Summations Only

Not possible when she is convinced that her beliefs are facts. Objective facts at that. Message 116

True dat. She is fringe even for the most fringe of creationists. I agree that one would be a tad dishonest to make any proclamations about YEC based on anything she says. There is enough mainstream YEC lunacy to laugh at and deride. It's just a shame they don't show up here more often.

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.

And, once again, you have decided what that should mean. Perhaps you could document for us just where 'active planet' notion is postulated to mean that every point on the planet must be subject to erosion on a certain schedule. And there are lots of sources that tell us erosion has been occurring at some point on the planet at all times. By confining yourself to the Grand Canyon area and solely to the Palezoic, you ignore the rest of the activity on the planet.Why do you refer to an active planet when you seem to ignore most of it? You generalize. You seem to say that on an active planet, all locations must be active. At the same time, you say that since the GC area of the Colorado Plateau was quiescent for a period, then all parts of the planet must also have been quiet.Do you know what the end product of erosion would be? Ancient shield areas are locations of massive erosion also. The Grand Canyon is just a stage in the process of getting to that point.

Yes, I agree. Perhaps it's the stubbornness on this scale that is actually the spectacle here, and not the actual beliefs that are incredible. It truly challenges the imagination and demands attention. Responding is irresistible. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Do people still surf the Internet? I'm beginning to doubt it and suspect that people are congregating around the social media sites and the major destination sites for sports, hobbies and so forth. I'm hoping to give us a Facebook presence at some point, maybe that will help. Activity here is about 1/4 what it was around 10 years ago.--Percy

The problem is that the topic this forum was created to address has been answered. The only Creationists left are the conmen and the conned.

You haven't yet provided evidence of the massive erosional or other activity you say occurred elsewhere during those hundreds of millions of years of quiescence that you consider to be quite normal in the GC/GS area.

Again, why do you expect the same types of geologic structures of today's American southwest to have occurred there before and be buried within its sedimentary layers. This region is not the world's grower of buttes and canyons. Buttes and canyons can form anywhere the proper conditions exist, which are slow uplift coincident with downcutting of a river or rivers. If there are no buttes and canyons buried in the sedimentary layers of the American southwest then it's because the proper conditions hadn't come about before. The conditions that existed in the past will likely have been different than the ones we see today, and the sedimentary layers tell us that coastlines moved back and forth across the region, so we know it must have been much different than the inland region it is today. There's no requirement that ancient conditions be different, but neither is there any requirement that they be the same.But how do you know there are no buttes and canyons buried in the American southwest? We can only look where rivers have cut down through the layers, and that's just a tiny, tiny portion of the entire region. Even if you were correct that an active planet demands that there be buttes and canyons buried in the layers of the American southwest, there is no way you could know that they're not out there somewhere ready to be discovered if someone would just dig down a mile or so in the right place.But it is also possible that the proper conditions *did* arise in the past and created a great many buttes and canyons, but so much time passed and so much erosion occurred that they were all completely eroded away. This is what is happening right now in Monument Valley. In another few million years the buttes of Monument Valley will all be gone, and if it then undergoes subsidence and becomes a region of net deposition then the sedimentary layers that form will contain no record of the dramatic landscape that once existed there.Here's our old favorite diagram. Ask yourself what we could know about the sedimentary layers above the Kaibob if the layers we see at Bryce Canyon had been eroded completely away and there was no record of all the layers from the Claron on down to the Moenkopi Formation. How would we know how many layers there had been and how thick they were? How would we know whether they had contained buried buttes and canyons? Connecticut, just to pick a coastal state at random, has been a particularly active area geologically. Why do you think an active planet demands that ancient buttes and canyons be buried in the American Southwest and not in Connecticut?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Wordsmithing.

And to answer my own post, that's a lot of what I post, observations, the implications of which I think others should recognize too, which I do explain, so that you all can see the point I'm trying to make. It's usually all in the phenomenon itself, further evidence isn't required.ABE: Again, I really like my Message 328 because it shows the massive activity and erosion that occurred only in (imaginary) "recent" time, and the absence of any such activity for the hundreds of millions of years preceding it.Was there any such erosion in those years? I think all that also occurred after all the layers were in place, the "streambed" and all the rest of it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well you are a diehard Old Earther, that's for sure. That's why I like that diagram so much, because it does contain a record of all that. I think there may have been layers above the Claron originally too but we can't know that, can we?I know about the supposed buried "canyon" according to Morton anyway. Just a huge hole in a buried layer that got filled in by sand, which I figure occurred after it was buried. Find me a buried butte though, that should be interesting.

I think Faith is under the impression that you believe there *was* a "quiet" period in the GC region, where "quiet" is defined as a period during which the region was not being eroded in the same way it is today.I don't see any "quiet" periods myself. When it was beneath the seas it was a region of net deposition, deep burial and transformation into rock, and when it was uplifted it was a region of net erosion. To me a "quiet" period might be better defined as one where the net of deposition and erosion balanced out, which wouldn't be recorded very well in the geologic record.--Percy

No, I'm a "follow the evidence where it leads" type of person. We absolutely know there were layers above the Claron because it has been lithified into sandstone, which requires deep burial for compaction and cementation. This is mere assertion. What evidence and line of reasoning tells you that this is not a buried river system with canyon and tributaries? How do you know it "got filled in by sand," how would that have happened "after it was buried," and where did the sand come from? You're not concluding sand because of the yellow in the image, I hope. That's not a true color image, you know. There's no light down there. Canyons and buttes form by the same process, a river downcutting into an uplifted landscape. Buttes form when nearby canyons join due to slope retreat of their sides. Here's the relevant diagram again showing multiple rivers cutting down into a landscape to form canyons whose slopes then retreat joining them together and forming buttes: Buttes and canyons should be of equal interest to you.--Percy

Actually, I did. I gave you a diagram showing the structural/stratigraphic relationships during Pennsylvanian time in the Pardox basin adjacent to the Uncompahgre uplift.