Evidence of the flood

Without leaving any evidence of deformation in the overlying rocks. Sure.

There probably is some evidence but it's not exposed.

Besides the sediments were wet so they'd just settle back to their condition before being disturbed.

Why should it look like stripped gears if the sediments were still wet? And again, there may be evidence that just happens to be out of sight.

The evidence of the whole stack's being lifted is quite clear on the cross section as I've many times pointed out. The strata would not deposit over a hill like that, they had to have been pushed up.

There probably is some evidence but it's not exposed.

As I said, how very convenient for you.

Does this also mean that you don't have to look for it?

Besides the sediments were wet so they'd just settle back to their condition before being disturbed.

So they moved and then they moved back.

Your evidence has a strange way of disappearing.

Why should it look like stripped gears if the sediments were still wet? And again, there may be evidence that just happens to be out of sight.

Good. That way you can make up whatever you want.

I thought you said that the Shinumo Quartzite was resistant to deformation.

Do you have any idea what happens to wet sediments when they flow?

The evidence of the whole stack's being lifted is quite clear on the cross section as I've many times pointed out. The strata would not deposit over a hill like that, they had to have been pushed up.

Or not. The point is that this is irrelevant as evidence for your scenario as in opposition to the mainstream conclusions.

What is the need for the snarky tone? Really. I'm trying to build on my model or hypothesis or whatever, and I'm making use of the evidence I have available, and I'm not trying to hide anything, I'm just trying to get it all to work together based on the evidence I have. I know it's galling to you that I don't accept standard geological interpretations and I'm truly sorry that everything I say is so offensive to you.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith writes: What is the need for the snarky tone? Really. I'm trying to build on my model or hypothesis or whatever, and I'm making use of the evidence I have available, and I'm not trying to hide anything...

Have you ever logged a core, Faith? Do you actually know what an aureole is?

Faith writes: Without leaving any evidence of deformation in the overlying rocks. Sure. There probably is some evidence but it's not exposed.

You can't know what happened before you find the evidence. You only know what happened after you find the evidence. Evidence first, then conclusions. You're working backwards from unevidenced conclusions.

Besides the sediments were wet so they'd just settle back to their condition before being disturbed.

So your evidence completely disappeared. How convenient for you. How do you know what happened if you have no evidence?

And what makes you think that sediments deposited by a flood (which the Tapeats does not resemble, but continuing the counterargument anyway) would look the same as sediments that have settled back down after having a 700 foot monadnock thrust through them. What would have happened to the imprint trails of trilobites and brachiopods when these wet sediments "settled back to their condition" after the the monadnock of Shinumo Quartzite disturbed them? Wouldn't they have been erased?

Our evidence has the advantage of being out in the open where anyone can examine it (well, anyone willing to hike for miles in the hot sun and scramble over very difficult terrain)

Why should it look like stripped gears if the sediments were still wet? And again, there may be evidence that just happens to be out of sight.

Just a hint: you can tell when you might actually be arguing scientifically when you refer to evidence that exists instead of to evidence that doesn't exist.

The evidence of the whole stack's being lifted is quite clear on the cross section as I've many times pointed out. The strata would not deposit over a hill like that, they had to have been pushed up.

Edge wasn't arguing that the "whole stack" (presumably you mean all the layers of the Grand Canyon, including the Grand Canyon Supergroup) was not uplifted. That it was uplifted is obvious. Gradual uplift is fundamental to the formation of the canyon. The Colorado flowed along eroding downward as the surrounding landscape was uplifted, forming the canyon.

What Edge actually said in Message 840 was this:

Edge in Message 840 writes: And your scenario of undisturbed upper plate rocks is absurd. The only rocks that have anywhere to really move are the ones at the surface of the earth.

He was arguing that the layers of the Grand Canyon Supergroup could not have been pushed up into the layers of the Tapeats and above without disturbing them. He was pointing out that the rocks have to have somewhere to move, which is only true at the surface.

--Percy

I'm still trying to figure out why Faith thinks the Grand Canyon is evidence for some magic global fluddie.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Faith writes: What is the need for the snarky tone?

You're complaining about a snarky tone after wasting people's time arguing with no evidence or with evidence that has conveniently disappeared?

I'm trying to build on my model or hypothesis or whatever, and I'm making use of the evidence I have available,...

You have no evidence. What you have is a set of strategies that involve ignoring evidence, ignoring arguments, repeating your original unevidenced positions unchanged over and over again, and distracting attention from the topic by picking fights with other participants.

...and I'm not trying to hide anything,...

Sure. See list in previous paragraph.

...I'm just trying to get it all to work together based on the evidence I have.

You have no evidence. Getting a whole world to work together when there's no evidence to tie you down is what writers like Tolkein did. You've composed a geological equivalent of The Hobbit.

--Percy

Hey, JRR Tolkien was born in Bloemfontein. So, please don't do that!

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

quote:

---

What is the need for the snarky tone?

---

To the extent there is one - and it is considerably less snarky than your reply it is probably due to your attempts to shoehorn everything into the scenario you made up without really caring about the evidence.

Now if you want some nasty snark, here is an example:

quote:

---

know it's galling to you that I don't accept standard geological interpretations and I'm truly sorry that everything I say is so offensive to you.

---

It's not your rejection of geology that is galling at all. It's your arrogance and pride and intellectual dishonesty. And you really ought to know that by now.

Everything is evidence of a magic global fludde.

Yeah, not only that. In our local newspaper some preacher has a column every day. He wrote about some person and everyone else praying for a miracle for a person with cancer.

It didn't work. The person died.

Then he wrote that the death of that person is also a miracle and somehow Jesus.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

What is the need for the snarky tone?

To show the absurdity of your position. And I dare say that I am less 'snarky' than you. I have to say that I tend to take willful ignorance and downright arrogance as an insult.

Really. I'm trying to build on my model or hypothesis or whatever, and I'm making use of the evidence I have available, and I'm not trying to hide anything, I'm just trying to get it all to work together based on the evidence I have.

First of all, you have not provided any kind of evidence that supports your 'hypothesis'.

Furthermore, you are not building a model, nor getting it to work together. You are simply trying to prop up a preconceived idea with ad hoc explanations and assertions.

I know it's galling to you that I don't accept standard geological interpretations and I'm truly sorry that everything I say is so offensive to you.

Mainly, I am puzzled by the YEC tendency to glibly disregard evidence and deny facts, all the while making up fantastic stories as though they have some relationship to reality. I cannot fathom why people fail to use the faculties that they say were given to them.

quote: Faith: Eh whut? Whoever said these varves formed DURING THE FLOOD? What an utterly ridiculous idea. PaulK: So you are saying that the strata containing the varves, and the fossils within them were NOT formed by the Flood? That's an interesting admission.

It drives me crazy when she just Faith has not yet responded to messages that absolutely sink her magical ship.

Can you please respond to this Faith?
This is a significant point! These were NOT formed during the flood?

Can I tag her in this message, similar to Facebook?

As of this moment in this thread:

• Faith has ignored 57% of the messages posted to her.

• 22% of Faith's messages are one line or one sentence.

• 13% of Faith's messages are all caps.

• Faith has threatened to abandon the thread three times. Or was it four?

• Faith thinks she's doing great.

--Percy

The Bible gives evidence galore throughout [itself], historical accounts of God's doings in the world, as witnessed by many people who are named, and much of the gospels describes Jesus' miraculous doings to verify His deity; but the Koran just assumes the existence of Allah and doesn't give one iota of evidence.

What of the Bible did you just say that could not be said of the Koran by a Muslim?
Think about this.

The Koran gives evidence galore throughout, historical accounts of Allah's doings in the world, as witnessed by many people who are named, and much of the Koran describes Allah's miraculous doings to verify His deity; but the Bible just assumes the existence of Yahweh and doesn't give one iota of evidence.

Your arguments are middle school Faith.