Summations Only

The link to Message 448 in my post works fine when I check it PK.

Time cures everything they say, sure seems to be the case with Geology. The only thing I would suggest as a counter argument is that I don't see how time would erode away a flat plain like that, between the monuments and in the greater area. I do see how a lot of water could do it though, and scour off the surface of the layer that is the surface of the plain. I'm aiming for something plausible as an alternative explanation for starters and I think this is plausible. I can point out again as I just did above that I think running water would accomplish the results that now exist far more effectively than piecemeal erosion over millions of years could, especially in the scouring of a surface that is now a large plain. Same could be said of the Kaibab plateau. Time wouldn't scour that clean either [please don't get nitpicky about "clean," it's relatively clean, it's a plateau, the surface of the Kaibab or "Permian"], but running water could have.ABE: The strata were laid down to a depth of about three miles. That's from Tapeats to Claron at least. This is visible only in the GC diagram, but it must have been the case all over the Southwest and indeed the world, being understood as time, a few hundred million years up until "Recent" time. Certainly the Flood wouldn't have neglected to lay down the whole stack either, though possibly a layer here and there. But the Monuments are built of strata that corresponds to the lower layers of the Grand Staircase, so there has to have been an enormous lot of strata above them originally that has all eroded away. In the Grand Staircase it eroded in chunks that formed cliffs; over the Grand Canyon it has all been eroded away down to the Kaibab, at least a mile depth of strata, maybe quite a bit more. That's a lot of material to get eroded away piecemeal but an anormous amount of fast flowing water could be expected to do it, IMHO of course. /ABE As long as you grasp the evidence already given. There's a lot more than assertion there, I've reasoned that if such massive erosion occurred only in "recent time" and not during the previous hundreds of millions of years, that the whole OE scheme is called into question. I know you can rationalize it away and have done so, but I think it is enormously good evidence against the OE and for the YE. As for the Precambrian rocks, I just discussed that along with all the rest of this in my post to Percy above. Oh about some things no doubt but this particular observation about the massive erosion that occurred ONLY in "recent time" does strike me as awfully telling. I keep being amazed by it as I've said, such an obvious fact in favor of the Flood just rationalized away by you guys.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

OK.

Oh I doubt that. I've been posting here a long time and the noncomprehension and general dismissal of my arguments has persisted through the range of attitudes I've expressed. At some point one gives up on getting anything across and just tells it like it is. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There is no honest "losing in debates" going on here. "Bad behavior?'' No it's appropriate behavior for dealing with the reality here.There is nothing wrong with my arguments. What a strange idea. Telling it like it is means telling it like it is. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Being insulted and misrepresented every time I post anything at all eventually requires dealing with you all as the miserable dishonest rude people you are.

Wow, what power I have, bullying people into silence? Wow, one lone female creationist against dozens of slavering evo wolves who haven't an iota of honesty or fairness? That's really funny.

I object to the lies and misrepresentations, not truths.I wonder how many times anyone here has ever dealt with anything I've said fairly and honestly? Maybe a couple of times but I'm not sure of that. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The idea that this is "an active planet" which is a common phrase.Common sense that in hundreds of millions of years there should have been canyons cut and cliffs formed and buttes, but those have only been formed in the present, at least as exhibited in the GC-GS area and Monument Valley. I'm sure the same is true all over the world.Again, the absolutely enormous amount of erosion that formed the buttes and the cliffs of the GS and the canyons that I've described many times already that only occurred in "recent" time. It doesn't matter -- although the idea that any great amount of material -- more than a little erosion caused by runoff between the layers -- occurred between the strata, is a silly fiction. You assume it, you can't prove it. In any case, if this presumed erosion isn't visibly obvious it isn't anything like the massive erosion in "recent" time that formed the buttes, the monuments, the canyons including the GC, the cliffs of the GS etc. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I can't believe you are asking that question.But I think I've argued this as far as I can at the moment. Think I'll take a break.

A hiatus of a few hundred million years is a bit excessive, especially on an "active planet," don't you think? I would expect it to have occurred in the same locality myself, over those hundreds of millions of years. NOTHING AT ALL for all that time and then whammo ALL that massive erosional activity all at once hits me as unlikely although apparently it doesn't bother you.As for "elsewhere," of course I assume erosional activity occurred elsewhere, and as a matter of fact I would expect the same massive amount of erosion to have occurred elsewhere in "recent" time too, and not during the previous (imaginary) hundreds of millions of years. TOTAL quiescence, though, for a few hundred million years just seems a tad excessive for an "active planet." I'm glad, a hardworking geologist needs to keep good records on his truck.No, the comparison is absurd. The enormous erosion DID occur in "recent" time, unlike the mileage on your truck, and it is the fact that it occurred ONLY in "recent" time that I think invalidates the Old Earth explanation. Fine, the occasional "stream channel" too. But nothing anywhere near the massive erosion under discussion. I don't mind if you assume things as long as you don't talk about them as if they were established fact. True, you didn't say it was "enormous." I'm the one who said the fact that it isn't is peculiar, that all the enormous erosion happened only in "recent" time.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So you've found buttes like those in Monument Valley and enormous cliffs like in the Grand Staircase and canyons of the size of Zion and Grand Canyon in the "ancient strata" whatever those are?

Yes, after some five or six active years here (the rest of the thirteen I wasn't here) I'm still trying to make the same points because those are the points I want to make, those are the points that matter.It is sad but true that when I leave the place does become a sort of ghost town.ABE: But on that note I think I'll leave again for a while.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It might if I were but I'm not in this case. The idea of an "active planet" comes from Geology, not religion. And it's an observation from lots of sources that all that erosion occurred in "recent" time, not an invention, and I would expect the same to be the case across the planet (you claim you gave an example where that is not the case; sorry I must have missed it), and that the (massive?) activity you say is present elsewhere during those hundreds of millions of years simply is not.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I would only say something like that if I expected it would seem so even to you if you really thought about what I'm saying. But obviously that isn't the case.