Summations Only

Yes you do that. Go play with the kids. You've chased away the creationist cause I don't play by your rules little boy. Have fun.

Oh but I expect to find different features explained by diverse known geological processes, just not in the time frame they have in mind. The Flood itself laid down the strata and probably had a lot to do with washing away the uppermost strata in many places;. But there was tectonic activity and volcanic and all the rest. They all played their part.

I can pull rank too: Some day God will show you that the Flood did happen, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it did happen according to some of the stuff I've been arguing here about the strata. It just makes sense. So I'll leave you to answer to Him for now. You WILL have to answer to Him, you really should keep that in mind for lots of reasons.

I would suggest that you start a nondebate thread on a subject of your choice, like the one that jar started some years ago about the Grand Canyon. It's still there if you want to revive it but if you want to talk about Walther's Law you may need to start a new one.I too wish this thread had been more about Walther's Law. As it is I don't want to participate in anything further right now.Just a couple thoughts about what's supposedly problematic for the Flood in the GC: No idea why the Vishnu is a problem.The unconformities are of course "missing" depositions, for which there is no evidence except belief based on the theory that they're supposed to be there. So that is hardly a problem for the Flood as we don't expect them to be there anyway.As for the cutting of the canyon, it fits fine with the cutting of all the other phenomena at the same time in the Grand Staircase area after all the strata were laid down.Entrenched meanders would have occurred after the Flood waters had died down to river size, but especially in the eastern parts where the land was more flat, scoured down to a flat layer.Limestone would have been laid down as per Walther's Law. It's laid down in rising sea water so certainly should have been laid down in the rising Flood water.The idea that any of this is a problem for the Flood makes no sense. Isn't this called the Argument from Incredulity? Of course what one believes is really scientific, isn't it? So if that's the scientific criterion here I find it much easier to believe that there were numerable breaks in the rising of the Flood waters, waves coming in and going out the way waves do, only bigger waves across more land area. Banks of the canyon? I figure the water was standing a mile above the canyon before it was cut, right over the uppermost strata that had been laid down to that height, and that while it was probably the tectonic shaking and faulting in that uppermost strata that opened the crack that eventually became the GC, it was the water rushing into that crack as well as all over the GS area at the same time that cut the GC along with all the GS cliffs and canyons, washing away humongous amounts of broken up strata. The "lack of evidence" is due to looking in the wrong place with the wrong theory. Don't see why this is a problem. Nor should the Flood violate any principles of Geology really. The fact that there are so many diastems and unconformities IS a problem for the OE theory, not at all a problem for the Flood, in fact it's evidence for the Floodl. Not that Geology can't rationalize away anything that supports the Flood of course. If they knew where to look and what sort of evidence matters they might see something suspicious, but we don't have to worry because they aren't going to.So, anyway. Enjoy your Mutual Admiration Society.ABE: Oops, forgot I wanted to add this link to a site about students investigating Walther's Law on a marshy beach. Wanted to find something that shows it as a normally occurring way sediments are layered, in this case probably merely by rising tides. Still seems to me that the rising water of the Flood had to have acted in exactly the same way, making all those huge extensive layers of sediments everywhere they are found.IE class verifies Walther’s Law in the field | Rodriguez LabEdited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I didn't say I wanted a discussion at all. I've been pretty clear about that I would have thought. I was giving my summation, period.I'm not interested in your answers, they are all about TIME and time has nothing to do with this, that's just the box you all think in.I answered your post clearly enough, try thinking outside your box for a change, I did give good reasoning for the Flood.Instead of thinking about the particulars of Walther's Law you switch to what you think a "flood" would do. NO, think in terms of what rising water would do as per Walther's Law. If that link I posted shows that layers can be laid down in a very short period of time just from normal tides, there is no problem with the time element of the Flood.No need to answer again. Please.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I can't find any place else to post this and I've said much along the same lines in this thread in relation to the Grand Canyon - Grand Staircase area.I watched the old movie "Thelma and Louise" recently and particularly enjoyed the part where they are driving through the Arizona landscape among all the layered formations, Monument Valley type formations although not those well known monument formations, just layered hills, bumps, buttes. ABE: The police car where they put the cop in the trunk is parked right across from such a layered formation so it's in the picture close up for some time. /ABEJust have to comment again about how such formations -- a stack of layers exposed by massive erosion -- show that the whole stack was in place before the massive erosion took place. This is true of the Grand Canyon where all the strata are there from Tapeats to Kaibab before the canyon itself was cut. It's true of the Grand Staircase where all the strata are there from Kaibab to Claron before the cliffs and canyons of the "stairs" wre cut. And it's true of the hoodoos of the Claron where the layers that formed them were all in place before the hoodoos themselves were sculpted. And it's true of Monument Valley where all the strata of which the monuments are composed had to have been in place for thousands of square miles before massive erosion took all of it away except the monuments themselves. And the formations shown in the film mentioned illustrate the same point.I keep pointing this out but its implications don't seem to be getting across very well. It's the same point I was trying to make by pointing out the lack of tectonic disturbance or SERIOUS erosion to he strata visible in the walls of the Grand Canyon until after all of the strata were laid down in that area from the bottom of the canyon to the top of the Grand Staircase. None of that massive erosion happened until after that entire stack to a depth of at least two miles was laid down.In the movie I'm reminded of the same point. Looks to me like a massive amount of water washed around those formations and washed away all the strata that had to have been there at one time, leaving those monuments, buttes, bumps, hills, whatever they are. Just as it looks like a massive amount of water washed away the strata above the Kaibab rim of the Grand Canyon and formed the cliffs of the Grand Staircase.The thing is the laying down of the strata supposedly occurred over hundreds of millions of years and yet ONLY after all that was in place did this massive erosion occur. And yet that fact is dismissed as nothing unusual?Weird.I don't care if you want to put your varves and your tree rings and your radiometric dating on your side of the evidence ledger for now. But this fact has to go on the Flood side of the evidence ledger.Edited by Faith, : punctuationEdited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, I'm talking about the WHOLE DEEP STACK of strata being laid down before being eroded, shaped into monuments, stairs, hoodoos, carved into canyons.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Are you daft? Read what I wrote. Think. Read it again. Think again. Good grief.

How about thinking about the timing, WHEN all this happened, because that has enormous implications for Old Earth theory. Which is of course what my post is about although you seem to be determined to pretend it's not. There are only three possibilities: you are intentionally twisting my point, or you are stupid or you are crazy. I don't think you are stupid or crazy, but I guess I could be wrong about that.

So you all prefer to blow off the obvious implication of the fact that there was no such disturbance for hundreds of millions of years. Every time I see an example of it such as those hills of sculpted strata in the movie I'm struck with the obvious implication that it makes the millions of years bogus and the Flood the best explanation of the phenomena. We'll deal with the radiometric dating eventually. Creationist ministries already have lots of objections to it anyway.

I guess all I can do is hope somebody reads it who is not stupid, crazy or malicious, one of which I have to suppose you are, and anybody else who fails to appreciate the point.

RAZD you "show" me this that and the other and I disagree with it. The scablands are NOT what the Flood would do, they are clearly the result of a catastrophically draining large source of water like a huge lake, like Lake Missoula, which in fact IS the source of the scablands. Lake Missoula was most probably water left standing after the Flood, as were the other huge "prehistoric" lakes. And then they all drained away, the Missoula catastrophically.You also "show" me what you are calling "erosional patterns" in the Grand Canyon and I disagree with all that too. Sorry. You'd need to have LOTS more erosion BETWEEN layers to make the case you need to make against what I'm pointing out. Lots more, tons more, visibly tons more.The MASSIVE erosion of the entire stack of layers all at one time is something else entirely and it's fantastic evidence against the Old Earth and for the Young Earth and for the receding Flood as the source of the massive erosion. Since this is such fantastic evidence it calls all the OE dating into question. And from what you've written here I have to suppose that you don't know what I'm talking about.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Knock myself out being clear in that post and get back all this weird stuff, everything from trivial silly nonsense about how of course it all had to be in place for the canyon to get cut into it, and how it's nothing but an assertion when the description itself is the evidence and the argument and is really quite clear, certainly no mere assertion but something you ought to be able to think through. Too much to ask I guess. I'm even being asked to "support my claim" when it's very well supported in that post. Truly truly weird. Of course the insistence on dates is to be expected but really, you'd think it might be possible even for a hardened evo to respect a creationist's context once in a while. Oh well, guess not.So the erosion of the monument is too much for 4300 years? That's pretty funny. It's certainly way too little for a couple billion years. The whole monument should have been dissolved into dust by now. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Percy didn't show his working, he just asserted that's too much erosion there and that the Flood wouldn't have left the monuments standing like that. That's just assertion.Just depends on how the water flowed in the area what would have been left standing. Seems to me the idea that the area was incrementally eroded over hundreds of millions of years doesn't fit with the formation of a plain around the monuments.ABE: Of course the Old Earth view insists it all happened over huge long periods of time anyway, as this site does.A massive amount of water would wash it all away quite neatly though, and wherever it happened to cut a little more deeply around a chunk of strata it would just keep cutting around it and eventually leave it standing quite straight. Then over the years since then the monument would be gradually eroded year by year leaving the skirt around it. I couldn't find an estimation of the rate of erosion but why is that necessary. Again, a few hundred million years should have reduced it to a pile of dust.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Let me guess that you don't have a clue how long it took that amount of erosion to fall off those monuments. It's sandstone, it's rather precariously perched too, should be shedding bits and pieces every year with the weather changes like the hoodoos do, and the walls of the Grand Canyon. They say it takes about a hundred years to erode two to four feet from the hoodoos. Not sure how to picture that, it's coming off all the exposed surfaces so what are they measuring, what they capture at the bottom or something? Anyway I can't find an estimate for the monuments or the walls of the GC but using all of it for a reference the erosion of the monuments looks about comparable to me. Of course I'm likely to guess much shorter time periods than any Old Earth indoctrinated source. I think it's largely a matter of intuition myself, but I have a suspicion we're going to have to wait until Judgment Day before the facts are all known.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.