Summations Only

You obviously haven't bothered to read or think about anything I've written, or you can't understand it due to theory-blindness which I think is a lot of th eproblem here, because there is PLENTY of evidence there from observed facts that the Old Earth doesn't work.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

"what kind of environment causes coal" doesn't require any idea about millions of years.I've SHOWN that the layers wree not laid down over millions of yeaers. You just have to THINK about the evidence given.

In the fact that the boulder traveled a wuarter of a mile from its origin pointl ought to be sufficient evidence. Plus the fact that there is no way for it to have gotten into the sediments otherwise than being broken off along with the scraping between the layers. You said it's common to find rocks from lower levels in higher ones. That should call the whole theory into question which of course I'd have taken note of if it were all that common but oddly it's never come up. And it should be pretty hard to explain on Old Earth theory.

Obviously you haven't read or thought about any of it. I noticed you even jeered my post about the fault lines which was agreeing with one of YOUr guys. You aren't reading or thinking about anything I've said.

No you haven't thought about anhy of it because I've given good arguments on good evidence.Those forests are not millions of hyars old. And you can actrually SEE coal seams forming between the layers in road cuts in some places in the country. Coal is caused by the compression of vegetation which would have happened at certain layers in the Flood. One thing that does seem to be true is that the same layers occur at the same levels so you only need to know the level, not the age.

It had to have been broken off the Shinumo layer and the most sensible explanation for that is that abrasion between the layers did it.. This is a boulder fifteen feet in diameter. How did it get "eroded" out of its layer under normal conditions? OR "moved along the surface" under normal conditions. No, the force of the abrasion between the layers explains it much better.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Since you don't even try to reproduce any of my arguments but just call them "bad" proves you haven't a clue what I've said. If you can't address what has been said you have no business commenting at all.

This one was a piece of a layer of quartzite that got broken off. The Tapeats wouldn't have been solid rock, it would have been wet compressed sediments. The Shinumo layer was tilted as part of the Supergroup up against the bottom of the Tapeats and the abrasion broke off the piece of layer as a boulder which got moved along within the wet sand, and then the continued sliding between the two layers carried it a quarter of a mile from the point where it broke off. We're talking ONE boulder here, I doubt it's a normal occurrence. Quartzite is very hard so it broke off as a huge chunk rather than being broken up into small pieces or pulverized into sediment, which is what happened to the Tapeats above. I'm giving sensible answers based on considering the facts. You on the other hand are just reaching for any old explanation that might work to confirm your theory.

The Supergroup is actually nine layers but I thought it was more and it doesn't really matter anyway. But this is from Wikipedia: You're right about the continent wide Unconformtiy. I'm tired and not reading clearly. Look at the contact line between the Tapeats and the Supergroup: sure looks to me like the Tapeats was affected or the line would be straight. Also the boulder embedded in the Tapeats that PaulK and I are again arguing about is evidence for disruption of the Tapeats.Yes, the weight of two miles of strata above would be the resistance that happened to stop at the TapeatsEdited by Admin, : Fix close quote dBCode.

I don't have the interest or the time or to get the thorough education you are talking about, not to mention I don't have the energy or low enough blood pressure to battle the establishment point of view at every turn. And I do think OE theory is impossible, there's no cognitive dissonance about it. Cognitive dissonance involves believing and trying to juggle two contradictory things at once; I don't believe OE theory, there's nothing to juggle. I think it's so unbelievably silly I don't know how anybody ever entertained it for a minute.But since EVERYTHING is interpreted in terms of OE theory it puts an enormous burden on a creationist to show how it's wrong. I feel sort of sorry for Atheos because he started this thread and he really wants to prove to me that his sand grains make the Flood impossible because he thinks they do. But I'd have the job then of learning all about them, plus researching possible other contexts he wouldn't have thought of in order to find out how they don't prove what he says they do. That's too much to ask of me right now, and it just doesn't interest me, I have my own way of thinking about all this and don't want to get sidetracked into all those secondary issues like sand and speleothems. Because I believe in the Flood with absolute certainty. Not necessarily all my own notions about how it might have occurred but certainly the timing of it which makes all Old Earth thinking false, AND the more I look at the strata the more I see that OE theory doesn't account for them, but a worldwide Flood certainly would. So he's got sand grains in the strata that supposedly couldn't have been deposited in water. That's just WAY too much to ask me to think about right now. Once I know that the strata had to have been laid down rapidly in water, I know his sand grains are going to have to be reinterpreted. He isn't going to do it, you aren't going to do it; that leaves me, and right now I don't want the job.

A fair amount of it should be in the erosion itself. The rest is under the strata somewhere. Look under the deepest parts of the strata column, look in the areas that are never defined in the diagrams, under the strata. Look on the other side of the Supergroup. What's there? That's a BIG area we're talking about.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The point was, my dear Dr. A, that I don't ARRIVE at a deduction by wanting it to be that way, I look at the evidence and discover what's actually there, and what's actually there supports my view very nicely as in fact I DO want it to do.I do, on the other hand, suspect that Old Earthers systematically seek explanations that fit their theory and ignore those that don't.OR, being fair to all of us, it's just a matter of conflicting paradigms.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I know you believe that but you're wrong. You are interpreting according to the OE theory. If you weren't you could acknowledge the points I've made about how the strata were all in place beforethe GC uplift occurred
the GC was formed
all the stairs and canyons of the GS were formed
the Hurricane fault occurred
the magma dike in the GS area occurred
all the formations of the southwest were sculpted
such as the hoodoosthe strata were individually undisturbed by any comparable events before all that happened,showing that individually they were never at the surface of the earth throughout the entire billions of years they supposedly took to formshowing that the OE theory doesn't account for these formations, but rapid deposition and a young earth are the best interpretationCheersEdited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I have two questions:1) According to you all, what caused the uplift of the GC?Here are the two images Percy posted, to show that the uplift is the mounded area in the Grand Canyon area, the canyon having been cut into the south side of the mound. You will also notice that the Supergroup, which is the tilted block of strata, two blocks in the second image, under the bottommost layer of the stack of parallel layers that runs for hundreds of miles north-south, right beneath the highest part of the mounded uplift. 2) Please tell me: What was the cause of the Supergroup?ABE: I didn't get this question worded as I had intended. I meant to ask2) What was the cause of the TILTING of the Supergroup?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Thank you but I'm afraid I didn't get my second question worded as I had intended.The question I meant to ask was:2) What caused the TILTING of the Supergroup?Thanks.(side thought: quote says Supergroup were never subjected to metamorphism, which I'd also noticed, but isn't the Shinumo Quartzite layer an exception to that?