Summations Only

What, you've run out of ideas for new mistakes to make so you're repeating old ones?As you well know, man wrote the Bible and God wrote the rocks. God's true testament is in the rocks.As you also well know, even if your babbling about "fallen human minds" were true, it is as true of you as it is of everyone else. In fact, the evidence strongly suggests that your mind is far more fallen than anyone else here since you're claiming to follow the Bible while misrepresenting what it says.You go on to say that you don't have to listen to fallen human minds, but that makes even less sense. According to you Christians, there isn't a human mind on the planet that isn't fallen, so I guess you're not listening to anyone, including yourself. Makes no sense, but it does explain a lot about you. These are just more bald declarations with no supporting evidence, plus since you keep making claims about what the Bible says that are patently false it would seem to indicate that your "darkened fallen mind" is a bit more darkened and fallen than the rest of us.--Percy

Let me repeat that last part, but without the shouting: "There is no longer any evidence of them to be found."Yes, Faith, that's exactly right, there is no evidence for your claims. Tell us, please, how you magically tell the difference between something that never happened and something that happened but left no evidence behind. But there's no evidence that the Grand Canyon is the result of cracks in the earth.What's more, the Grand Canyon is only running east/west at this particular cross section. As you can tell from this image that I presented before, in the Grand Canyon region the Colorado River flows first south, then west, then north (the yellow outlined area is the meander we were discussing at the time I prepared this image): I agree there is no point in comparing existing faults, for which we have evidence, to your fictional cracks for which there is no evidence.AbE: And just to mention once again, I'm pretty sure we're all completely lost when it comes to understanding how the water got up into those elevated cracks. If someone actually understands your scenario then I hope they explain it, but if not then it's up to you. I've posted questions to you about it in several messages, but you haven't replied to those messages.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix misplaced markup. AbE.

If we start with the flood being above the purported cracks, then this is not a problem getting water into the purported disappearing cracks. The larger problem is how this generates massive currents to carve them out when water flows most at the top and least at the bottom: drain a dammed reservoir and all the sediment that settled to the bottom is still there.Glenn Canyon is not carved by draining the purported Lake Austin ...

I've given Faith the same feedback and explained that's why I'm only focusing on the lake scenario. I'm trying to understand how the water from the burst lake flowed uphill into the cracks, and where is there evidence for a lake higher than the rim of the canyon anyway. I'm just looking for a description clear enough to allow me to understand how Faith thinks it happened. So far all her explanations have been either too ambiguous or they contain internal contradictions or both.--Percy

Really? Is that cross-section the only image you look at? Have you tried to look at anything else before you make assertions? For example ...Map of the Grand staircase area: It looks to me like all the geographical features are running north to south.And this map of faults in the Grand Staircase National Park: All the faults are running north and south.Where are these cracks that run east - west that are still visible today. Do you need special glasses to see them? I agree.HBD

The point I'm making is clearly illustrated on that cross section and everything else being brought up here is about other things. Forgive me for trying to get across a particular thing and not all the other things you are all bringing up. The particular thing I'm talking about happens to be illustrated on that cross section: the EAST-WEST cracking of the upper strata. I guess you can all go on bringing up irrelevancies forever of course, seems to be a special talent around here.

This isn't complicated to understand, Faith. That cross section is of a point in the Grand Canyon that happens to be running east/west, but the Grand Canyon is pretty long. The eastern part of the Canyon runs mostly north/south, and so does the western part. Here's the image showing the path of the canyon and the Colorado again: You're dissembling again. We understand what you're trying to get across, and you're pretty obviously just ignoring why you're wrong. These cracks that you keep talking about had to run north to south in the eastern canyon, then east to west in the central canyon, then east south east to west north west for a while, and then finally in a number of directions but predominately south to north in the western part of the canyon.But more importantly, there's no evidence of any cracks. You're just making it up. There is no cracking in that cross section. What you keep referring to as cracking is just the Grand Canyon, which was carved by the Colorado River eroding downward through the landscape, just like all rivers do today according to their specific circumstances. The definition of "irrelevancy" is not "things I don't have answers or evidence for." Everything we're bringing up is very relevant, and playing the evasion game doesn't change that.--Percy

You have been told this over and over, that cross section is a generalized, oversimplified, imprecise depiction of the area. That doesn't mean it is wrong, it means it is not the whole picture. It is a graphic illustration. The scale of that area is so massive that it cannot possibly be depicted in a single, simple drawing. But it amounts to the whole of your argument. We are trying to show you that there is more involved than just that cross section; much, much more. All relevant details need to be taken into account in order to have an effective argument.So when you look at the cross section, you may make some observations:* the strata was all laid down flat
--- but when shown that the strata is NOT flat; you should abandon that argument (I know you said "relatively flat", but it's either flat or it's not)* there is no visible erosion between the layers
--- but when shown there is INDEED erosion between the layers, and significant erosion; you should abandon that argument* the cracks run east - west
--- but when shown that the stress cracks run north to south in the entire area; you should abandon that argument.etc, etc...But you don't. You keep insisting that you are right.While there is certainly irrelevant arguments that have been brought up (with almost 1800 posts it is to be expected), the majority of counterpoints we have brought up are far from irrelevant. It is essential that any "theory" explain ALL relevant facts, not just those visible on a graphical represnetation of the cross section. Since you are asking forgiveness, does that mean you are admitting you were wrong? Or are you be facetious? But it doesn't exist in the real world, only on that graphical illustration that you are taking as gospel truth. Its not the only information that exists. I guess you can go on forever declaring relevant issues as irrelevant as well. Or you could start dealing with things honestly and seek the truth. As I and others have said before, if you want to continue to believe there was a global flood, fine. Just don't pretend that you have supported that premise with scientific facts in this thread. Declaring everything that disagrees with you as irrelevant is not being honest. Just sayin'.HBD

Mass drownings show how thousands of animals can appear in one bonebed. And scavenging doesn't preclude preservation in the fossil record as I have previously mentioned and as I discuss again below. That's the thing, Faith, rapid burial isn't required. I have already shown you this, but I guess we should hash it out a bit more explicitly. But first I will point out again that I have given you evidence that various circumstances can produce a rich fossil record including terrestrial environments as evinced by the incredibly fossil-rich Ukhaa Tolgod.Anyway, on to the rapid burial thing. Let's take an Edmontosaurus bonebed for example. We'll start with these pictures:Hadrosaur teethNote the flat occlusal surface. I bring this up just in case you might be tempted (as other creationists have been) to interpret the bite marks on the bones as being the result of the hadrosaurs gnawing each other in panic.Tyrannosaur teeth: Note the pointed tips and the configuration of teeth in the jaw.Toothmarks:Here we see a series of parallel, v-shaped marks in the bone, exactly consistent with the arrangement of teeth in the theropod jaw.So lets review the evidence:-large hadrosaur bonebeds full of bones covered with toothmarks
-the bonebeds also contain shed teeth from the tyrannosaurs and other theropods, but not their actual bones
-the toothmarks are entirely consistent with what would be caused by the sharp-toothed theropods
-the bones also show evidence of being trampledConclusion:The hadrosaur carcasses were being scavenged by theropods and were therefore exposed at the surface for extended periods. The fact that they still ended up in the fossil record disproves the assertion that only rapid burial can preserve bones for fossilization.How do you explain the unambiguous evidence of scavenging and prolonged surface exposure in the fossil record if you think that fossils can only be preserved if rapid burial occurs?

The strata WERE all laid down flat, in fact that is a principle of Geology, HBD, original horizontality. What the cross sections show is that they remained horizontal in that there were was no TECTONIC disturbance to them, and that WOULD have been depicted because they depict it where it DID occur.And what people have "shown" me, such as frako's last, are all the usual misunderstandings of what I'm saying, or refusals to get it or whatever, answering with a knee jerk mindless picture or two which in fact confirms what i've been saying, because the disturbances "shown" to me all occurred AFTER the time period in question, WHICH IS WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING. There are some ambiguous ones that should have been discussed, but the way this thread has galloped along that's just never happened although from time to time I've SAID they merely confirm what I was claiming. But nobody's paying attention really.The visible erosion occurred AFTER the strata were laid down too, HBD.Nobody has really answered any of my points about the overall situation of the strata.THE CANYONS AND CLIFFS OF THE GRAND STAIRCASE RUN EAST-WEST. GO LOOK AGAIN. The "stress cracks" have NOTHING to do with what I'm trying to talk about, that's just imposing somebody else's stuff on me.This is all nothing but an exercise in obfuscation. You all make up objections to any point I make but you've never actually ANSWERED my points. You think you've answered me when you've only answered a straw man, your own misunderstanding. If in small details you've answered this or that, and I'm not sure, there has never been an opportunity to discuss it in enough detail to work it out. Meanwhile the absolutely irrelevant straw man objections just keep getting trotted out, and some from Percy for one are so offensive it's enough to make a person sick. And if you think you'd be up to what I have to deal with here think again.I'm sick of being told that I've been told this or that when it's all ridiculous misconstructions. You don't know what you're talking about. The cross section is quite adequate for the purposes for which I'm using it and I resent your telling me stuff any child would know about a diagram.I wanted off this thread before it really got started, and I want off it again, but ignoring the stupidities is hard to do.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm not sure what HBD was trying to say, he didn't provide much detail. Obviously when first deposited layers are horizontal. Since his next point was about erosion he might have meant that the junction between layers isn't flat and can be something like this example from the Grand Canyon: Do you mean, for example, that erosion of the Temple Butte layer shown above eroded after it was buried? That's not possible. If there are things that haven't been discussed that you would have liked to have discussed then the fault can only be your own. You've ignored nearly half the messages posted to you. I'm still waiting for a clear description of the location of a lake at a higher elevation than the Grand Canyon, or if that's not what you're arguing, then how water got up into your cracks in the uplifted region. No evidence has confirmed anything you've claimed. I think your real problem is the opposite, that everyone's paying very close attention with the result that every time you make some boneheaded claim you get several replies. Here's a boneheaded claim right here: Given that I just posted this image of the Grand Canyon going south then west then north, it's incredible that you said this (again, the yellow box is the meander we were discussing a while back): Here's the diagram you like so much again: What you don't seem to understand is that this is a diagram, not an actual representation of where things are. The horizontal and vertical scales are considerably different. The diagram only runs very roughly north/south, and in reality it takes a couple sharp turns. The Vermilion Cliffs are not on a direct line from the Grand Canyon to Zion Canyon. The Vermilion Cliffs are north-northeast of the canyon, while Zion canyon is north-northwest. Your diagram heads from the Grand Canyon north-northeast to the Vermilion cliffs, then takes a hard left and goes east-northeast to Zion Canyon, then takes a hard right and heads north to Brian Head. Here's an image showing all these locations. I've put a red circle around the Grand Canyon, the Vermilion Cliffs, Zion Canyon, and Brian Head: So is it now quite clear that your diagram doesn't run directly north/south? Can you see that the canyons shown crossing the diagram could run in any direction?Here's an image of the Vermilion Cliffs showing that they, too, run in all directions. Notice that in the east the cliffs run northeast to southwest, that in the south the cliffs run mostly east/west, and then in the west they run north/south, so that should put an end to this "THEY ALL RUN EAST/WEST" nonsense: But if that's not enough for you, then here's an image of the Zion Canyon area showing that the dominant part of the canyon runs north/south, and that all the fault lines run north/south: So can we hear no more of this nonsense about the Grand Staircase features all running east/west? Yes, Faith, it is, but all the obfuscation and errors are on your side. Yes, Faith, we're aware that you seem to resent being provided accurate information, in this case that you've misinterpreted your diagram. Again.--Percy

How where these layers not tectonicly disturbed? Or did the flood deposit vertical layers. Just because the cross sections of the grand canyon are all flat that doe sent mean the whole world is the same. You even have places where the all the layers of strata are completely turned around. Its been you who pulled arguments out of your arse claimed that they where true even though you have been shown you where wrong. but its pointless debating with you if you ignore the evidence that does not support your "theory". In fact i believe if i had a time machine and showed you the whole history of the earth you would just say the time machine is lying i dont accept any evidence it shows.

Very telling.You've said they merely confirm what you were claiming. You don't even think of demonstrating they merely confirm what you were claiming. You don't even think of presenting arguments that they merely confirm what you were claiming.In spite of many messages pointing out those facts and begging you to support your claims.All you can do is proclaim.You really think we should just accept and believe whatever you say. You can't even conceive of the possibility of supporting your claims.Pathetic.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Good ... but then why are they not parallel? If they were originally horizontal and not disturbed until they were all put down, then why are they not still parallel? I cropped this image so as to focus on this section. The green layer is Bright Angel Shale. Why is it not parallel, why does it cut off the Mauv Limestone (pink)? Why is the Supai Group (orange) dipped and filled with Hermit Shale (red)? Why does the Mauv Limestone dip towards the right side of the image and is filled with Redwall Limestone (grey) so that the Redwall unit is significantly thicker at that point? These are simply things that can be easily seen from the cross section.So either:A. original horizontality is NOT a principal of geology, orB. they were laid down flat (on the top surface) and subsequently disturbed or eroded BEFORE the next layer was put down. So... the qualifier here is TECTONIC disturbance? Only TECTONIC disturbance counts. And only TECTONIC disturbance visible in the cross section. I think we have agreed with you that there was not tectonic disturbance during that time. What you need to show is why there SHOULD be tectonic disturbance. Why there MUST be tectonic disturbance.Here is an image of the North American craton, a stable piece of continental crust that has not undergone major tectonic disturbance for 600 my. The area of the Grand Canyon is an original part of that craton, but has more recently been deformed by collisions with other plates. So why do you think that every part of the continent MUST have recent tectonic activity? You have not established this in the least. You have been shown river channels between layers that were filled in with different materials than either layer above or below. You have been shown contact surfaces that included rubble which could not have been created unless the surface had been exposed to weathering for a period of time. You have been shown layers that spent time ABOVE water and have surfaces that have been exposed to wind and rain and have vertebrate tracks but was then later covered by water borne sediments again. I have never thought of you as a liar, Faith, but come on, you know this statement is not true. It's just not true. You just don't like the answers. Your response is simply "I don't see a problem with the flood doing that." This is why you are being accused of invoking magic to explain the objections to your ideas.In addition, you have failed to address how the layers could have formed so rapidly (at least everything up to the Coconino would have to been laid down in no more than 40 days, remember the live animals in the Coconino?). You have failed to address why the sediments are sorted the way they are instead of coarse to fine like would be expected from a continuous underwater deposition environment. I seems to me that Percy is trying really hard to understand your arguments. If he is misunderstanding your arguments and misconstruing them, it is not for lack of trying. One thing I see him trying to do is take the idea you propose and try to describe the implications of that idea. That's not misunderstanding, that's developing an argument; that's analyzing an argument. An important part of getting your ideas accepted. You're gonna have to show me these "cracks" you are talking about, I don't see them. I don't see any features that indicate there is an east-west ... whatever. The geological deformities run north-south, which makes sense since they were formed from the collision with the Pacific plate. It's kinda strange that you are the only one that seems to know what you are talking about and the rest of us are just idiots. Hhmmm ... It may be adequate for YOUR purposes, but it isn't adequate to make serious conclusions. You have to account for ALL the data, not just what you want to focus on. You must be joking. 1780 posts and there hasn't been an opportunity to discuss in detail? Besides, you don't want to discuss details. You only want to discuss the vague concepts you have. You are not interested in understanding the details involved, nor do you want to get bogged down with the evidence. You have some whimsical idea and you know it is right regardless of what any evidence might show. (Note: I am not saying the flood itself is a whimsical idea, but the explanations you come up with to try and explain it by natural means).HBDEdited by herebedragons, : typo

This is just you feeling disrespected and lashing out again. When you accuse someone of saying something idiotic then it's usually a good idea to point to something actually idiotic the person said. I don't know about the "very bad form" part since the image is very informative, but I agree that more information should be provided, and I already said exactly that in my Message 1749 in roughly the middle of that message.I *have* been able to dig up a little more information for you at Glenn Morton's We've Done Rivers, Let's Do Canyons webpage. About that image he says: You go on to ask: Limestone is a very common layer, so the formation could easily be in limestone, but depending upon the depth of the canyon it could have cut through many different layers. We don't know.The evidence for slope retreat is that the canyon grows gradually deeper - that's what the differing colors indicate. The places where water would have flowed the longest in the main channel is also the widest. Now you're just denying the obvious. Look at the image again. This is exactly what river drainage systems look like, and this one happens to have carved a canyon: It has pretty much the same kind of form as canyons we see on the earth's surface, except this one is buried. It couldn't have formed underground because water doesn't flow that way underground. Underground there are no highlands for rain water to collect in and descend from, there are no landscape contours to gather rivers into channels. And limestone caves don't look like river systems. Is this the kind of rock that dries again? There's no such thing.--Percy