Summations Only

In which case they could have been in any direction, and you cannot know that they were east-west because they all washed away. Curiously this is why we know you are making stuff up, because you claim something that leaves no evidence for your claim in any way. Curiously water does not carve canyons at the bottoms of reservoirs, rather it fills them with sediments over time, and when you drain a reservoir that sediment is left behind.This is why draining a big lake would not carve Glenn Canyon. As has been pointed out, the "Grand Staircase" is composed of formations that run in many directions. Even that idealized section shows them curving aroundSo where are those results of east-west cracks again? The river channels? And why aren't those other river channels as deep as the Grand Canyon if they were caused by the same process? Yes, there is not point in discussing actual cracks in rocks when discussing cracks in rocks because if you discuss actual cracks and actual rock cracking behavior then you cannot discuss made up cracks and made up crack behavior that is different.Curious that these actual cracks penetrate below those east-west cracks that all got washed away, and yet they didn't also cause the water to penetrate and carve canyons in those locations.Curious that there is one fault that was buried by layers of sediment and then reactivated to cause those layers to bend ("mound" in faith talk) without cracking and without canyon formation. But all tectonic action occurred after the layers were laid down, so how does this buried fault come to be?Or is this another instance of your supergroup tumbling underground fantasy? They are the evidence of cracks in rocks, Faith: that is what faults ARE - places where rock has cracked.Ignoring evidence is not refutation.Edited by RAZD, : ..

The problem is that an honest person knows when to admit they are wrong and back off. You simply press forward into areas you know nothing about and just make stuff up in order to save face on those "simple points." If you are concerned about this, you shouldn't say stuff like this: Starts out garbled and twisted and can only go downhill from there... That "simple" paragraph is soooo ripe with nonsense that can ripped apart and can lead down so many side trails. Not without more knowledge of what you are talking about.HBD

Nice. Where is this buried fault, do you have a reference. (interested not doubting )HBD

So why are koala bears and the eucalyptus trees they feed on only exist in Australia? How did they get there?This is just one example of a species that consumes limited food sources that only exist in one place.Why are there no placental animals in Australia? Why are there no rabbits or dogs in Australia until after they were brought there by man and are now considered invasive and destructive species because they are so well adapted to living there?Why do species exhibit biogeographical distributions around the world? Especially species isolated on islands but not found on mainlands.Why did lamas only exist in South America before being introduced by man to other locations? They are perfectly capable of living in North America and Europe and grazing on the grasses that are native to those areas. What kept them from going there?Why are species that occupy similar ecologies different in different geographical locations?Why are wolverines and polar bears only found in northern latitudes and not found in similar southern latitudes?Why are Penguins found in southern latitudes and not in norther latitudes?Why are Puffins found in northern latitudes and not in southern latitudes?Alfred Russel Wallace - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Alfred Russel Wallace OM FRS (8 January 1823 — 7 November 1913) was a British naturalist, explorer, geographer, anthropologist, and biologist. He is best known for independently conceiving the theory of evolution through natural selection; his paper on the subject was jointly published with some of Charles Darwin's writings in 1858. ... Wallace did extensive fieldwork, first in the Amazon River basin and then in the Malay Archipelago, where he identified the faunal divide now termed the Wallace Line, which separates the Indonesian archipelago into two distinct parts: a western portion in which the animals are largely of Asian origin, and an eastern portion where the fauna reflect Australasia.

​

He was considered the 19th century's leading expert on the geographical distribution of animal species and is sometimes called the "father of biogeography". ...

---

How did these species sort themselves on one side or the other of this divide?Again we have an instance where the evidence shows evolution of species over long time periods in a consistent intellectually consilient manner but one that is not to be expected from random dispersal of animals from a single point some 4,500 (or whatever time you chose) years ago -- a pattern that matches the fossil record buried before the flood? Are those fossils that were magically sorted not only in depth but in geographical locations some kind of mystical magnet that draws the living species to their locations even though ... Why are some species geographically localized when there are similar habitats in other places Faith? Places they inhabit in quite happily once introduced. Certainly there are some species that have spread out across the globe -- what holds the others back and how did they get where they are?

Faults - Grand Canyon National Park (U.S. National Park Service)

quote:

---

Monoclines seen in the Grand Canyon are another expression of the region’s faults. Monoclines are folds, or bends, in the otherwise horizontal rock layers that dominate the canyon. Folds form when a fault deep underground becomes active but doesn’t actually break the surface rocks. Instead, the surface layers bend to form a fold that is draped over the displacement along the underlying fault. The most visible example is from Desert View Watchtower, where the East Kaibab monocline traverses the canyon and has folded the rock layers seen on the north side of the canyon.

---

This monocline is (of course) responsible for the north-south "mound" uplift at the eastern end of the canyon.Here is a construction of the geological column in the area: This gives us evidence of the previous layers that overlaid the Grand Canyon area and caused the sedimentary deposits to lithify.Then there is this nonsense:Folded rock layers point to Noah’s flood | Creation Faith Facts

quote:

---

​

... The Kaibab Plateau is said to have been pushed up 60 million years ago. It is obvious the 90-degree folding of the layers was done when they were still soft and pliable because there is no evidence whatsoever of breaking or shattering. How could the sandstone/limestone layers remain soft and pliable for 440 million years? Evolutionary geologists explain this dilemma by saying that intense heat and pressure allowed the layers to be bent so slowly that they behaved as though they were pliable. ...

---

Notice that the right side picture is from somewhere else. Notice the layers in the Tapeets sandstone (left picture) ... how did those layers stay so well defined when they were bent if still wet at the time?Curiously you can test, rather than dismiss with incredulity, and the buried fault line shows their argument to be fantasy speculation.Edited by RAZD, : +Edited by RAZD, : +Edited by RAZD, : +

This is for HBD since I think I didn't say what I meant clearly enough, although throughout the thread from early on I did say it clearly, he just wasn't dealing with it back then. The point is that the tectonic disturbances didn't happen until after all the strata were in place, which is apparent in many ways but also in the fact that the nice neat parallel strata remain nice neat and parallel while being bent over the uplift in the GC area and bent also at the very north end of the GS, also broken at the fault there into a tilted portion or angular unconformity. All these disturbances in the strata occurred after they wree all in place which is evidenced by the fact that they were all affected as a whole block. The same is true of the monocline block RAZD illustrates above. The implication of this is that there were no tectonic changes before they were all in place so that during their laying down over those however many hundreds of millions of years there were no tectonic disturbances at all, which really means there wree no hundreds of millions of years.I don't care if the strata were wet or lithified. If they can be bent when lithified, fine, it doesn't matter. The point is that they were bent all together, keeping their parallel form, showing that the bending occurred after they were all laid down.I can't stand this thread any more, I can't stand the way my simple points have been twisted and misrepresented and I don't want to go back and read any more of it, at least not right now, but I realized the above probably needed to be more clearly stated even though it was clearly stated a hundred times earlier in the thread.Try being honest.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Perhaps your problem is that your simple points are just plain wrong.

Well, that can't be determined when they're being misunderstood, and they've definitely been misunderstood, and I think I contributed to that problem last time I answered HBD. Misunderstood, misrepresented, twisted in the most unbelievable ways.

But on another thread you said that was ok to do.

But it doesn't matter what you meant Faith. All that matters is how we interpret what you said, right? Or are you being disingenuous here ... The conclusion Faith is that your fantasy just doesn't work, it doesn't add up, it doesn't explain the evidence and it is self contradictory. So you agree that the intended meaning is important and that misrepresenting what a person means is a bad thing, a dishonest thing, an inappropriate thing?Edited by RAZD, : :

Try it yourself. In fact, what you should really try is being honest with yourself, because the only one you're fooling is you.You say that when you look at all the geologic layers that you see work of the Great Flood everywhere, but then you say it was a flood like no other, and that it did things no other flood has ever done, so having never observed one you couldn't possibly know what it would be like or what it would do. You don't even know that it would be different in any way (other than being larger) than floods on a normal scale. Saying you do know just isn't being honest.--Percy

I get what your point is Faith, but you keep making up excuses to not have to admit you are wrong. I agreed with you a long time ago on this point and you even thanked me that at least someone was willing to agree with you on any point. But this is not a fact, is it? The strata are NOT nice, neat or parallel, or flat. They have erosional features between the layers. They vary in thickness and end abruptly. The implication of this is that some amount of time elapsed between when one layer stopped being deposited and the next layer began being deposited. How much time? We can't really say without more information, without the details of these erosional surfaces. Was it a day, a year, a million years? To determine that we need to know more about the erosional surfaces. But you are not interested in those "side issues" so we can suffice it to say, for now, that some amount of time elapsed between some of the layers. Agree or disagree? Again, OK. As long as you are only referring to the tectonic disturbances and not the disturbances between the layers. If you think disturbances between the layers occurred after the layers were all in place, we would need to hash that out some more. OK. Yes this would be the implication of the strata being affected as a whole block. Now hold on, here's the major problem. This conclusion does not follow from the previous observation / implication. This would be like saying "HBD did not post on this forum in 2013, so that really means there was no 2013." The conclusion does not follow the premise.In order for your conclusion to be valid, you need to establish that tectonic disturbances are a requirement of geological time for any particular area. Another thing you could do is to show that everywhere (or at least most places) on earth have the same lack of tectonic disturbances and have stacks of sediment laid down relatively flat and then affected as a whole block.I understand your argument Faith, probably better than you do. However, I disagree with your conclusion. It's just plain wrong.HBD

ABE:Yes you did acknowledge that point way back there, thank you, but lately you seemed to be taking it back.Would you please review the supposed answers I've supposedly been given about erosion between the layers? /ABEA layer represents millions of years according to OE thinking. Any block of layers represents multiplied millions of years. The strata in the GC covers hundreds of millions without tectonic activity. You can't just limit its effect to the visible short stacks, you have to think additively.I shouldn't have to establish the already understood expectation that tectonic activity has been ongoing throughout time. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And we shouldn't have to establish the already understood reality that the time frame you are citing for all of these events is absolutely incorrect.And the already understood (by most everyone but you) time frame absolutely refutes the young earth belief and the attempts to find a date for the global flood somewhere other than the 4,350 years ago date that biblical scholars agree upon.So, if you're worried about "understood expectations," you better start with time itself, not tectonic activities.Until you can disprove the current scientific understanding of earth's age, and the way that timeline is established, your beliefs and claims are unsupported.And so far, creationist's, and your, attempts to do so have fallen woefully short.I could say your efforts are like those of Denver's against Seattle this evening, but Denver put up a good effort and managed to score points...Edited by Coyote, : speeling

No, not at all. The things in my last reply that I said I agree with, I agree with. But as I have said several times ... it is not the whole story. And in addition, your conclusions do not always follow your observations. Not right now. I want to stick to your main point (as you have complained that you don't want to get off on all these side issues). For now we can suffice it to say that some period of time elapsed between layers being laid down. Not exactly. A layer represents a period of time in which a specific depositional environment existed. A geological layer could very well represent a very short period of time or a very long period of time. The idea of long periods of time came about as geologists began to study the clues within the layers that helped establish how long each layer took to deposit.I have pointed this out before that it is unnecessary to assign an age to geological layers in order to establish a sequence. However, as you begin to scrutinize each layer and how it was deposited, the idea that they could have been laid down in a matter of days begins to evaporate. But we can leave that for another time. For now only think about the sequence.Which brings up unconformities. How do geologists identify unconformities and why would they even identify them as gaps in the geological record if that would be problematic for an old earth theory? Do unconformities really represent "missing time?" In the same way does my not posting here during 2013 represent missing time? Yes, you do. What is the expectation for a maximum period of time that a particular region of continental crust can go with out tectonic activity? And how do you arrive at that number?Do you understand the significance of the North American Craton?

quote:

---

The brown area shows the part of the North American continent that has been stable for over 600 million years. This region is made up of a basement older Precambrian metamorphic and igneous rock that is mostly covered by a relatively thin cover of younger sedimentary rock. Geologists call these long-stable continental cores cratons.

​

The green area on the illustration shows new continental material that was added relatively recently, within the last 600 million years or so. Continents can grow when two plates collide, welding, or accreting, the two pieces together. Continents also grow when oceanic crust is scraped off oceanic plates as they sink in subduction zones.

​

The purple area fringing the stable continental core is made up of older Precambrian basement that was deformed during plate collisions that occurred within the last 600 million years. The force of collision produced great folds and faults that sometimes penetrated deep into the continental interior. Where the crust was uplifted, these folds and faults are exposed at the surface, allowing geologists to piece together the ancient history of our continent.

---

So this area in brown, which represents most of the continental U.S. has not had major tectonic activity since the basement rock was laid down. It appears that the major tectonic activity occurs at plate boundaries and the interior of the continental plate is relatively protected from disturbances. Why should we expect the interior areas to undergo tectonic activity during that time period?This IS something you need to establish in order to support your most basic argument. If your basic argument cannot withstand the evidence, there really is no need to go further, is there?HBDABE: Percy noted that the GC area is in the purple area of the North American craton map. See my reply to him for clarification of this. Message 1819Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.