Summations Only

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.

And more to the point why did it skip some places but deposit all around it and then put another layer on top of both.It like the mystery of the dog that didn't bark ...Enjoyps cars do float. for a while ...

I read that as identifying where the unconformity lies in the sequence and which age the Redwall formation is in.Perhaps HBD will clarify.

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.

I guess my explanation may have been a bit confusing. I was relating the geological strata to the layers visible in the GC. Formations are a subset of the geological strata and could be deposited from different sources , in different environments etc. How extensive is the Redwall limestone formation? I don't know for sure. The map shows deposits that are characteristic of a particular geological period.HBD

Except for one worrying fact Faith, geologists have been able to explain what is seen at the Grand Canyon without a "HUGE cataclysm" and which the Colorado River can easily explain.

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.

That would be an issue Faith, if it were not for the small fact that geologists have been able to explain what is seen at the Grand Canyon without a "HUGE cataclysm" and which the Colorado River can easily explain without violating any laws of nature.

Is this your explanation ... Maybe that's why I didn't realize you had answered it because that's not really an answer - it's hand-waving. No one denies that water sorts things. They deny that it sorts it in the way that we see in the Grand Canyon layers. It needs to be demonstrated that water CAN sort things in such a way as to form the layers of the Grand Canyon. And that you have not done. You have hand-waved it away. The sediments would have been thoroughly mixed, not relatively homogeneous collections of materials. Once the waters calmed, then sediments would begin to drop out of suspension in order from large particles to small particles. Sure there would be currents and turbidites that would move sediments around. What a flood model needs to do is explain where those drainage systems would have been, what sediments would have gone where and then test to see if it can accurately predict such phenomenon. Do you realize that something like 95% of the river's flow is diverted to irrigation and municipal systems? Practically the entire Southwest gets its water from the Colorado. In fact, there are times when no water at all reaches the gulf. So the actual Colorado River is something like 20 times the size of what you see running through the canyon today. Hardly a small river. So, 5 million years of water flow at its natural flow rate would not be sufficient, but a huge lake would be? How much water would those lakes need to hold to provide an equivalent erosional force?HBDEdited by herebedragons, : No reason given.

And why did the lake emptying create what looks like a normal river and not a flood plain?

You've never posted on law of nature that the OE interpretation violates.You've often claimed that the OE view violates the laws you've made up. But nobody cares about them.

I have never called you stupid, nor have I called you a liar or evil. I don't believe I have even called creationists in general any of those things. But I have said that you were wrong and that creationists in general were wrong about particular points ... is being wrong the same thing as being evil?His comments may very well be true, IDK, but it is irrelevant how extensive that particular formation is. The main point is the relative sequence of the layers. Didn't figure it would, but I tried.HBD