Summations Only

First of all, let me make a suggestion: periods ... lots of them.Next, I would suggest a different word from 'erosion', most people think that erosion is what moving water does on the surface of the land. Maybe 'abrasion' would be better.However. your scenario leave out numerous facts. If there were such an event as you profess, I would expect to see a shear fabric in both the Tapeats and the underlying Supergroup rocks ... we see no such thing. I would expect to see some kind of deformation in the Supergroup rocks ... but we don't. I would expect to see some kind of shearing elements such as slickensides or gouging or chatter marks on the unconformity surface ... but we don't. I would expect to see thrust faults projecting into the Tapeats ... but nope, not there. Now, I wouldn't expect to see rounded boulder and gravel from the Supergroup rocks at the contact ... but we do. I wouldn't expect to see fine cross bedded sandstone just above the unconformity ... but, guess what. Nor would I expect to see rough irregular surfaces at unconformities formed this way ... but, you got it, we do.Now, I have just given you several lines of evidence why your just-so story cannot prevail. And all you can say is 'it must'a been some kind of tectonic force'. Well, the force is not with you, Faith. Your processes are unsupported, your kinematics are fanciful and your dynamics are incomprehensible.This is so silly that it shatters credulity. Thrust faults and detachments look nothing like the Great Unconformity. Or the Shinumo was more resistant to erosion and formed boulders surrounding solid Shinumo monadnocks in the advancing Tapeats sea.So, what happened to the Tapeats and part of the Bright Angel that are missing? Are they crunch up into a little spot someplace, or did they just vanish?I know that you are serious about this but no one is taking you seriously.

Since you introduced the term into the discussion, you get to explain how it is used when you say it.You don't get to tell other folks which meaning of believe to use when they use the term. And it is fair to distinguish what folks do regarding accepting scientific evidence as factual and the type of belief you have that what is under the ocean is mainly magma or your belief that there was a world wide flood about 4500 years ago. For some of your beliefs, there is no factual underpinning.

The GRI was set up about 60 years ago by the Seventh-day Adventist Church to study YEC matters. Their magazine Origins has many articles where they are upfront about YEC problems, especially in their earlier years.Problems admitted include :
- Not able to relate RM date ages with the Bible, despite apparent consistency of RMD
- Cannot explain Milankovich cycles, varves, stromatolites and reefs throughout fossil record
-Oklo phenomenon
-Catastrophic Plate tectonics needs miracles for cooling and measured RM dates
-palaeomagnetism
-fossil order
-current fauna and flora distributionOne statement said "No comprehensive short age model is even available to rival the long age model.Ultimately any biblical short age model would be expected to involve some supernatural activity. More of current data is better explained by a long age model"At the 2010 General Conference of the SDA church GRI said they were no further advanced. (I saw no report from them at the 2015 GC. I wonder if the rabidly YEC hierarchy thought it better they say nothing than to continue to show the emperor is naked!)Seeing as there is one obvious answer to all their problems, I wonder why they don't just shut up shop. As Faith shows, a dogged belief trumps everything.Also, I would like to add my voice to those who wonder why Faith does not show where RAZD's dating thread is wrong. And why the consistency for Toba's dates? Why do chains of seamounts show linear increases in RMD consistent with rate of plate movement?

Except there is evidence for the former but not the latter. For the latter there is only belief.

quote:

---

You don't have evidence, that's the point I keep making, you have a lot of imaginative conjurings. Apparently you all don't know the difference.

---

As Edge shows we have evidence Message 2311 while you have things you make up. Apparently things you make up are evidence, while actual facts are imaginative conjurings.

quote:

---

Facts are facts and we share those but the Old Earth interpretations are not scientifically valid, just one speculative guess on top of another called science, big big shuck.

---

The order of the fossil record is fact. The existence of fossils that are anatomically intermediate between groups that creationists say are unrelated is a fact. The lack of the evidence that should be produced by your imaginative scenario about the tilting of the Grand Canyon Suoergroup - which Edge points out - is a fact.I could go on. But the fact is that we have the real evidence while you make things up.But then this is just a standard Creationist strategy. And it is proof that Creationism is a lie and a fraud. Obviously you know that what you are doing is wrong. That is the whole point of falsely accusing us of doing it.

The use of "believe" and "belief" in such contexts as "I believe the sun will come up tomorrow," or "I believe it's about five miles to the courthouse," or "I believe the evidence shows that eating spinach is good for your eyes" and "I believe you don't have all the facts or a reasonable interpretation of all of them" and the like, is common ordinary speech and to object to it because you associate it with religion is some kind of weird fallacy. I didn't make up the English language but I do know pretty well how it's supposed to work.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

We share the facts because the facts have only one source - science. But you deny those facts.Radiometric dating - and all other dating methods - prove that the earth is old. You simply deny those facts but can not explain why they are wrong. By doing that you lose outright. Yes we know they got it wrong, they were convinced that the earth was young, just like you. They were convinced because they had a firm but unfounded belief. But unlike you, they also had intellectual integrity so that when it was demonstrated beyond doubt that they had got it wrong, they changed their mind.And since then there's been mountains of confirmatory evidence supporting their initial conclusions. All of which you just deny. It's very painful to watch; you're the living proof of delusion and confirmation bias. The phrase 'motivated thinking' was invented to explain your methodology.

quote:

---

Cognitive strategy. The processes of motivated reasoning are a type of inferred justification strategy which is used to mitigate cognitive dissonance. When people form and cling to false beliefs despite overwhelming evidence, the phenomenon is labeled "motivated reasoning"

---

The early geologists made up stuff that was patently unbiblical among other things.And facts are facts, it doesn't take any special scientific principles to establish most facts. No science owns the facts.

The early geologists believed what you believed. The bit you call unbiblical is concluding from the evidence that the earth was old - which apparently disagrees with the bible. Although the bible does not say how old the earth is. And you deny those scientific facts. Radiometric dating shows the earth to be old. Scientific fact. You deny it. What's 'specific scientific principle' have you used to deny those facts?

You call it erosion so if I use it I'd think it would at least be clear what I'm pointing to even if I'm using the word differently. But I'll try to find another one, or just say "the stuff geologists call 'erosion' but I think is better explained as...". I'd be happy to use "abrasion" except you also object to that term. In the company of nongeologists you really shouldn't use such terms as "slickensides" or "thrust faults" or "shear fabric" etc.You insist on a certain set of evidences of "shearing" and the rubble you call erosion doesn't suggest shearing. I don't see a problem with the presence of rubble at the GU contact myself, without having to interpret it as millions of years of erosion.However, I wonder if you've given any thought to the claim that the rocks were still under water at the time of the tectonic event in question, only recently deposited by the Flood and still wet. They would have been quite compacted by then but being still wet and unlithified the impact and abrasion between them might not have been quite what you'd expect from dry rocks.If you look at faults that occurred recently between dry lithified rocks you might see the shearing you keep missing at the Great Unconformity and that might be because wet rocks wouldn't behave in quite the same way. You'd have more unimpeded abrasion between dry rocks, more likelihood of producing a rubble-free sign of scraping between them.But the situation at the Great Unconformity might be more like trying to cut a loaf of bread with a dull knife: you're going to get a lot of crumbles instead of a neatly sheared slice of bread. Lot of crumbles or lot of rubble that might be interpreted as erosion, without the slickensides and other neat signs of clean abrasion you expect to see. If you use a dull planing tool to plane off a sticky surface you'll just tear up the surface. When you put a knife into a cake to see if it's done and it isn't done the knife will come out with bits stuck to it rather than a clean surface. Etc. etc. etc.Therefore perhaps the abrasion that occurred at the Great Unconformity between the upthrust Supergroup and the three miles of sedimentary layers on top of the Tapeats didn't shear it for similar reasons having to do with the qualities -- and angle-- of the two surfaces, but caused crumbling or "erosion" instead. And that is evidence for my scenario, not yours. It isn't a problem for my scenario that I know of, but I also have no idea why you think it's no problem for yours. A little explanation is in order here. And again I consider this evidence for my side. Whatever you say.Somehow or other I do expect to find a way to explain this anyway.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.

No the bit I call unbiblical was such things as weird ideas about fossils being put there by God instead of being naturally occurring phenomena. And in biology such weird ideas as that God specially created a creature to live on an isolated island because they couldn't otherwise explain how it got there. These are unbiblical ideas since the Bible clearly says God rested from His work of creation on the seventh day. As I recall there were other unbiblical notions. Clearly they had to be corrected. If they hadn't been so stupidly unbiblical perhaps we wouldn't now be subjected to the craziness of old earthism and evolutionism.

quote:

---

The early geologists made up stuff that was patently unbiblical among other things.

---

And by the same standard, so do you. The Bible has no mention of Flood geology, doesn’t have waves racing around the planet throughout the Flood, doesn’t even have your idea of kind in it.

Had you been alive 250 years ago you would have believed all the same fanciful shit along with all sorts of other fanciful shit about cures for warts, weather predictions and omens. All people had prior to the scientific method was fanciful shit invented by sooth sayers, priests and witches.Science has now exploded all the nonsense but we're left with the old ways of thinking in a few crackpots that can't accept facts for what they are. You're left defending the only thing you have left - the age of the earth. And you confine yourself to doing that by imagining fanciful alternative scenarios around rock formations instead of confronting the direct evidence of dating.You know you can't contradict dating because it's direct and factual. So you try to ignore it. But you can't because we're going to push it under your nose every time you claim a young earth. It's the proof that hurts.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Those who knew the Bible wouldn't have believed their nonsense, but you could be right that I too wouldn't have been in a position to know it. Doesn't change the fact that what they believed was certainly unbiblical and if they'd been true to the Bible we might have been spared a lot of other kinds of weirdness.What's really really hard for you guys to grasp is that the "old ways of thinking" are exactly what the ToE and Old Earthism perpetuate. Because the historical sciences are nothing but wild imagination.I can't prove the dating methods wrong so I aim to show the validity of lots of other forms of evidence that contradict those methods, and the utter blindingly stupid ideas about former time periods and evolution taking millions of years and all the rest of the craziness. I believe the Bible is far more rational than the historical sciences that rely only on fallen human imagination, and that God is a rational God, who in fact has provided enough information for science to exist at all. Without biblical Christianity there never would have been empirical science at all. Which makes the unbiblical weirdness of the early pseudocreationist biologists and geologists indefensible in my opinion.

So you ignore direct and non-contraversial evidence.You're the criminal denying that the fingerprints on the gun are hers and insisting we believe an invented and unevidenced alibi about being somewhere else instead.Dating is the smoking gun. If you can't disprove that you're lost in an Alice in Wonderland world of fancy.