Summations Only

You're very confused. If I am really now "insisting that bedrock doesn't get eroded," then why in Message 114 did I say the opposite: I then went on to express amazement at your inability to think analytically about geology: It doesn't get much clearer than that, Faith. If you'd like to see where your understanding of the discussion went awry, start at this from my Message 107: You misinterpreted this as a statement that bedrock doesn't erode, but that's obviously not what the statement says. What it says is that we find no sedimentary layers composed of eroded bedrock. At the Grand Canyon do you see any layers called the Coconino Bedrock or the the Hermit Bedrock or the Muav Bedrock? No, of course not, what you see are the Coconino Sandstone, the Hermit Shale and the Muav Limestone. The layers of the geologic column are made up mostly of sandstone, shale and limestone. Eroded bedrock is not a significant component.But that doesn't mean bedrock doesn't erode. Of course it erodes. It's a rock and exposed rock erodes. The reason bedrock isn't a significant component of sedimentary layers is because most bedrock exists far, far down in the geologic column and is not exposed to erosion.It seems as if none of the many mistakes you make are large enough to shake your confidence in your ability to figure things out. You just keep blundering your way through one field after another blathering nonsense while seemingly unaffected by your demonstrated inability to get even the most basic facts right. If you're saying there was one transgression and one regression during the flood, how do you account for the order of the layers at the Grand Canyon which clearly indicate multiple transgressions and regressions?Even if you change your scenario again, this time to have multiple transgressions and regressions, that still can't account for the geologic layers. The composition of the layers themselves tells us they were deposited slowly over many millions of years, and a "mega-tsunami" across land would not leave marine layers because the material it deposited would come from what it swept up when it hit land. In the open sea even giant tsunamis pass beneath ships without notice. It is only when they strike land that they rise up and begin scouring away material. So geologic layers comprised chiefly of marine deposits could not have come from "mega-tsunamis". Are you even reading this thread? Here, again, is the excerpt from Distinguishing Tsunami from Storm Deposits in the Geologic Record that I posted in Message 118: Tsunamis leave characteristic evidence behind. If tsunamis were responsible for the geologic column then their characteristic evidence would be everywhere. What the evidence actually says is slow deposition over millions of years.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.Edited by Percy, : Fix message number.

Faith, anyone reading this thread can see you're the one who's confused. That in every thread you have to keep protesting, "I'M NOT CONFUSED," should be telling you something. You're getting the Internet equivalent of stares of disbelief from everyone, and after all these years it would begin to register on anyone normal that the problem is with them and not with everyone else. Your errors have nothing to do with your religious beliefs - you're rejecting simple facts and basic inferences. It's as if there's something seriously wrong with your thinkbox. Sorry for the typo in the message link, but I did quote precisely the right text, and that quote said that it was Message 114. Here it is again: So, again, how can you claim that I am "insisting that bedrock doesn't get eroded" when in my Message 114 I said the opposite? How can you get something so wrong, Faith. Please explain this to us. Well, I guess this is much better than what happens when you're off your meds.Your problem is that you can't even think rationally about even the very simple. For example, it's been pointed out that tsunami deposits leave telltale signs of the direction of retreat of the water. If the sedimentary layers of the geologic column were deposited by a tsunami then the signs would be all over those layers, but they're not. Any rational person would conclude that therefore a tsunami did not deposit those layers, but not you.Or for another example, it's also been pointed out that a single transgression/regression could not leave the interspersed layers of sandstone, shale and limestone that we find in the geological column. Any rational person would conclude that therefore a tsunami did not deposit those layers, but not you.Or for yet another example, it's also been pointed out that trees can't grow and swamps form and streams leave paths in sedimentary layers being deposited one after another beneath the waves of a tsunami. Any rational person would conclude that therefore a tsunami did not deposit those layers, but not you.The problem is that you don't ignore just one simple contrary fact, you ignore scores and scores of them over and over again. You blame all your errors of fact and logic on everyone else, then you abandon discussion, and when you return you make all the same impossible arguments again as if you hadn't already demonstrated that you're unable to address any rebuttals.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

Faith, you've never had any answers for anything. If your ideas made any sense, after all this time you'd be winning converts instead of inviting ridicule, and you'd be taking the debate to us instead of running away.--Percy

What you're calling blunders are only failed attempts at guessing your meaning. No one here except you has made any blunders about geology, and those blunders have been both massive and fundamental.Regarding the complaint you keep trying to resurrect about bedrock, I told you I changed my interpretation of what you meant way back in my Message 114. You never replied. You're giving every indication that it's just another message you didn't bother to read. Two points. First, if you're trying to have a religious discussion then you're in the wrong thread.Second, isn't it your "fallible human mind" deciding what constitutes "revelation of God" and interpreting its meaning? But once again, isn't it your "fallible human mind" making this judgement? And isn't the only way to resolve differences between "fallible human minds" to discuss and analyze the evidence? So when you call "ALL" Edge's answers "twisted", don't you need to be specific about what is twisted about his answers so that he can address your concerns? And if you don't do that, aren't you in essence just engaging in name calling and not discussion?--Percy

If you follow the message trail or do a search in that thread for "infall*" and read the messages after Message 1255 you'll see that Faith gives another of her rhetorically confusing answers. She says no, of course she doesn't think she's infallible, but then she says she knows she's right, then she chastises everyone for taking her literally, see Message 1269.While looking at those messages I came across a mention of the sedimentary layers being deposited now in Message 1770: And of course this wasn't the first mention, it's probably come up in many of the old flood threads, yet Faith ignored it for over a decade until this thread. I wonder how she reconciles knowing her prior views were right now that she has to change them.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Add missing close quote.

Hi Faith,I get what you're saying. You're asking us to consider a situation where some layers have already been deposited, like this: And then tectonic forces tilt the layers like this: And then more layers are deposited like this: We *do* see this at the Grand Canyon, but there's something very important that you have to remember and that you yourself said. I'll quote you: It's those last couple words that are most important: "more gradual." The tilt that you see in the Grand Canyon diagrams we've been using and in the images I created above are greatly exaggerated. They don't reflect the actual amount of tilt, which is actually much less. This means that what we have at the Grand Canyon is actually this: In this case the underlying layers have been only slightly tilted by tectonic forces, while the layers above are flat. Notice that the bottommost layer of the flat layers (it's pink) gets thinner and thinner, just as you've pointed out would happen if flat layers were deposited upon tilted layers.And this is precisely what we find at the Grand Canyon, and pretty generally in all geological layers. The Temple Butte Limestone ranges from absent to more than 1000 feet thick. The Muav Limestone ranges from 100 to 800 feet thick.Diagrams are helpful visualization tools, not pictures. The Grand Canyon diagrams are cross sections attempting to show what is typical. Here's a Grand Canyon diagram we haven't used before. Notice there's no Temple Butte Limestone in this diagram: Also notice the Tapeats Sandstone layer. In some places it's present, in others it's not.And take a close look at the top of the Muav Limestone and notice how irregular it is. That's because it's an eroded land surface upon which the Redwall Limestone layers were deposited when a sea advanced across the region in the Cambrian.--Percy

It's always all about Faith, and I think it's because she's completely lacking in both empathy and introspection. This combined with her inability to allow even the simplest and most obvious of inferences when it contradicts her beliefs prevents her from learning anything and forces us to have essentially the same discussion over and over again.--Percy

You're not thinking this through. You objected that if there had been tectonism while the layers of the Grand Canyon were being deposited then we shouldn't see neatly parallel layers, and you're right. Tectonism is unlikely to result in equal uplift or subsidence across a very large region, and so some parts of the region should have slopes. And they do.And this is what my image of slightly sloped layers having additional layers deposited upon them shows. The pink layer was deposited upon a slightly sloped layer, and so on the left side of the diagram it is very thick, and on the right side of the diagram it has diminished to the point where it no longer exists: So you actually *are* talking about gradations in thickness when you're talking about tectonism producing non-parallel layers, because gradually increasing or decreasing thickness is an indication that the topmost layer wasn't level when another layer was deposited upon it.The Grand Canyon diagrams we've been using are not pictures. They tend to be illustrative and general. That's why I showed you this other diagram where the Temple Butte Limestone has petered out completely and is no longer present: This diagram must be of the extreme eastern canyon, and as you travel west the Temple Butte layer becomes thicker and thicker, maybe as much as a thousand feet thick. If you could follow the Temple Butte layer north into Nevada you'd find that it eventually becomes over 2000 feet thick.The gradually changing thickness of the Temple Butte is because the layer upon which it was deposited was not level. That lower layer sloped downward as you travel southeast to northwest. I should add that tectonism is not the only possible contributor to the slope, since repeated sea transgressions/regressions can also affect sloping.--Percy

No, the Great Unconformity is the last thing on my mind.You pointed out that if tectonism was present as the layers of the Grand Canyon were being deposited then there should be evidence of it in the form of non-parallel layers. Right so far?Edge has been trying to convince you that there *is* evidence of tectonism in the layers of the Grand Canyon, and I've been trying to convince you what one type of that evidence, namely stratigraphy, would look like. It would look like the pink layer in this diagram, the one deposited upon slightly tilted layers and that gets thinner and thinner as you follow it from left to right: The pink layer in my diagram is analogous to the Temple Butte layer that gets thinner and thinner as you move from northwest to southeast until it finally peters out and disappears altogether. This is because it was deposited upon layers that were slightly tilted due to tectonism. Actually I'm addressing precisely the point you're making. You're saying that if tectonism were present while the layers were being deposited that they shouldn't all be parallel, we agree with you, and we're providing evidence that they're not all parallel, not if you trace them for tens and hundreds of miles instead of just a mile or so.--Percy

You *are* wrong about this and you *would* see it if you would just think.Okay, now what? Maybe discuss some evidence? That you understand, that is?--Percy

Here's a version of the old familiar Grand Staircase diagram where I've called attention to a couple things. I've circled some obvious tilting in red that we all agree is due to tectonic forces, and I've circled a little bit of the Temple Butte layer in blue so that it's easy to pick out: We know this diagram is only illustrative. It's a composite of features showing as a continuous straight region what is actually a curvy path from Cedar Breaks south east to the Grand Canyon. Note that all along its course the Temple Butte is shown as having a uniform thickness and as being completely parallel to all the other layers, but we know this isn't true. We know that in the eastern Grand Canyon the Temple Butte is thin to non-existent, and that by the time you get to Nevada (to the west (left) of Cedar Breaks) that it is a couple thousand feet thick.You've been arguing how neatly parallel all the layers are, but that's a false impression you've garnered from the nice neat diagrams. The Temple Butte can't be parallel to other layers if in its southeastern section its only a hundred feet thick while as it runs northwest it becomes a couple thousand feet thick. In the Grand Canyon region the Coconino varies in thickness by a couple hundred feet, the Muav Limestone varies from 150 to 800 feet thick, the Bright Angle shale from 200 to 450 feet, and the Tapeats Sandstone from 100 to 300 feet thick. Instead of the neatly parallel layers you see in diagrams, what you really have is this (this is illustrative and isn't meant to represent any real layers): The causes of the unevenness will vary. Some of it will be due to tectonism, some to different amounts of erosion at unconformity boundaries, some to the effects of sea transgressions/regressions, some to isostatic rebound, and some to a combination of factors.Many, many different things can happen geologically, and the layers of the geologic column are a record of what has happened. There's no hint of a global flood in the geologic column, just mountains of evidence of slow sedimentary deposition and familiar geologic processes over millions and millions of years.--Percy

You've gone off the deep end again. I'm sure it's a puzzle to all of us why you're trying so hard to appear scientific when you hate science so much. I hope that when you return you dedicate yourself to working out scenarios that are physically possible and supported by evidence. Which is what science is all about.--Percy

Of course they do. What else could possibly happen?If you have a pile of 20 rugs held aloft upon the uplifted arms of people on a crowed dance floor, and some people push the rugs up a little and some people let them sag a little, all the rugs would follow the same curvy path. People pushing up is tectonic uplift, people letting the rugs sag is subsidence.In the middle of the dance floor is Shaquille O'Neal (if you're not a basketball fan, he's someone very strong and very tall), and he extends his arms upward hard and fast, causing a rip in the pile of rugs. That's a fault caused by tectonic forces.About all the complaining you've been doing, the scenarios you contrive get rejected because they fail to follow a number of simple principles involving the natural physical laws of our universe.About the claim that you've "supported it many times elsewhere," you've never supported any claim anywhere. What you have done is demonstrated that you don't know how to interpret diagrams or images of stratigraphic layers.--Percy

Hi Faith,Remember that the slopes of the tilted layers in the diagrams are exaggerated? They're exaggerated in yours to. Reduce the slope to something more modest to reflect some very modest and realistic tectonic uplift or subsidence and you get the pink layer in this diagram, which I've presented to you several times. Pretend the pink layer in my diagram is the bluish layer in yours, and pretend the brick-red layer in mine is the Temple Butte in yours: Also keep in mind that the top (and bottom) boundary of the Temple Butte is an unconformity, so erosion also had an influence on the slope.Another process that's important to keep in mind is that as a sedimentary layer is deposited the additional weight can cause the layer to sink into the Earth. The degree to which it sinks will vary regionally, causing more unevenness in the parallelism of the layers.--Percy

I'd like to offer a clarification of Edge's point from his Message 231. Edge can correct me if I'm wrong.Edge's Message 231 is a reply to his own Message 230, but I think he intended it as a follow up to his Message 226 that was a reply to your Message 224 claiming that the great uncomformity was caused when layers tilted after they were already buried. He presented this image: He's providing an example of the type of evidence one should find when a layer (in this case the top layer of the great uncomformity) detaches from the layers above. Such a massive tectonic event would have left a great deal of evidence behind.In Message 234 Dr Adequate points out that your claim "requires zillions of tons of rock to conveniently vanish into nothing," and also notes that you've been told this before, which was also my reaction.Your fabricated scenarios are being rejected because they violate known physical laws and have no evidence, not because we're all a bunch of elitist science snobs. Start following the laws of nature and presenting evidence and you'll find your ideas will get a much more serious hearing.--Percy