Have any Biblical literalists been to the American Southwest?

quote:

---

It is based on witness evidence, the very best kind of evidence there is. All the speculations at thousands of years remove cannot be proved, but a witness from the time itself is worth gold. It is your rank prejudice that calls it "unscientific."

---

In other words your argument is based in religious dogma. It is only religious dogma that says that you HAVE "witness evidence".And even if you had "witness evidence" forensic evidence is generally better. Geology has a sounder basis than you are prepared to admit.Finally it is not "unscientific" or even "rank prejudice" to prefer sceitific conclusions over religious dogma. It would, of course, be unscientific - and prejudiced - to reject solid scientific conclusions in favour of religious dogma.

quote:

---

1) that the strata were already in placewhen the uplift occurred that caused the hump and slope to the north of the Grand Canyon (otherwise they would not have been laid down in neat parallels as they are);

---

The flat nature of V to the left of the fault disproves this. It is so obviously NOT parallel that this assertion cannot be seriously entertained. It is entirely possible that some uplift as occurred to the right of the fault after V was laid down, but clearly the Vstratum to the left must have been laid down after the lower strata were tilted and eroded flat.2 and 3 fall to the same problem.

quote:

---

4) the idea that erosion had to occur before the horizontal layer "V" was laid down is disproved by the fact that the same kind of shearing had to happen to the tilted strata at the vertical interface created by the fault line, where erosion could not have been a factor.

---

This is not true. The (near-)vertical contact line is the fault itself There is no need to invoke significant amounts of erosion there. What you must explain was how your proposed solution explains the fact that to the left of the fault line V is laid on a near-flat surface, while the strata beneath it are tilted at a very steep angle. If you can't do that then the conventional explanation which does not face any problems that serious must be considered more reaonable by far.t

quote:

---

I explained all that. Rethink it. Reread at least a couple of my posts on the subject. It's been explained. You aren't following the argument. Rethink it.

---

In Message 77 you stated that you didn't know how it happened. You have added nothing since to explain how it could happen. It has not been explained. I have followed your "argument". You are the one who needs to rethink.

Yes, you and Faith have the "advantage" that you assume that you are unquestionably right. This allows you to "win" arguments by citing non-existent "errors" or making groundless accusations.That's not humility. That's Pride with a capital 'P'.

quote:

---

and on the left it is made clear by the obvious appearance of V's having been sliced by the fault in the same way as the tilted layers were sliced from the horizontal layers on the right side of the fault line, showing it was already there when the faulting occurred which caused the tilting.

---

This is the problem. There's no such evidence. If V was deposited later then it would butt up against the fault. And when the fault slipped again it would go with it - producing what we see. So there is no evidence on the left that V was deposited before the fault.On the left V was clearly deposited AFTER the layers had been tilted and flattened off.

quote:

---

You are not addressing what was actually said. The context of my comment was the Grand Canyon area to the far right of the diagram, and its hump and slope to the north of it.

---

This is a lie. I was addressing what was said by pointing out contradictory evidence.

quote:

---

As for the fault line area to the far left of the diagram, it merely begs the question to insist that V could not have been in place when the tilt occurred, simply because of its flat nature

---

This is another lie. It is no different from your insistence that the stratum to the right must have been deposited before the fault. Except that the evidnece is better - and against what you want to beleive. But neither of those make it "begging the question"It is not begging the question to offer an explanation of how the right hand side of the fault could appear as it does if V was deposited after the fault. Your objewction therefore is obviously false.

quote:

---

Again, you are addressing the wrong thing.

---

Another lie, relevant evidence is precisely the RIGHT thing to discuss. It does not become "wrong" simply because it is against the conclusion you want to reach

quote:

---

Again you beg the question. This is not so if the signs that V was already in place are correct.

---

Another lie. It is not "begging the question" to look for alternative explanations for the appearance formations on the the right hand side.

quote:

---

There had to be the same amount of erosion there as horizontally, as the same amount of corners of the layers are missing there as along the horizontal line, and had to be sheared off somehow or other, asthey are tilted against the fault face in the same way. Take a horizontal block of layers, tilt it and form a new horizontally oriented block -- that involves cutting off the ends of the layers to get it to fit. Erosion
had to happen in both planes.

---

That just doesn't make sense. Firstly V shoud be affected in the same way and it obviously isn't. Secondly, there doesn't need to be much erosin at the fault. When the fault occurrs it is like a cut, so it will remain straight. Afterwards the forces pushing the rocks together (the reason why the strata are buckling upwards) will maintain the contact, even if it also forces further tilting.So there is no need for significant erosion at the fault line - or any reason to assume it.

Come off it. A little diagram certainly doesn't provide the level of detail needed to distinguish between "slicing" and the rock simply forming up against the cliff.And should "piling up" be visible ? If it was present would it shiw at the scale of the illustration ? Would it surivive the processes needed ot lithify the rock ? Even if it did all we need is another round of erosion to level it, just as the lower strata were levelled (a much smaller job).Yes it IS odd that the two sides are so different - but that applies even more to your proposal which has radically differnet things happening on each side.The fact is that you don't have a viable explanation for the left hand side. You can'td ismiss that problem on the assumption that your ideas must be right.