Summations Only

You love to declare me wrong based on some undecipherable comment or some picture or other but all you do is create confusion. What meandering stream? You showed a picture of a scooped-out shape in a wall of limestone, with another limestone filling it. It has none of the characteristics of a riverbed. It's certainly not the sort of erosion one would expect to find on the surface of the earth, and besides, limestones are formed under water so why would you expect to find aerial features in it? All these are limestones, the Muav, the Temple Butte and the Redwall. The Temple Butte is a mixture which also includes sand and clay but it fills in the Muav and is topped by the Redwall, both limestones. It is certainly no surface feature. It's some kind of sediment soup or slurry that cut a channel in the limestone beneath as it filled it in. Whatever it is, it is consistent with the Flood as it was clearly originally wet sediment and nothing that could remotely be described in terms of former landscape time eras. Besides, shouldn't it be considered a problem for the OE interpretation to find any sediment cutting into another? I mean, these are supposedly TIME PERIODS, right? How can you have a time period cutting into another time period? Well, of course for that particular situation you forget it's a time period. That's all. Now it's a riverbed. A riverbed of course that doesn't look like any actual riverbed on the planet but oh well. I actually don't know how to explain it, but as I say above since it was originally sediment in wet running form it fits with the Flood and not with your Time Period fantasy. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Where did I say the karsts were "small?"As I recall you ASSERTED that it was impossible for the karsts to be created by runoff between layers, but there was certainly no "discussion." I found diagrams online that show underground water as the cause of karsts.AND, again, if they occurred when the formation was at the surface, which it never should have been anyway, since limestones are consistently said to be formed in water, but if they did occur at the surface they WOULD HAVE BEEN FILLED IN BY THE NEXT SEDIMENT TO BE DEPOSITED. They would not remain open caves. Ergo, they occurred after the strata were all in place.Here's a diagram that shows the karst in the redwall limestone deep in the stack. This is Devil's Sinkhole: If the karst had formed while the Redwall was at the surface, which it shouldn't have been anyway during its formation since it's limestone, then the sand that deposited above it would have filled in the cave. But it formed underground, after which the stone above caved into it, forming a sinkhole at the surface.Drat, I can't get the diagram to load full size.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The challenge is not to show how loose sand forms, the challenge is to show how it could have become a flat rock pancake, flat on top and bottom and lithified, like the Coconino for instance. Since you ask for photos I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find you a picture of the nice flattened Coconino sandstone. Rox just wrote a post I see in which one of her comments is that if the ocean encroached on the sand it would destroy the shape of the grains, so that leaves a totally dry method of forming the sand into a flat rock pancake that stretches for thousands of square miles across the Southwest. Let's see how you explain that.

(Wow, I had to read that sentence three times. Brain freeze was imminent.)Religion and the Bible sure are a delicate and fragile weave. I simply can't imagine the herculean efforts in emotional and intellectual acrobatics to keep the cognitive dissonance from unraveling its thread-bare tapestry.I suppose if there was a profoundly retarded invisible god riding around in clouds he would be mighty impressed by such unwavering "faith."Umm, . . . kudos Faith. Kudos.Edited by dronester, : discourse?

I usually know better than to walk into the dragon's mouth like that. That's all that meant. Now figure THIS out.

Umm, . . . not too difficult.I have a brother and sister-in-law just like you. I marvel at the massive amount of emotional and intellectual time and effort they also devote to supporting their faith.(Sheesh, I barely have the time in my day to empty the dryer lint trap.)

No appreciation for those who work hard, hoping to keep a few, including yourself, from eternal suffering.

Oh, . . . that's very nice of you Faith. You would endeavor to help me and you don't even know me. Wow, a sincere thanks.But, you know Faith, there are so many people in the world, who have it so much worse than me, . . . I think I'd rather you devote your seemingly unlimited amount of time and effort to help them, not me.For example, I think it would REALLY please your god if you started missing church and prayer and concentrated on helping:1. 16,000 children die every year from hunger. That's one child every five seconds. It got to be a pitiful, agonizing, and pathetic way to die. Perhaps you can help your god in this area. He seems unable to help.2. Malaria kills about 500,000 children every year. I don't know why a loving god would create malaria or other such diseases.3. Approximately 1 in 700 children born have a cleft lip or a cleft deformity. I don't know why such a perfect god could create such a slipshod product. Anyways, I'd much prefer you and your god help those with birth defects instead of me. (Hmmm, seems to be a big and growing caseload of birth defects in Fallujah for some reason, . . . strange I thought our recent presidents were doing the lord's work there, not sure how that came out backwards.)Sooo, again, thanks for all the sparing me from eternal suffering and stuff, but, please only consider me after you and your god had addressed these other bigger problems.Cheers.

Hey Mr. Coyote,Do you think you might be guilty of the same mind-set regarding politics?Is it possible to be self-aware about ALL subjects, or are we each, at least, a little delusional in some aspect?I don't know. But that answer may be the support in my personal belief talking.Edited by dronester, : "is"! Bad typo-day.

It's off topic but your kind of self righteous stupidity needs an answer:1) Why would you assume that Christians AREN'T helping such sufferers on the planet?2) You really think suffering in this life is more important than eternal suffering?3) Why is it that nobody seems to learn that God DIDN'T create suffering, that it's the result of human sin?

No Faith, I say you are wrong because of the preponderance of evidence, the repeated occurrences of you saying something, someone shows it is false and you ignore it or make up some impossible fantasy to tell yourself you have a 'reasonable' explanation.Your confusion comes from your lack of understanding, from your fight to hold reality at bay. It's called cognitive dissonance -- cognitive dissonance actually interferes with your ability to understand information that counters strong belief. What was shown was one picture of one of the places where the prehistoric stream had crossed the canyon -- and the information that this happens in several places because the prehistoric stream meandered. Curiously what fills an old stream or any depression for that matter is irrelevant: shocking news I know, but what ever sediment is next deposited will fill the depressions in the previous layer.The one for the surprise canyon for instance is filled by different materials. Says the person with no knowledge of hydrology. This is your belief controlling your ability to understand what is before your eyes.What part of a scooped out shape would prevent water from flowing in that cross-section? No Faith, it is very much what you should expect - a channel for river flow that appears in several places. Because we see such features in limestones that are exposed -- like the White Cliffs of Dover. So? They are different deposits, and the tops of each show erosion. This is like saying that because each layer was sedimentary that there is some special pleading that prevents erosion between their faces.The problem for you is that your scenario with all this limestone would not have any definition between these layers - it would all be one. That this is not the case is another element of reality demonstrating the erroneous thinking in your fantasy.And the Surprise Canyon Formation is not limestone -- so your logic is incomplete as well as erroneous. As one should expect from a drainage channel. As one should expect from a drainage channel in a layer that has had continued erosion. And one would expect another layer of sedimentation to occur at some point. Still irrelevant. We expect layers from additional sedimentary processes, but we don't expect one type of sediment to be more or less likely than any others.It's like throwing a single di -- the previous throw has no effect on the probability of the next throw. None. Curiously your opinion is still not based on facts. It has been pointed out to you before that not only are these unconformities visible, but there is fossil evidence that shows they were surface features. It's hilarious to see you making up ad hoc magical behavior of materials when evidence that you previously said should be visible if the old earth geological explanation of the Grand Canyon were correct is shown to you. Fantasy behavior unknown in the world today ... slurries deposited in sublayers in channels as it carves out material that magically disappears just like the rubble from the Great Unconformity process you describe.Hilarious and pathetic. Why geologists should be unable to describe wet sedimentation in an old river course is a real mystery Faith ... ... just because it is only seen almost anywhere? There are any number of places in the world where you can see river channels carved by meandering streams with old sections of riverbed that have been filled in when the river changed course and annual floods deposited sediments. It is not the sediment cutting the channel Faith, it is sediment filling the channel eroded previously by the river. It appears that your inability to grasp simple sequences of events is as unlimited when it comes to factual processes as it is when making up fantasy sequences.Surface is deposited ...
Erosion occurs ...
Rivers form ...
Rivers behave like ... rivers and change channels as they behave like ... rivers when meandering ...
Later sedimentation occurs and covers both the old riverbeds and the land beside it ...
More erosion occurs ...
More sedimentation occurs ...
New rivers form ...
the new rivers behave like ... rivers and change channels as they behave like ... rivers when meandering ...
Later sedimentation occurs and covers both the old riverbeds and the land beside it ...That is all that is necessary to explain the Mauv Formation, the Temple Butte Formation, the Redwall Formation and the Surprise Canyon formation. Simple processes you can see happening in the world today. Today cuts into the past all over the world Faith: that is what erosion is. What you cannot have is the past cutting into the present. A riverbed that represents a period in time, a period when erosion was occurring into the sedimentary layer below it, just as (SHOCKING NEWS) rivers do around the globe today. Hydrological flow characteristics to be expected in a stream\river section, showing how river flow action should affect the shape of the channel ... and an actual factual section of the same basic shape. Curiously there are other shapes that we also see: Section at a bend and a plan view showing how the riverbed would change sections along its length. Asymmetrical section in Temple Butte formation.Now I kind of have to admire your ability to make up stuff, as you certainly don't do it by half-measures. You go whole hog for denial of reality. I actually don't know how to explain it, but as I say, the moon is made of blue cheese, from cows jumping over it, and not by some jack and jill fantasy.Riiiiight.You don't know how geology works. You don't know how hydrology works. You don't know how the real world works.Enjoy.

Indeed, it is. You really should disregard my off-topic chatter. My apologies to all. But I do want to say how grateful I am to your impenetrable indefatigability. It has resulted in supremely patient and knowledgeable people posting hundreds of facts that allowed me a free education on geology. Thank you! Yes, I am quite sure Christians are helping the poor sufferers around the world, especially around Fallujah. Good ol' Christian Bush Jr. helped out those people tremendously. My reply wasn't self-evident? Err, your god didn't create mankind and didn't know it would eventually result in human sin? Really? Your god isn't terribly bright, is he?Edited by dronester, : "wasn't". typos, typos, typos.

Take that to the original sin forum and answer my simple question about it - so far no-one there has been able to.EvC Forum: Importance of Original Sin

And yet what you wrote was, and I quote: Faith, meet Faith. The two of you have such a lot to talk about. I suggest that you reread what rox wrote until you understand it, or hell freezes over, whichever is sooner.You have been shown repeatedly, repeatedly, Faith, that the contact between the Coconino and the Toroweap is an unconformity. Note that the unconformity is not flat, Faith, 'cos of flat things being flatter and less not-flat. And I'd like to hear your alternative magical explanation for the truncation of the cross-beds. I could do with a laugh.

In message 1001 you pretended that the erosion was too small to be subaerial. You did not mention karsts, I did not mention karsts to you in my reply, and I have no idea why you've suddenly started babbling about them. As with many things you are certain of, this is obviously untrue. The erosion I keep drawing your attention to was filled in by the next sediment. As is clearly demonstrated in the photographs we keep showing you. That's the point, Faith. That's why it shows your dumb YE fantasies to be impossible.