Summations Only

quote:

---

I reject your "complex history," I see it as I described: the strata are deformed according to a recognizable pattern, all at one time, both at the surface and underground.

---

Of course that isn’t true and you know it. Perhaps you should make up your mind which lie you want to tell. Either the diagram is too complex for you to understand or it obviously supports your claims.They can’t both be true. (Of course both are false, anyway).Here’s the diagram again.

You’re just being silly and wrong. Mutation is needed to overcome the loss of genetic variation produced by selection and drift. Your own argument admits that.

quote:

---

And unfortunately a hundred thousand years WOULD lead to extinction, certainly not according to the prevailing paradigm which is massive delusion, but according to the truth...

---

Unfortunately for you we know that there has been much longer than 100,000 years so your truth is quite obviously false.

Faith has just replied to a 608 word message with 8 words. She has no answers for the points raised, which were:

• The many unconformities between strata, such as those seen in the walls of the Grand Canyon, are visible and indicate strata were not deposited continuously. The deposition was continually interrupted by terrestrial erosion. Details about the unconformities are available online, such as at the USGS website, of which Faith has not availed herself.
  ​
• Faith still hasno definition of what "erosion as a unit" means.
  ​
• Faith still has no definition of what strata being "in place" means.
  ​
• Faith's definition of "deformation as a unit" is contradictory. In her view the Supergroup/Paleozoic layers in the Grand Canyon region were once a unit of horizontal layers. She thinks that at one time all those layers existed as a stratigraphic column of horizontal layers. Here are all the major subunits from top to bottom:
  ​
  • Kaibab
  • Toroweap
  • Coconino
  • Hermit
  • Supai
  • Redwall
  • Temple Butte
  • Muav
  • Bright Angel
  • Tapeats
  • Sixtymile
  • Chuar
  • Kwagunt
  • Galeros
  • Nankoweap
  • Unkar
  • Cardenas
  • Dox
  • Shinumo
  • Diabase
  • Hakatai
  • Bass
  ​
  Faith says that units deform as a block, but then breaks her own rule by claiming the layers from the Sixtymile down tilted by themselves independently of the rest of the unit from the Tapeats up. Clearly she has no coherent definition of a unit.

The reality is that the Supergroup layers and the Paleozoic layers were never part of a single stratigraphic column of horizontal layers. The Supergroup layers were deposited first in marine environments, then uplifted and exposed at the surface, tilted, then eroded flat, followed by the deposition of the Paleozoic layers atop them, the tilted contact forming an angular unconformity.--Percy

Actually, they are quite common. There are at least two angular unconformities and one disconformity in this diagram.How many do you need?

Nonsense. You forget I've excepted angular unconformities.

Because there were six major regressions also. They left behind eroding land surfaces and evolving land organisms such as dinosaurs.How does that comport with your biblical scenario? Only one word: fantasy.

Oh nonsense.

No.

I spent way too much time trying to take PaulK's views of the underground portion of that Smith diagram seriously. No. It was all deformed as a unit or a block and the distortions seen there where the strata encounter those blank areas are most probably where the strata were intruded and displaced by the usual underground rocks such as schist and granite, like the situation in the Grand Canyon, some of the strata being turned into schist as a matter of fact. This is just another case of strata being laid down all together through all the time periods and then deformed as a unit, only it occurred in a particularly messy way in this case. There aren't even any true angular unconformities here but if there were I reject the standard interpretation anyway: the whole thing occurred at one time and not one segment at a time. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You forget the rules. You cannot make exceptions. One single example that cannot be explained by the flood refutes the flood and makes it trash.

quote:

---

I spent way too much time trying to take PaulK's views of the underground portion of that Smith diagram seriously.

---

In other words your time was wasted because you couldn’t pick any holes in it. If you actually cared about truth you’d know that understanding the evidence isn’t a waste of time.

quote:

---

It was all deformed as a unit or a block and the distortions seen there where the strata encounter those blank areas are most probably where the strata were intruded and displaced by the usual underground rocks such as schist and granite, like the situation in the Grand Canyon, some of the strata being turned into schist as a matter of fact.

---

But I guess you have to resort - again - to making up bullshit to avoid admitting that the evidence is firmly against you.

The "evidence" you were giving just never made any sense though I kept trying to see it as you seemed to see it. I finally realized it's all an attempt to make something out of nothing. You can't explain the history of the formation of the strata after they are that extremely deformed, and my first take on it was right: The strata on the surface follow a pattern that clearly demonstrates deformation as a unit, and so do the strata underground. The areas you try to make into evidence for deformation before deposition are really just distortions brought about after the deformation. And besides, this would be the only example on the planet of what you are claiming for it. That alone falsifies it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The "evidence" you were giving just never made any sense though I kept trying to see it as you seemed to see it.

---

It will never make sense if you think that a line that curves up is parallel to one running across. This detail shows a nice example of the cut-off strata.From the middle of the left hand side, there is a thin shaded formation (I assume it is something bigger than a single stratum given the scale)Before it reaches the centre of the diagram it curves up to meet a dotted region, which slopes down - showing no sign of following the upward curve at all. Clearly the deformation of the upward curve did not affect the upper strata.

quote:

---

I finally realized it's all an attempt to make something out of nothing

---

In other words you couldn’t refute it. The evidence is quite clear.

quote:

---

You can't explain the history of the formastion of the strata after they are that extremely deformed,

---

See above. We can certainly see enough to tell that you are wrong.

quote:

---

The strata on the surface follow a pattern that clearly demonstrates deformation as a unit, and so do the strata underground.

---

Interesting how you suddenly claim that you CAN work out the history of the deformation. And you do it by ignoring the evidence and declaring yourself right. The dishonesty is so obvious.

quote:

---

The areas you try to make into evidence for deformation before deposition are really just distortions brought about after the deformation.

---

That is hardly plausible - aside from the fact that the distortion would also count as deformation we have the fact that the strata clearly did not deform as a unit. And the problems of deformation occurring underground and affecting some strata but not those above them are severe as you certainly ought to know. It’s not something that can be blithely assumed.

quote:

---

And besides, this would be the only example on the planet of what you are claiming for it. That alone falsifies it.

---

Of course you are in no position to know that, you just assume it because it’s convenient to you. And at present we have NO examples of places where there was no tectonic disturbance until all the strata were deposited.

The line that curves up was distorted after deformation probably by encountering the metamorphic rocks underground. The underground strata were deformed as a unit of parallel layers and then further distorted afterward.

Ah, wonderful ... a dismissal followed by a denial.YEC in action, I suppose.