Summations Only

I think magazines will pretty much continue catering to their audiences rather than addressing Faith's pet peeves. I think that if you have evidence that reveals weaknesses or errors in the views of geology that you should present them. But to this point in time you haven't even demonstrated an understanding of even the most simple of geological processes, certainly not enough to identify problems. You have a kind of fairy tale view of geology where water and sediments and corpses and strata do whatever you need them to do to fit into your Biblically inspired fantasies, instead of what the physical laws of the universe dictate is possible.--Percy

It's amazing how you just keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again from scratch as if it had never been refuted. It's like your mind is numb to information showing you are wrong, and you just say the same thing you just said all over again, forcing people to repeat the refutations they just provided. General audience magazines are not the scientific community. The scientific community also complains about how their work is presented in magazines for general audiences. Get in line. This is the consensus view of science, accepted as likely true not because there's a consensus, but because consensuses only tend to develop around ideas with the persuasive power of a great deal of accumulated evidence. Don't be absurd. Of course magazines cater to their audience. Those that don't disappear. You're confusing reporters and journalists with scientists, and mystification exists only in your own mind. You keep claiming mystification but you can never show it. You have religious objections to geology and evolution and astronomy and cosmology and probably other fields as well. These religious objections have no relevance to how sciencey sort of magazines present information. You want a magazine that presents things your way then try Answers from AIG, which, by the way, caters to its audience, just like all magazines try to do.--Percy

What is wrong with you? This has been refuted already. Can you never learn anything?National Geographic magazine is at best a sciencey kind of magazine. It covers a wide range of areas like adventure, travel, foreign cultures, science, history, archeology, religion, etc., and with a strong emphasis on photos. It is no more part of the scientific community than reporters in the White House press room are members of the West Wing staff. When National Geographic writes about science they are presenting the consensus views of science, views that have a consensus because of the persuasive power of the accumulated evidence. Raise all the questions you like. They have a letters section, you can write them at editor@natgeo.com, or you can send a written letter to: --Percy

There's your use of pronouns sowing confusion again. You were talking about "science mystification." The only mystification is in your own mind, powered by an ignorance that you constantly feed by ignoring all information that doesn't conform to your religiously based views, which ironically are based upon highly flawed and overwrought Biblical interpretations. So tell us about these "silly methods of historical geology," but from an evidence-based perspective, not your usual name-calling, denigrating, accusatory, evidence-free, no-idea-what-you're-talking-about approach. And yet you provide no evidence that anything's fake, and not even an argument, just claims along the lines of, "They're just rocks." We agree - they're just rocks. Rocks that have a geological context and that can be analyzed, the resulting information provided to you many times but that you continue to ignore in favor of repeating your same old unevidenced and ignorant declaration unchanged ad infinitum in thread after thread. I'm with Tangle - we're idiots for continuing this ridiculous dance with you. I continue to encourage you to not comment about yourself in this thread (or any thread), both because this thread is not about you, and because it forces people to rebut your claims about yourself. In any case, since you continue not to follow that advice I have to say that any time you say something true, such as the sky is blue, we're all shocked and stunned. It is rare for one of your posts to have as much as a single correct statement. Responses to your posts tend to be detailed because almost every sentence is a misstatement of fact or an irrational claim or an error in simple reasoning.--Percy

Will you be providing any of this evidence in this post? Reading on... Calling the geologic column an entity makes it sound like you don't understand that it's conceptual, not something that actually exists. This appears to represent a misunderstanding on your part, and in any case isn't evidence. Calling something "hooha" is not evidence. What do you mean, "Wherever it is found." The geologic column cannot be found anywhere because it doesn't even specify strata types or strata orders or thicknesses or anything physical like that. It's not something that actually exists. It's conceptual. The Geologic column is a synonym for the geologic timescale. How many times have we told you this? What does it take to force information into that brain of yours?What actually exists are stratigraphic columns that fit into the framework of the geologic column.Again, no evidence. Stratigraphic columns, not the geologic column, consist of many things, mostly strata composed of sedimentary rock, but also of salt layers, volcanic ash, volcanic basalt, intrusions, etc.Again, no evidence. This is just derogatory accusatory nonsense and definitely not evidence. Nobody here could misdescribe either strata or the geologic column because a) Others here would catch it; and b) There are images and articles about both all over the place.You've managed to complete yet another completely substanceless post.--Percy

I have again fallen far behind, so I don't know how this discussion of the definition of the theory of evolution has turned out beyond the three responses already posted to your message, but I have these reactions:

• Why are you bringing up the theory of evolution in a thread in the Geology and the Great Flood forum?
  ​
• Why are you posting a definition that a journalist obtained through interviews? You don't want definitions, even from scientists, that were offered off the cuff and on the spur of the moment. You want definitions that have been given careful thought and been reviewed several times.
  ​
• Why the Live Science website? I never heard of it, but it says it's a general science and technology news site. There's nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't seem like a good choice for seeking definitions.
  ​
• What is wrong with Wikipedia?
  ​
• After all your time here, how can you ask this now?
  ​
• The definition you quoted is sort of okay. What it says is true, it just doesn't say it very well, and if the goal was a detailed definition then there seem to be a few missing elements.

--Percy

Once again you've made an empty unsupported accusation. This is a discussion. If I got anything wrong then it's incumbent upon you to point out what that was, and then we can discuss it. This claim is easily disproven. I have explicitly distinguished between not accepting a view and not understanding it. This is from my Message 49: Why do you so frequently lash out with accusations that are not only untrue, but easily shown untrue? Why not take a few minutes, do a little research, do a little checking, read some old posts to confirm your recollections, then say something true? I think I speak for all of us when I say that your endless made-up accusations, complaints and nonsense have grown more than tiresome. The term "regurgitating" is poorly chosen. Most people here make a concerted effort to advocate views that are supported by evidence and analysis. This is a science site, and explaining and arguing for scientifically supported views is what most people try to do here. Even you try to make your views conform to natural physical laws, though your lack of understanding of them greatly hinders this effort. We're all long past hoping that evidence and reasoning will cause you to accept scientific views, and the conclusion that you lack scientific knowledge has nothing to do with that. Rather, this lack is evident in almost every sentence you write.But it's actually worse than that, becuase you don't even have an intuitive sense of how the natural world works. No, I'm pretty sure it's you who doesn't understand physics. You think cubic miles of rock can disappear into thin air, that buried strata can tilt without affecting overlying layers, that rocks form by drying, that there are underground rivers eroding channels between strata, that sedimentation atop stratigraphic columns doesn't occur, that evidence has an expiration date, that evidence should be subordinated to the Bible, etc.You see, I can be very specific about what you don't understand. You, on the other hand, can only cast meaningless accusations with no basis in fact. If you've got something about physics that I've got wrong then all you need do is: a) Quote what I said; b) Go to Wikipedia, find the information that shows I'm wrong, then post it; and c) Bask in the accolades from everyone here, including me, who will cheer your accomplishment in finally getting something right. Uh, no. What you wrote doesn't even make sense because it doesn't even say what is moving, and in any case there is nothing in Walther's Law that has anything moving across depositional environments. Looking back at my Message 88 I can't imagine how you ended up with what you wrote. Why don't you, as I have suggested many, many times, quote what you're replying to so you have it in front of you and can respond to what was actually said, instead of relying upon your frequently faulty memory.Walther's Law is about the slow movement of depositional environments. It explains how the horizontal movement of adjacent depositional environments results in a vertical sequence of sedimentary layers. Just because, or do you have some evidence driving this denial?71% of the Earth's surface is ocean, and the vast majority of it is experiencing deposition. You yourself have acknowledged the existence of depositional environments, for example, in the discussions of lake varves whose record extends right up to the present. There couldn't be a sedimentary layer on the bottom of the lake from last year if the lake weren't a depositional environment.From Wikipedia, which says, in essence, the same as what I just told you:

quote:

---

Walther's Law of Facies, or simply Walther's Law, named after the geologist Johannes Walther (1860-1937), states that the vertical succession of facies reflects lateral changes in environment. Conversely, it states that when a depositional environment "migrates" laterally, sediments of one depositional environment come to lie on top of another.

---

No, it does not. A rapid incursion of water onto land is not a depositional environment, there are no adjacent depositional environments, and certainly no vertical succession of sedimentary deposits of different depositional environments results. Moose would not agree with your denial of depositional environments.Moose was trying to help you by saying that Walther's Law does not have a time element, that it could happen fast or slow (see Message 2306), but as a practical matter depositional environments do not move rapidly. I pointed out some problems in what he said in Message 2381, and Edge added further rebuttal in Message 2382 This is Moose's specific comment supporting your view: But there are a number of fatal problems. First, this isn't the Faith flood model. You don't claim that new clastic sediments were being added as the sea rose - in order to avoid the lithification of deeply buried sediments on land you decided that most of the sediments came from the sea floor, so they were already in the sea.But more importantly, a rapid incursion of water onto land is not a depositional environment - "rapid" and "depositional" are not compatible. There are no adjacent depositional environments that are migrating, just the rapid incursion of water onto land. Feeding clastic sediments into the sea isn't really a depositional environment. The fine sediments that built Earth's strata could not fall out of suspension in active water. The order of strata is all wrong for a flood. I hope Moose responds and let's us know his views. It's only true if you and whoever agrees with you can build a convincing case using evidence and reasoning. Just because, or do you have some evidence driving this denial? I'm not aware that geology believes there was ever even a single worldwide flood during Earth's entire history, let alone six. You do seem to have difficulty finding anything to say that is true. I think the current motto is just fine. If you engaged in a bit more discussion and a bit less denial you might find a bit more understanding.--Percy

Here's the image again: Two things. First, the Supergroup/Tapeats contact is exposed at the Grand Canyon and there is no evidence of horizontal movement. Grinding Supergroup layers into tiny pebbles doesn't help your problem with the disappearing cubic miles of rock anyway, since turning rock into pebbles does not affect volume.Second, the reason you claimed horizontal movement is because of the Supergroup tilting. There is no Supergroup at the New Madrid fault, and therefore no Supergroup tilting. First, if the Paleozoic layers were already there when the faulting occurred then the faults would extend up into the Paleozoic layers. They don't, so the Paleozoic layers were not there when the faulting occurred. The Reelfoot Rift (the name of the fault system) occurred 750 MYA during the breakup of Rodinia. The Paleozoic layers weren't deposited until a couple hundred million years later. Second, what the diagram does indicate is that the Paleozoic layers were already there when the uplift occurred. You posted no images, but there are both convex and concave layers. The concave layers are nearest to the surface and formed as part of the region's river basin which eroded downward into the convex Paleozoic layers beneath, then filled in with sediments later. The river basin layers are less than five million years old. This scenario is not supported by any evidence.Anyway, there you have it, buried faults that must have occurred, in your scenario, during the Flood.--Percy

First let's set the location context. This is Point Hansbrough, and it's outside the canyon proper. It's in a section of the Colorado River known as Marble Canyon that extends from Lee's Ferry in the north down to where the Little Colorado joins, which is where the Grand Canyon actually begins. Here's a map to help you place it - all the controls should work, and you can also open the location in a full window by clicking on "View larger map": Marble Canyon is certainly not as deep as the Grand Canyon, but it's still pretty deep, I think around 2500 feet, nearly half a mile. Actually the land slowly rose (the uplift of the Colorado Plateau) and the river gradually eroded down. As has been explained many, many times, rapidly flowing water cannot meander. I don't think it's either obvious or well known. What is the reasoning that seems obvious to you? The reason the canyon is wider at the top than at the bottom is that the higher above the canyon floor the longer the canyon face has been exposed to the forces of erosion.--Percy

Here is a flat sheet of water flowing across a flat plain. Please point out the meanders for us: --Percy

Elevation matters. Water doesn't flow uphill. Your scenario requires water to flow uphill. Therefore your scenario is wrong.Here's the image RAZD posted in an earlier message showing elevations. It isn't too bright, and you don't need to read any of the wording. All you need to know is that the darker green (the regions outlined in black) indicates higher elevations: The blue line is the Colorado River, and it flows directly through the elevated regions. That's not possible in your flood scenario - water would have flowed around the elevated regions.The reason that today's Colorado River flows through the elevated regions is because the Colorado existed before these regions were uplifted. Gradual uplift was accompanied by gradual downcutting of the river into the uplifting landscape. The canyon is deepest in the region of greatest elevation, because that's where the Colorado had to downcut the most.--Percy

Check the video again. Can you point out for us where the sheets of water split into streams?The world doesn't behave any old way you want it to just to make your fantasies come true. Physics matters. Learn some.--Percy

I intended to post a reply to this one when I first saw it, don't know what happened, posting a reply now.If you copy-n-paste in peek mode then you'll maintain the markup. I'll reinsert the markup in quoting your message: I was trying to help with you a list of magazines ordered from most to least detailed science, in my opinion. I can't tell you which ones contain articles in their archives or will print articles in the future that answer your questions. What I can tell you is that if you do a web search for something and end up at the Science Magazine site that you'll get a great deal of detail that you likely won't understand because it will assume a science background that you don't possess. If you end up at the National Geographic site you'll get great photos, a well written and very interesting article with some good facts that is easy to understand but that provides little background detail.But as NoNukes effectively argued in Message 140, neither popular magazines nor scientists are likely to rehash long established scientific findings. Nevertheless, a lot of this information is available on the web if you look for it, and a lot of it has been presented to you here, which you usually ignore.The magazine list was just one small part of my post - you ignored the rest. Here's a list of the parts I think most relevant:

• Do you still believe there is no sedimentation taking place atop stratigraphic columns anywhere in the world?
  ​
• Strata represent time periods - that they do not would be impossible and absurd. You should be asking whether the evidence suggests hours or eons (eons in the general sense, not the geological definition).
  ​
• Do you understand that a boulder breaking off the Shinumo hills and rolling onto the Tapeats beach is the same thing that happens at many places around the world today, like this image of Garrapata Beach in Carmel, California, where boulders are eroded from the hills lining the coast and fall to the beach below:
  ​

--Percy

This couldn't be further from irrelevant or a nitpick. Your proposed scenario is wrong for a number of reasons, some of which I touch on below, others I've described in other messages. The walls of the canyon are exposed because the river has eroded downward through the rocky landscape as the region uplifted. A "lazy slow movement of a wide stream of water" sounds like a lot of the Mississippi. Have you heard reported any rapid downward erosion of the Mississippi? No, you haven't.You have two choices, neither of them viable. Either the flow was rapid and narrowly focused enough to cut through rock, in which case meanders are impossible, or it was slow and lazy, in which case it was incapable of cutting through rock.The rapid flow scenario is also impossible because a year is nowhere near enough time for water to cut through a mile of rock. Plus, as RAZD has pointed out, your scenario requires water to flow uphill.Your proposal that the flow lessened over time and became gradually more narrow as an explanation for the sloping canyon sides makes the problem more severe, because the less active and voluminous the water the less erosive ability it has. Your explanation was not reasonable because we already know water doesn't behave this way, and it is completely unsupported by evidence. Your scenario isn't consistent with the Bible, either, which has water levels gradually lowering, not dropping catastrophically:

quote:

---

Genesis 8: But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded. ²Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky. ³The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, ⁴and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. ⁵The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible.

​

⁶After forty days Noah opened a window he had made in the ark ⁷and sent out a raven, and it kept flying back and forth until the water had dried up from the earth.

---

According to the Bible there was no catastrophic flow of water off the face of the Earth. It was gradual. Even when it comes to the Bible you just make things up.But you failed to address the question that was asked. What is the obvious reasoning for why soft strata form slopes while hard strata form cliffs?--Percy

You addressed nothing I said and have posted yet another content-free message. You do not have a theory, you have a Biblically inspired fantasy that violates numerous laws of physics and principles of geology. You have a right to advocate for whatever cockamamie ideas you want, but no right to immunity from informed criticism of those ideas.Check the video again. Can you point out for us where the sheets of water split into streams?And do you know why the Japan tsunami eventually ceased its inland flow? Partly it's because the tsunami only provided so much water, and that water could only cover so much landscape, but also partly because the land elevation rose. Even water given a considerable impetus cannot long flow uphill, and since your scenario requires water to flow uphill it could not have happened.--Percy