Off Topic Posts aka Rabbit Trail Thread - Mostly YEC Geology

As you have been informed of the facts about the Grand Canyon, you know that this is untrue. And you know that we know that this is untrue. So this would be a great time to stop saying it.

The erosion is visible. That would be why we can see it. So is the tipping of the strata below the Great Unconformity. So is the uplift of the freakin' Colorado plateau.As for "caused by Flood water runoff", exactly how many floods were there, exactly? How many times did the water run off, and what deposited the strata above the places where the flood ran off? Did it run off and then come back again? Just as soon as they stop lying.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No. They didn't sit unexposed to weathering for billions of years. Hence the erosion.

See if you can spot the disconformity between the Redwall Limestone and the limestone that underlies it. You don't exactly need a microscope, do you?How about you find out the facts first, and then try to explain them? That's what geologists did. That's why they don't agree with you. So they're all horizontal apart from the ones that aren't --- and you're not talking about those?I wonder why not? No you're not. If you were you could have spent ten seconds with Google finding out the correct number. But look ... Now, real geologists can make sense of this sequence of events. First the Grand Canyon Supergroup was deposited. Then it was tilted. Then it was eroded. Then the higher formations were laid down. Then the canyon was cut.But your way ... well, how was the G.C.S. tilted while leaving the Tapeats Sandstone, the Bright Angel Shale, the Muav Limestone, and so forth on the same level on both sides of the canyon? And what happened to the north ends of the strata in the G.C.S?And what caused the unconformity? What caused any of the erosional surfaces? You said run-off from the flood, and when I asked you to explain that cryptic remark you posted this: ... which does not, in fact, explain it. It is barely comprehensible, and it is certainly not geological.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Apparently, then, you can see an age similarity among fossils just by looking at them. How is that? Do you have special magic eyes that see time as well as color? No.

That the disconformity is visible to the naked eye without being close up, contrary to what you said. The disconformity. Apart from the ones that don't, but you're not talking about those, right? They didn't. That is not what real geologists "suppose", it's something you've made up. Yeah, my point was that what real geologists say make sense whereas your crap doesn't. Sure. But how could they stay on the same level when the G.C.S. tilted? What happened to the north end of the G.C.S? So how did it tilt the lower layers without tilting the upper layers?Get a stack of books. Try to tilt the ones at the bottom while leaving the ones on top horizontal. See if you can do that. Also, see if the upper ends of the tilted books magically disappear in the process. Yes, but how did they manage to stay on the same level when the tilting occurred? Yeah. The north ends of the strata in the G.C.S. aren't there, they are truncated by a horizontal erosional surface. In the real world, this is because they were eroded after the uplift and before the deposition of the overlying strata. What's the explanation of this from whatever planet you're orbiting? The ones in the Grand Canyon will do for starters. I am not at all persuaded that you have a picture in your mind so much as a jumble of words.

Which? You cannot tell from the photograph that the strata were undisturbed because, here's the thing, the strata were not undisturbed.

You said you couldn't see 'em with the naked eye unless you were close up. This is not true. I am saying that geologists do not suppose they were in place for billions of years. The reason I find it hard to take seriously is that it appears to be stupid. You are lying to me, about me. How do you think that's going to work out? No, I mean the tilting of the Grand Canyon Supergroup, as I keep saying. Fine, use plasticine. Stack up some layers of different-colored plasticine. Now tilt the lower layers at about 15 to the horizontal while leaving the upper layers flat. I keep telling you, in a completely non-cryptic way. I am talking about the tilting of the G.C.S. You know, the thing that is tilted? And I told you. The north ends of the strata in the G.C.S. Those strata stop. They are truncated by the angular unconformity. But if they were laid down horizontally, which may be the one thing we agree on, then they weren't formed like that, they continued on to the north. So where did they go when the tilting occurred? All of them. All the disconformities and unconformities seem to me to present a challenge to this flood geology nonsense. If you try to explain even one of them as being caused by run-off from the flood, then you need some explanation other than flood waters for the deposition of the sediment above it. Stop lying. Obviously I'm trying to understand your nonsense, that's why I keep asking questions about it. The problem is that you're posting incoherent rubbish.If you can't put it into words, try drawing some actual pictures.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I guess for a creationist there's only one thing worse than the complete disinterest of the educated --- the awful prospect that they might take an interest.Well, if you won't explain your ideas, you won't. Your excuses for not doing so are, if I may say so, fairly pathetic; but then it seems likely that so are the ideas. At least you can protect those from scrutiny.

That would be another of your stupid delusions.

The problem is that Faith's new and exciting version of stratigraphy appears to involve a sequence of events which (schematically) would look like this: ... which is the sort of thing a geologist might see if he dropped too much acid, but not otherwise.

Apart from the aeolian sandstone, the glacial till, the volcanic ash, the paleosols ...Oh, and you never did get round to explaining how water manages to lay down strata with footprints in them. In your own time. No pressure.One of the advantages of real geology over flood geology, which I may have pointed out before, is that it can explain real observations of the actual strata, not just imaginary observations of the strata in your head.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

"Belt of erosion"? You mean the inclusions of loose surface rocks in the overlying strata?ABE: Yes, apparently you do, as you write this in a subsequent post: Yeah, it does. Like this: Or this. Now look, stuff like that is simply not going to account for all the missing rock, is it? A few small boulders, cobbles and pebbles, when what you have to account for is the disappearance of hundreds of meters of rock.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

And the Grand Canyon Orogeny was in fact the result of block faulting, wasn't it? So, good heavens, Faith is wrong.

Please feel free to draw your own diagram. Or you could keep on driveling out meaningless nonsense.