear about your arguments, they seem to be there just to SOUND impressive when they're really mostly mystifications. Meanwhile I've got other people demanding my attention. Does it make you all feel good to beat up on the creationist? I think you particularly just enjoy beating up on people. That's really all this "debate" is about.I still have the same observations and arguments I started out with. Nothing anyone has said has really answered them, though I'm sure a great tsunami of vituperative abuse will be heaped on me for saying this.The strata WERE laid down BEFORE the disturbances and this can be seen in your pictures particularly, though you can obfuscate the point with your irrelevant antics. There are some ambiguous areas but very few in the overall picture.I continue to find it ridiculous that flat rocks are taken to represent time periods, and yes I think that ought to be obvious to anyone giving serious thought to it, certainly anyone willing to try to think about it without the OE bias blinders on. Sometimes there is no other argument except "it's absurd." Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I do not understand what you are saying here. Try again? The question is how the loose sand of dunes, which I've been told had to be deposited aerially without the assistance of water which would disturb its characteristic crossbedding, how its naturally dune shaped hilliness got packed into a flat rock. There's a TON of erosion to the SURFACE of everything in the GC and everywhere the strata are exposed. Pieces fall off, eroded material piles up on ledges and at the bottom, there are places where holes have formed in the limestone, whole blocks of strata have slumped and deformed and so on and so forth. This is obviously erosion and other disturbances that occurred TO THE WHOLE STACK AFTER IT WAS LAID DOWN. Meanwhile even in those deformed areas you can see tight straight lines between the layers, showing that they were NOT disturbed DURING their laying down.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This is ridiculous. And I DID answer it already. The very concept of "missing" layers is an OE idea and it's a problem for OE thinking which assigns millions of years to the layer, but NOT a problem for the Flood, since there's no reason whatever to think the Flood would have consistently laid down continuous sediments. Why on earth should it? It laid down what it had available to lay down. A wave or series of waves huge enough to reach across a whole continent would dump whatever it had to dump, there's no reason it had to have some specific content to dump in specific places. The Flood concept doesn't have to explain any such thing. It deposited whatever it happened to be carrying wherever it happened to deposit it. You seem to expect it to have some kind of perfect consistency. Why on earth should it? As it is it obviously had an amazing consistency far beyond what one would expect of a mere mechanical operation. People deny that water sorts things but the fact is that it does. There are many experiments that show this (Berthault) besides the fact that you can see layering at the mouth of rivers and in the oceans as well. NO WAY?? I"ve only spent half my time on this forum explaining such things. When you use language like "single flood" you show your inability to conceptualize the magnitude of THE Flood. THAT Flood deposited strata MILES DEEP. NO local flood could ever be the model for such a phenomenon. There is far more of a problem with the itty bitty RIVER explanation for the cutting of the canyon than there is for either of the possible Flood scenarios I've laid out here. One is that the strata were all laid down and the Flood waters were still standing above when the tectonic disturbances kicked in and the land was upraised and cracked by the uplift a mile above the current rim of the canyon, and the standing water rushed into the cracks and along with the broken upper strata scoured out the canyon. The second scenario is the standing lake idea, that after the Flood there was a huge lake still standing to the northeast of the canyon area, like the other big lakes, Missoula, Lahontan and Bonneville, and this lake's dam was breached by the same tectonic movement that uplifted the canyon area and pushed up the Rockies as well, and the water from the lake is what rushed into the cracked sediments and carved out the canyon. The enormous size of the canyon requires a HUGE cataclysm to explain it which the Colorado River could not possibly explain. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

OK Yes, but as I said, Paul Garner explicitly identified the Redwall as recognizable, same sediment, etc., across the US and even in the UK where apparently it even LOOKS the same, reddened by the leaching out of the color from the layer above. Of course we all know that creationists are not only the stupidest but the most evil people on earth who lie about absolutely everything so I guess if you want to dismiss his comment that's only to be expected.Anyway, what you said clarified absolutely nothing, HBD. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You can "explain" anything if you don't mind violating the laws of nature, something geologists seem to commit at least as often as they accuse creationists of committing it.

The emptying of Lake Missoula is the explanation given for the creation of the scablands in Washington. In the case of the GC it would have to do with the shape of the uplifted land and, I think, the cracking in the upper strata, that directed the flow of a huge quantity of water so that it cut out the canyon. it also of course ran all over the southwest and cut the formations of the Grand Staircase and scoured off the Kaibab plateau . For this the lake might not be enough water, which makes the standing Flood waters idea better to my mind. Anyway, at first it was a cataclysm, it only later settled down to river size. I guess you missed all the stuff about the \meandering of that river which they keep trying to make into some kind of impossibility for the Flood.

RAZD you are describing the situation NOW. There was at least another mile or more in depth of strata above the current land surface, that was eroded away, I believe as a result of the uplifting land and the tectonic disturbances that followed the Flood, and right after the Flood the uplifting would most likely just have begun.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, it's NOT "hand waving," it's an EXPLANATION. There is no reason for the Flood to have done what YOU think it should have done. It did what it did. Your argument is basically what everybody accuses me of, an argument from incredulity.The WIDTH of the canyon in places needs a lot more than just a bigger river, but go ahead, tell me HOW big it used to be. Whatever it was it's still whatever was left after the Flood.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Anyone who can't see the evidence for the Flood all over this planet is blind as a bat. And rivers create meanders, not the Flood, which I've said over and over. The Flood eventually simply BECAME the river. And that ought to be obvious too.

Yeah I knew you never read any of my posts though you jeered as many as your little fingers could manage.It went South and West into Arizona and California and down the Gulf of California.

No, you seem to be having a problem with reading. NO. What I said was that it WITHSTOOD the erosion because it's rock, the erosion is VERY SLIGHT because it's rock. You misread me. I said the Coconino ALSO withstood the erosion because it too was rock. This all occurred after the strata were in place and the Kaibab was exposed and that part of the Coconino as well. That makes no sense at all. This comparison is utterly ridiculous. Do I actually have to say that the rocks do not "represent" a "time period" of forty days and forty nights on the Flood model. Are you that confused?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.