Summations Only

In other words you can't even bring yourself to imagine what a worldwide Flood might do. Such as cover whole continents with very long waves during its rise or fall. Ah well, only to be expected.

NN says everybody has thought about my arguments and they don't work. That's what everybody always says and then you show you don't have a clue as NN did on the thread about genetic diversity, not a clue. Or RAZD either. At least stop thinking you get it when you don't.

Well, judging by the amount of eroded material from mountain to mountain, or how about for the formations of the Southwest, the walls of the GC, the "monuments" and the hoodoos and so on, it doesn't look like millions of years for sure. Not a whole lot of talus there. About 4000 years worth perhaps. Because some depositions cover that much territory. I can find the charts if you insist. I didn't make them up. They come from some geological source. The Bible describes the rising of the water and then the receding of the water. The period of the falling is about five months, it's harder to tell how long for the rising but about the same I think. Unless your coal swamps are merely the decaying of the plant matter deposited by the Flood, which would have been under pressure from sediments above, or possibly covered over by Flood sediments, and the trees had already grown and were now part of the decaying plant matter, and the dinosaurs are all dead by the time you get to them too, just fossils, not at all flourishing. They'd all flourished before the FLood, the plants, the trees, the dinosaurs. Then they were all buried by the Flood. There are maps showing the extent of the different "ages" in the sedimentary rocks stretching for great distances across North America that the poster herebedragons posted some time back. I found them again fairly recently and then lost them again. But they are out there to be found. I just looked through my bookmarks and didn't find it. But it's there. Hasn't this been sufficiently answered? Why should there be any dearth of sources of sediment in a worldwide Flood that would have just about liquefied everything? All it takes is a few days of heavy rain to cause the collapse of whole hillsides, the Flood started with forty days and forty nights of rain. So, sediments off the land mass, and obviously also from the oceans. And that nice model of how rising sea level deposits them in a particular order would surely apply to the rising water of the Flood.ABE: Here's the reference to the N America rocks:EvC Forum: Why the Flood Never HappenedEdited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Good grief. It is truly amazing how you can twist a simple communication. Obviously nobody is ALLOWED to think there might have been a worldwide Flood and you're going to see to it that such ideas never get a hearing. Well, you're very good at it, I suppose you must be happy with your success. There isn't one thing in your post that honestly responds to anything I said. So you won, you must be very happy indeed.

You were supposedly correcting me by saying we don't find eroded bedrock in sedimentary layers, which is ridiculous since I didn't say and could not have said any such thing, because all I said was that bedrock wasn't eroded. And that statement of yours certainly implied you thought I was the one who said bedrock is eroded, so that's why I had to tell you that it was edge who said bedrock is eroded, and then a post later we find you saying how right edge was, missing the whole thing. You are the confused one and you're aggressively confused and blaming it on me.The other stuff in your post that you are trying to lay on me I have not addressed. That doesn't mean I don't have answers to them, and you can bet I do, but I'm sick of the idiotic way everything gets confused and obfuscated here, in some cases quite willfully, so I've declared edge the winner of the debate and it's all over. You, however, are the biggest loser.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That is off topic, and just a bunch of hogwash anyway. Just one of those typical arrogant claims to know what was in the past that you cannot possibly know.

The only blunders I've seen here are yours and especially Percy's. Yours are more intentional I suspect.You know what makes ME sad? People who put the fallible human mind above the revelation of God. And yours is particularly fallible, judging by your post in response to my last post, among other things. You need to go back and answer that post again, and since ALL your answers were twisted you need to come up with a whole collection of new answers, honest answers for a change. But since you won't do that, congratulations on winning the debate by foul tactics, and so long.

Are you actually thinking about the fact that the layers are PARALLEL? Of course not, you can't be. You said there were separate uplifts during the Paleozoic. That includes all the strata visible in the Grand Canyon, and shown on that diagram to extend hundreds of miles north through the Grand Staircase area as well, all shown to be parallel to each other (I would expect variations in thickness not to be shown, but that wouldn't affect the fact that the layers are parallel). On the diagram we see the strata as a block following the contour of the mounded rise into which the Grand Canyon is cut. It's exaggerated on the diagram, in reality it is much more gradual, but still it is a rise in the land and the strata as a block follow its contour while remaining parallel. (Questions: 1. does lithified rock do that? Wouldn't it crack and break if the land rose beneath it? 2. If that rise occurred before the Kaibab at the rim of the canyon was laid down, how could any layers subsequent to that one where the rise occurred have been laid down parallel to the lower layers which would have been lifted: subsequent depositions would butt up against the rise, rather than following its contour. And if there were more than one such rise, there should be even more layers butting up against previously uplifted layers. I wish I had a way to draw this and post it. Well, you should be. That you aren't just means you aren't really getting what I'm talking about. In which case what I've said above should be easy enough to recognize: layers that were deposited after any of the uplifts would not follow the contour of the deformation, would not be parallel to the formerly deposited layers, but would butt up against the rise of the deformation. Which I believe also bear out what I'm saying, but first you have to account for what I'm describing here, because if there were uplifts at different times during the Paleozoic you would not have the block of parallel strata that we see on the diagram, you would have deformations at different levels lower in the stack subsequent depositions would butt up against, not being parallel with the lower layers, and you'd see this wherever you say there was an uplift during that time period. But what in fact is shown there is the whole block of Paleozoid strata from bottom to top as a block of parallel layers that remain parallel as they follow ALL the contours of the land together AS a block. I wish I had some drawings as I said, but if you just follow what I'm describing and see it on the diagram you certainly should see a problem. Yes, but that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Variations in thickness that occurred during the horizontal laying down of a layer is something else. Even with all the variations in thickness ALL the strata follow the contours of the uplifts shown in the diagram, the one over the Grand Canyon itself and the one at the far north end of the Grand Staircase, not to mention the gradual rise in the land between those two locations. If tectonic activity had occurred before any of those layers had been deposited, those later layers would have deposited horizontally and not parallel to the lower layers. It's absolutely essential. It shows that there could not have been any tectonic activity at all during that Paleozoic era.Next you bring up faults and I believe they too bear out this view of the situation, but I'd rather see if you are able to recognize the implications of what I've described so far.

DURING THE LAYING DOWN OF THE STRATA, edge. There was plenty of tectonism after they were all laid down. IF you are talking about the entire region's being lifted as a unit in each of those uplift events at various times during the Paleozoic -- is that what you are claiming? But the diagram shows it was lifted in specific locations, all of which had to occur after all the strata were ni place. And you really haven't accounted for how the entire block of layers would have followed the contour of those visible uplifts if any of that occurred during the laying down of the strata.No, the effects of this would not be all that refined. It's not a matter of scale at all. If the draftsman could represent faults and how they displaced the strata relative to each other on each side of them he/she could certainly have represented the very obvious effects of sediments being laid down after the contours of the land had changed.I will have to come back to this later.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Your examples of the strata are right in principle but wrong in application. The example you gave at the bottom is not about anything I've been talking about, nor about the uplifts edge has been talking about either. As I already said, graduations in thickness are not what I'm talking about as such. The Tapeats on your diagram is interrupted by the Great Unconformity, not an uplift, and the Muav does not show anything like even your own diagram of the strata above. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's another subject. The layers called Paleozoic from Cambrian to Permian, which form the walls of Grand Canyon, show no uplift until they were all in place, along with all the Grand Staircase strata too, up through the Claron. Then the tremendous erosion we see on the diagram above the Permian occurred, which looks to me like the Precambrian hardly compares, but I'm talking about the layers in between where no disturbance is depicted. If what you are talking about is the whole Colorado Plateau in a series of uplifts of the strata that remained like a stack of pancakes being moved from one table to another, then you are not talking about what I'm referring to in that diagram, which is the distortion of the land in what look like local uplifts.[abe] See cross section I've included for reference at the bottom of this post. [/abe]Going from left to right, starting with the far left you can see that the whole stack of the Grand Staircase pushes upward to the south of the Hurricane Fault while the part of the stack to the north has fallen at an angle, all the same layers with the Claron remaining horizontal on top of them, which is evidence that all the layers were there when that fault occurred.Next is the magma dike which penetrates straight up through ALL the layers from the Tapeats through the Claron, which is evidence that all those layers were there when that occurred too.Then farther south you can see all the evidence of tectonic activity in the massive erosion which formed the cliffs and canyons of the Grand Staircase, and then the Sevier Fault that splits the whole stack there too, as far as the stack continues at that point though it must have also split it up to the Claron when that layer was still present. there is no indication of any kind of displacement at a particular layer which would be expected if it occurred to one of the layers during its formation and before those above it were laid down.For this whole distance the land as a block is also shown rising toward the Grand Canyon area, where the rise increases into the mound into which that canyon is cut, suggesting an uplift centered in that area, in fact at the Grand Canyon itself where we see the Great Unconformity beneath it along with evidence of magma dikes and shorter fault lines, and that fault line that looks like it is continuous with the south wall of the Grand Canyon although you identify it with the north wall. All those events beneath the canyon are not my focus, however, just the uplift itself which seems to be part of the tectonic activity that formed the Grand Staircase as I just described.Meanwhile all the strata from the Tapeats to the Kaibab remain parallel, which looks to me like evidence that the disturbances just described did not occur during their laying down but afterward, same as with all the other tectonism in the Grand Staircase area. I have no idea what this refers to or what you think it explains. The Phanerozoic covers the entire depth of the strata above the Great Unconformity which I've just been discussing. If the fault line you are talking about is the one through the Grand Canyon then it had to have been part of the same tectonic upheaval as formed the phenomena I've just described. Actually you have not, and you still don't even know what I'm talking about. Please consider the phenomena described above. .Well, as a matter of fact since you are ignoring everything I'm pointing out on this diagram I really don't think you have a clue about it and all your rank-pulling and attempts to humiliate me are irrelevant. This has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.[abe] Here is that cross section again for reference: Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : To add cross section at bottom and reference to it above

But you are claiming that some of the layers were affected by tectonic activity during their own time period and my point is that if that had been the case then the sediments would NOT give the impression of continuous sedimentation at all on that diagram. [abe] Subsequent layers would [/abe] deposit horizontally rather than following the contours of that relative uplift and slight tilting AS THEY OBVIOUSLY DO, and there is no reason whatever that a draftsman would not have reflected that reality IF IT WAS THE REALITY. That local event has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I DID NOT MAKE SUCH A GENERAL STATEMENT. Of course scale would affect SOME geological features, all I said was that it wouldn't affect the ones I'm talking about. Misquoting me of course makes a garbled mess of what I'm saying just as your studied ignoring of what I'm pointing out on the diagram does. You aren't even trying to get it and that must be because you're so sure of your geological expertise that you don't need to bother thinking about anything I have to say. And your prejudiced assessment of my ability to understand what I'm seeing on a diagram is obviously the reason you aren't bothering to follow one thing I'm saying.Your attitude in this discussion shames your vaunted education. Golly gee, imagine that. Unfortunately for you what I'm describing would not be aided by either perspective, it's right there for you to see if you could get those blinders off for half a minute.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You are talking about the Great Unconformity, which I believe occurred after all the strata were in place TOO but that IS another subject in any case. You are NOT addressing the point I'm making about the fact that the strata remain parallel OVER THE UPLIFT into which the GC was cut OR that they were all laid down all the way up through the Claron (Tertiary) before the Grand Staircase was cut and maintain their parallel form there too. And I've already discussed this with you before, I'm trying to get edge to see the point I'm making.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I AM right about this and you WOULD see it if you would just think. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There is no evidence for this tilting you are talking about EXCEPT the Great Unconformity, and if you aren't talking about that then all you are describing is the gradual thinning of a deposition because it ran out of stuff to deposit. That happens somewhere in all the depositions, that's why I said thickness and thinness are irrelevant. You are making up the tilt, it does not exist there. IF IT DID EXIST THE LIMESTONE WOULD NOT JUST PETER OUT, it would accumulate in the lower areas and maybe even cover the rise depending on how much was being deposited. It would NOT just peter out. That is a sign that there was no more sediment to deposit.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.