Hello everyone

That reasoning happens to apply just as well to any kind of mental slippage, such as to scientists who think they can discover the truth about the past when all they have is their own imagination and speculations, plus peer pressure from others who share their theories, and no way of correcting them from the past itself. They can't get away that easily with stuff they speculate about concerning any part of history where there are written records to correct them. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That is why I specifically required thinking about the parts that ARE "stacked neatly with level, horizontal boundaries." At least you DID observe that much.Those are the parts that show clearly the way the strata were originally laid down. The slanted and warped strata were subjected to forces that slanted and warped them after they were laid down in that same originally neat level horizontality. Tectonic and volcanic disturbance is the usual cause of the warping and tilting -- AFTER they were in place, which is obvious enough wherever you can identify the layering even in its warped condition.The disappearance or thickening of the individual layers is also part of the original deposition though. The main thing is the lack of disturbance so that they clearly remain as layers in the stack as originally laid down. This is MOST clear where the layers don't thin or thicken appreciably of course.After that much has been observed and duly noted you might consider as Question 2 (or Proposition 2 or Assertion 2 since I see the folly of asking questions) the fact that the canyon itself did not cut through those neatly level horizontal layers until they had accumulated to the depth of a mile without any other disturbance occurring to them. This is the order of things although individual layers or short stacks thereof are commonly understood to represent millions of years.Instead of changing the subject, instead of looking elsewhere in the canyon for other kinds of formations, instead of evading the point, can you just accept as something that could actually have happened in Reality the fact that no disturbance occurred to those layers until the canyon cut through them after a billion or so years? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The INTERPRETATION of empirical evidence needs CORROBORATION from SOMEWHERE or you're just castlebuilding. Lab science can replicate its studies to corroborate interpretations. One time events in the past have nothing whatever to corroborate whatever interpretation you decide to lay on them UNLESS you have witnesses from that past. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Which clearly did not occur to any of those neatly level layers that are under discussion, except on the minuscule scale of runoff between the layers, because of it HAD occurred as real erosion occurs on the real surface of the real earth it would have disturbed that neat level horizontality sufficient to be visible a few miles across the canyon. Your erosion is a figment of your imagination.

Sigh. During the Flood there would have been SHORT periods of exposure at the surface BETWEEN WAVES AND TIDES, during which ripples and minor erosion and footprints could have occurred to the wet sediments, but NOT the kind of erosion that occurs to land that is aerially exposed for years on end, which would be visible in the strata from across the whole canyon. You would not have those neat level horizontal strata ANYWHERE AT ALL had that ever occurred to ANY of the layers. See above. I do tend to forget that there were very brief periods of exposure of the sediments as they were being laid down in the Flood. That's why I specified that the stack above the basement rocks was to be the focus. We CAN confine the discussion to that particular billion years or whatever it's supposed to be, as many Creationists are willing to do.However, I believe the Great Unconformity, as I have argued here before, was also created after ALL the strata were laid down, created by the forced tilting and sliding of a segment of the lowest strata by the volcanic activity beneath the Canyon, which had sufficient force to tilt that segment but not enough to disrupt the horizontality of the stack above it, although the entire region was lifted upward, stack and all. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

They do not see it in the sections of the Canyon I specifically required to be considered in my experiment, which are now under discussion because at least Tanypteryx acknowledged their existence.

Yes, you DON'T know what I'm saying or asking here. And you have some weird idea about what I'm saying about surface erosion too. Too much to sort out. But go right ahead and keep posting your Jeers, that's really all you understand about any of this.