Summations Only

I didn't say it worked. But yes, you frequently get abusive to people who dare to say truths that you don't like.

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.

Faith maybe you ought to consider just how often something g that seems obviously true to you seems obviously false to other people. And what the honest and fair way of resolving the difference would be.

You didn't say it last time, and you didn't say it this time, either. "It" refers to evidence and a line of reasoning, both absent in Message 448 and Message 604. Yes, in the Grand Staircase region we observe that a great deal of material has been eroded away, and we understand that you believe that over long time periods the same amount of erosion should have also occurred in the past, but you haven't explained why you believe this. We agree with you that erosion should have occurred in the past just it does today, but we don't understand why you expect that what happened in this region over the past 50 million years should have happened there before.Around 50 million years ago this region began experiencing significant uplift, between 5000 and 10000 feet, and the river cut down into the landscape as it rose in elevation. What evidence and reasoning convinces you that this same sequence of events had to have occurred in the past?The Colorado plateau is not the only region of the world that has experienced uplift and the downcutting of rivers. It's happened in many other places, here's an image of the Beipan River Canyon in China: You seem to be thinking that just because significant uplift resulting in unusual geologic formations happened once in the Grand Staircase region that it must have happened before, but there's no evidence or reasoning to support this. It *could* could have happened before, there's nothing to rule it out, but there's nothing in nature that demands that it must have happened before, and it seems unlikely that similarly unusual geologic circumstances would arise in the exact same region of the world multiple times. Not impossible, just unlikely.We do know that in the past the region has been sufficiently elevated to experience significant erosion, because we can see the evidence of that erosion at unconformity boundaries between layers. The upper and lower contact boundaries of the Temple Butte are unconformities. Radiometric dating tells us that roughly 150 million years of geologic history are missing between the top of the Muav and the bottom of the Temple Butte. 150 million years is far, far more time than the 50 million years since the Grand Staircase region was uplifted. That's enough time to remove far more material then has been removed from the Grand Staircase region.But how would we know how much material has been removed at an unconformity boundary? Look at this image of the Grand Canyon layers and tell us how many feet of material have been removed at the unconformity boundary between the Muav and the Temple Butte, and at the other unconformity boundary between the Temple Butte and the Redwall Limestone: The question is rhetorical because there is no way to tell, at least not just by looking at the unconformity boundaries. So how is it that you think you know that erosional events on the same scale as what we observe today in the Grand Staircase region didn't happen in the past? We don't "live in a time of active erosion." We live in a time of normal erosion. The products of weathering are sedimentary material that very slowly and very gradually makes its way from higher regions to lower. All sedimentary material seeks the lowest point, ultimately lakes and seas. Rain and rivers carry sediments to lower regions a little bit at a time, though of course occasional events like storms and spring runoff and so forth can cause a great deal of sedimentary material to be transported in a short time. But the important point is that sedimentary material is just passing slowly through most land regions, ultimately ending up in lakes and seas.The Colorado Plateau is a region of net erosion that has experienced a great deal of uplift. A river flowed through the region while it was being uplifted, and that river cut deeply down into the landscape. This is what always happens under circumstances like these. Rivers always cut down through uplifting landscapes. There is nothing special about the current era. The layers of the Grand Canyon supergroup were deposited in the same way that we observe layers being deposited today. They contain no evidence that they were deposited by a flood. They had to have tilted and then eroded before the Tapeats was deposited upon them. Your idea that deeply buried layers can rotate and that thousands of cubic miles of rock can just disappear is physically impossible.I've covered a lot of ground, so let me summarize the relevant questions:

• What evidence and reasoning is telling you that there should have been more erosion in the past than is recorded in the sedimentary layers?
  ​
• Where the sedimentary layers do record periods of erosion at unconformity boundaries, what evidence and reasoning is telling you how much material has been removed?

--PercyEdited by Percy, : Clarify.Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

Your "reasoning" requires you to postulate impossible things.Such as floods that transport and deposit burrows, nests and stream beds into sedimentary layers, that sort fossils into layers by degree of difference from modern forms, that sort radiometric material by amount of accumulated radiometric decay products with increasing depth, and that somehow deposit erosion boundaries between some layers.And such as limestone, sandstone and shale layers that are partially lithified and so exceptionally soft that thousands of cubic miles can erode away in less than a year and then somehow become rock even though the compaction pressure is absent.And such as buried layers that rotate with much of their cubic miles of material simply disappearing.Until you can postulate scenarios that reality doesn't contradict you can make no claim of calling anything into question, except your own knowledge and reasoning ability.--Percy

Instead of clicking on the reply button and posting a three character message, you can click on the "You have not yet responded" link and it will change to "You have acknowledged this reply".--Percy

Nothing wrong with your arguments? Faith, there's almost nothing right with them. Very little of what you believe is supported by evidence, and much of it is flatly contradicted by both evidence and our understanding of natural processes.Usually confidence in one's knowledge and reasoning faculties derives from seeing them compete successfully in the arena of ideas. Given your failures in this arena and your inability to convince anyone of anything, your confidence in your ideas is difficult to fathom. You can be credited for your determination but for little else.One of your common refrains goes something like, "It will be figured out eventually," but you never consider the implications of what it means when something isn't known yet. If something hasn't been figured out yet then you couldn't know it already, yet you inexplicably express complete confidence anyway, usually based upon your own personal interpretation of Biblical revelation, a completely unscientific foundation absent of any evidence.--Percy

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.

It eroded at a certain (average) rate for a certain period of time . It has been eroding long enough to be almost gone but not completely gone. What aren't you getting here?

As of right now the majority of the area of the earth is not eroding.3/4 is under the sea and sediments are building up.About another 1/5 of a percent is under lakes.Large areas are plains with high ground surrounding them and subject to little net erosion.At any given time on an "active planet" large areas are not eroding and will not be eroding for millions of years.

Well yes, of course this is an active planet, and of course riverbeds and canyons and mesas and buttes and plains and mountains and seas and ocean crust and continents should be constantly evolving and changing.The question is what evidence and reasoning leads you to think that what has happened in the Grand Staircase region over the past 50 million years was required to have happened in past eras? Why do the natural laws of the universe require that this region, billions of years old, must have experienced prior geologic events identical to what we see has happened over the past 50 million years.We see rivers forming canyons in many places around the globe, and in many places we do not. Why would prior eras of the Grand Staircase region be identical to the current one? Why wouldn't each geologic era contain its own unique features? Since the Grand Staircase region was once a coastline, why wouldn't past eras have been more like the east coast of the US, say around South Carolina. Do you see any evidence of significant uplift around South Carolina? Do you see any evidence of canyons forming there? Why wouldn't ancient eras of the Grand Staircase region be more like South Carolina or possess their own unique qualities? What evidence and reasoning leads you to believe that everything we see happening today around the planet wasn't happening in the past? Here's an image of a canyon from a former geologic era now deeply buried beneath sedimentary layers: That ancient canyon formed by the same canyon-forming processes we observe around the planet today, namely slow and gradual erosion of a river downward into the landscape. The image also shows networks of tributaries feeding the former river of that canyon, just like we see at other canyons around the globe, like the Grand Canyon. But we *can* prove it, by "prove" of course meaning that we can provide evidence that supports the views of modern geology. These views were molded by the evidence, so of course evidence exists. Unconformity interfaces often contain erosive artifacts like riverbeds, there's a complete lack of interbedding, there is a distinctive difference in the type of sedimentation, the fossil variants change, and radiometric dating reveals a time gap. Again, how do you look at an unconformity and tell how much material has been removed? In this diagram of the Grand Canyon layers, how can you tell that the eroded material didn't contain "the buttes, the monuments, the canyons including the GC, the cliffs of the GS etc."? Whatever geologic structures existed in the layers that have been eroded away, evidence of their nature and very existence no longer exists. All we know is that sedimentary layers were once there and now they're gone.--Percy

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.

And we can say again and again, that the area was uplifted only a few million years ago. So, what is your point and how do you support it? Again, you have no point here. The Belt Supergroup alone ,in Montana, is almost that thick as well. So what? The problem is that not only was there was erosion before the Phanerozoic in the GC, but there was also erosion going on in other parts of the world while the GC Paleozoic rocks were being deposited. The relative quiescence of the Paleozoic in the GC area was strictly local.But, I'm sure that's another topic you wish to ignore. Actually, it DID happen before, your uneducated opinion notwithstanding. Why would it? You have only asserted this, but offer no explanation, just a bunch of should'a, could'a, might'as. Please amplify. That would be hypothesis-forming with supporting evidence. Why do you think that erosion = deformation? What is the mechanism that causes this? So now erosion = deformation = metamorphism = igneous intrusion. Please explain your mechanism. PLease explain your mechanism for vertical cliffs forming in unlithified sediments and how rocks lithify without confining pressure on one side. Why?This seems to be the extent of your argument:

If, if, if...Who says that it occurred in 'recent' time? How does millions of years equal 'recent' time in the YEC playbook? Sure. If the moon were made of cheese, no mouse would go hungry.Saying this is not evidence. It is an assertion. You are not supporting your argument. More preconceived notions, not evidence. This is not evidence. It is an opinion based on myth. Yes, our reasoning is rational.Take for example our argument that the Vishnu unconformity is sedimentary. We support that argument by reference to rounded cobbles of Vishnu in gravels at the base of the Unkar rocks just above the unconformity.Now, you try it:

And telling it like it isn't, is telling like it isn't.