The TRVE history of the Flood...

quote:

---

Strata and Fossils. Flood explains them, Time Scale can't possibly

---

In reality mainstream geology explains them, Flood geology utterly fails. As we have seen you have to suppress large amounts of evidence, make false claims and use silly straw men to make your case.As I have pointed out before, the order of the fossil record is a large-scale global feature of that record. If you can't explain that - and you can't - you do NOT have a viable explanation for fossils. Mainstream geology does (especially if we throw in evolution which makes much more sense of it)That is why geology and evolution are science and Flood geology is just religious apologetics.

Repeating an obvious falsehood won't make it any less laughable.If you can't address my points you would be better off admitting that you are wrong.

It is very clear that your argument is based on a superficial and highly selective view of the evidence, backed up by falsehoods and straw men.Accordingly your claim is not only false - it is so obviously false that even you ought to know it.

quote:

---

There is no such thing as the KT or PT boundaries, that's all fiction based on the Geo Time Scale and since I reject all your dating systems you shouldn't pin them on me

---

They exist as geological features regardless of the dating.

quote:

---

Also the cross section I posted of England shows that there was no disturbance in the strata at the time it is claimed that Pagaea broke up. The strata are shown to have been all laid down and then all raised to a tilt in a block

---

As I have already argued, the scale and the map contradict that interpretation.

quote:

---

The cross section of the Grand Staircase-Grand Canyon area shows the same order of events, all strata laid down before tectonic disturbance.

---

No, it shows that there was tectonic disturbance long before all the strata were laid down. Just look at the tilted section of the Grand Canyon Supergroup. How can you possibly argue that the evidence shows that it wasn't tilted until after the strata above it were deposited ?

That's a pretty big exception, especially given that you are looking at a limited area with only a few examples.The evidence doesn't really confirm that the Claron formation was deposited before the tilt at the far north occurred either. And I don't know how you can say whether the fault at Vermilion Cliffs occurred after the Kayenta formation and later strata were deposited to the North of it or not.Which leaves you remarkably little evidence for even a local claim excepting the Great Unconformity.

quote:

---

The sorting is a secondary issue when the trilobites climb the supposed Geological Time Scale for hundreds of millions of years without changing any more than we see any creature microevolving in a few observable years in current time, same as the coelecanths, while evo theory has reptiles evolving into mammals in a time period or two.

---

Solid evidence beats poor arguments. Yes, the rate of evolution varies (although you don't seem to have any idea of the variety of trilobites - and it is pretty rare for significant changes to happen in just a few years). I doubt you could even quantify the differences between early mammals and their reptile ancestors.The only joke is your argument.

quote:

---

Sure I can and did. It would not have deposited in both places, a vertical mile apart, in the same way, the flat Claron as well as the eroded layer above it -- both had to be there before the raising of the land to the right of the fault; and new deposition should have piled up against the fault line too instead of splitting neatly as it did.

---

None of that is evidence that the tilting of the strata happened after the Claron was deposited. It only addresses the movement associated with the fault.

quote:

---

Also, he dike penetrates to the very top of the formation, and it's associated with the rising of the land right there and therefore with the fault.

---

Again, no evidence relating to the tilt of the lower strata.So unless you beg the question by assuming that all the events happened at the same time it's cleat that your "can and did" is really "can't and didn't even try".

quote:

---

Oh I think it's quite clear that all the faulting and the general upheaval shown on that cross section, the dike, the raising of the land at the far north as well as over the Grand Canyon, all of it was part of one great tectonic upheaval. That fault you mention occurs at a point of great stress, near where the land starts to rise to the south, where one of the cliffs formed, and there are other places to the south where the land is cut, all along that rising level.

---

Looks to me like you're just assuming without evidence. Certainly you don't cite any.

quote:

---

Well of course it's all interpretive, isn't it

---

The interpretation has to be based on the evidence. You can't answer the lack of evidence for your interpretation by saying "it's all interpretive". If the evidence for your "interpretation" isn't there it isn't a good interpretation.

quote:

---

As for the Great Unconformity I wanted to exclude it for the sake of this discussion so as not to get into all that again, but of course I believe it too occurred at the same time as all the rest of the disturbances shown there

---

I'm pretty sure that isn't true. For instance the fact that the upper strata do not share the same tilt is pretty strong evidence against it.

quote:

---

1) the fact that the lowest layer in the intact strata above it is raised up at the unconformity, showing that the rising of the land at the very top into which the canyon is cut was all part of the same action, which had to happen after the strata were down because they wouldn't deposit on a hill like that;

---

You aren't making sense. At the Canyon itself the tilted strata tilt up, while the strata above them dip down. That makes much more sense if the shape of the upper strata is due to a separate, later event.

quote:

---

2) the great quartzite boulder that isn't shown on the cross section but is found embedded in the Tapeats sandstone a quarter mile from its point of origin in the Shinumo layer, showing that the land slid a great distance at the unconformity which fits beautifully with my theory about how it occurred.

---

Which in fact shows that the Shimuno was already lithified and was being eroded at the time that the Tapeats were deposited. An explanation which actually does make sense, unlike yours.Really Faith you do need to try to think clearly about all this instead of either talking about the wrong thing entirely or inventing silly ways to try and fit the evidence to your beliefs.

Typical Faith, trying to blame someone else for her own faults.It's rather pointless really. If you get caught making ignorant mistakes - even trying to build an argument on them - lying is only going to make things worse.

quote:

---

You DO mean the tilted strata to the north of the fault? How could it not happen afterward if the vertical mile drop happened afterward?

---

You are going to have to explain why you are think that. So far as I can see the tilt happened long before the Claron formation was deposited and the displacement which split the Claron formation obviously happened after the Claron formation was deposited (probably long after)

quote:

---

Hm. After reading the rest of your post I'm going to leave it at that. I made my case, you are just floundering around trying to find something to object to.

---

I guess you have to say that rather than admit that I demolished your "case".

Your response makes it rather obvious that RAZD hit the mark.

quote:

---

...all it shows is that Science has a fetish about classifying things to fit the ToE.

---

Which means that you were wrong and you are telling silly lies to try to cover it up.

As usual you accuse others of what you are doing. Except that your attempt was in no way clever. Which is why it took no cleverness to catch you at it.The fact is that you had no idea of the diversity of trilobites. When RAZD showed you the diversity you simply claimed that the classification was wrong. As if you had an objectively correct classification rather than ignorance. But, you see we know that you do not. Your ignorance makes that impossible.

quote:

---

What upper strata? The strata from the Tapeats on up? That makes no sense, so what DO you mean?

---

I mean that - as anyone with eyes can see - at the edge of the Canyon the Supergroup tilts up (towards the Canyon) while the layers above it dip. It's really, really obvious. How could you possible miss it ? Even if I hadn't mentioned it.

quote:

---

I have no idea if you are talking about the same thing I am but it sounds like you aren't. I used to use Paint to illustrate stuff but on this computer I haven't set it up and don't know if I will. The Tapeats, the lowest layer of the canyon strata, mounds up over the angled blocks below the unconformity, the unconformity itself mounding up over it

---

As should be quite obvious I am talking about the original tilt of the Supergroup, not the (obviously later) "mounding".

quote:

---

The immense pressures involved in the action I'm describing would be enough to lithify anything, but the idea that a chunk of quartzite fifteen feet in diameter was just eroded off the Shinumo and then covered in sand REALLY doesn't make sense. How did it get moved a quarter of a mile?

---

Only the geological history could possibly tell us that - or even if it was moved a quarter of a mile. But I will note that boulders are moved in various ways, sometimes for far greater distances.

quote:

---

And how did it just get "eroded" off the layer anyway?

---

I'd imagine the same way most boulders are eroded out of rock. Again, only a detailed investigation of the region could tell us, but it is hardly something that is a priori unlikely,Which is more than can be said for your scenario.Why, for instance would the mounding affect the upper strata when the original tilt of the Supergroup did not ? How do you reconcile the fact that there lava that formed the Cardenas was coming to the surface while the Dox formation was being deposited ? Shouldn't we see a lot more metamorphism in your scenario ? And really your idea of how the boulder got there makes no sense at all.As an explanation for the boulder it is hardly simpler than mine which requires nothing special at all.

quote:

---

I had described the upper strata as mounding OVER the Supergroup. "Dipping" is not a term I'd use for it.

---

Instead of quibbling about terminology why don't you just deal with the fact that, at the Canyon edge, the tilt of the Supergroup and the tilt of the "mounding" are opposed. The Supergroup goes up as you approach the Canyon, the "mounding" goes down.Now since the original tilt is what I was talking about all along, so long as you restrict yourself to the "mounding" you aren't addressing my point at all, let alone disproving it.

quote:

---

I find it hard to consider the quartzite boulder as having occurred by the same processes that produced the boulders you have illustrated. It is embedded IN the Tapeats sandstone a small space above the Great Unconformity a quarter mile from the Shinumo layer, in such a way as to suggest it was broken off that layer and carried that distance by the forces I keep describing.

---

Can you explain the evidence that supports your explanation ? You say there is evidence but I haven't seen it. As I have explained before there is certainly strong evidence against your idea, so you would need rather more than the assumption that normal explanations couldn't work.And now I have listened to the video it seems that even your sources disagree with you. So far as I can see, Garner's claims about "catastrophic debris flows" would explain the presence of the boulder quite nicely.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I find it hard to consider the quartzite boulder as having occurred by the same processes that produced the boulders you have illustrated. It is embedded IN the Tapeats sandstone a small space above the Great Unconformity a quarter mile from the Shinumo layer, in such a way as to suggest it was broken off that layer and carried that distance by the forces I keep describing.

---

I can't imagine that anyone disagreed with that.

quote:

---

I think the rising of the stack over the Supergroup and the movement of the boulder are evidence for my theory of the formation of the Great Unconformity after all the strata were in place.

---

I cannot see any reason to think so. The boulder must have moved while the Tapeats was still being deposited - and after the tilt of the rocks below (strictly speaking) the Great Unconformity. and I can't see any reason to connect the "rising" to the tilt either.

quote:

---

I think the rising up of the Great Unconformity contact over the Supergroup, along with the whole stack of strata above and its rising over the canyon area at the top where the canyon itself was cut into it on the south side (which I argue was part of the same upheaval), is first of all evidence that the strata were all in place when the unconformity occurred.

---

Then please explain why you think so. Because so far as I can see it is obviously a later event. The diagram indicates that the rocks were tilted, faulted and heavily eroded before any of the later strata (currently present) were deposited. And I can provide the reasoning (e.g. there is no "step" at the fault - the tilted rocks are all eroded to the same level, even though there was clearly vertical movement at the fault)

quote:

---

Second my argument includes the horizontal sliding of the tilting Supergroup up against the whole stack above

---

Which is another reason to reject it unless you can provide evidence that something so wildly implausible actually happened.

quote:

---

The extreme heaviness of the three miles or so of strata that were already laid down provided a counterforce to the tectonic movement below,

---

But not the "mounding" ? Why not ? This is looking like a crazy assemblage of ad hoc ideas with no regard for plausibility.

quote:

---

though the uplift would have cracked the uppermost strata which was the opening that became the Grand Canyon.

---

Imaginative but it hardly accounts for the evidence that the river carved the Canyon.

quote:

---

The same upheaval released the magma beneath the area and created the granite and the schist, probably quite rapidly because of the immense pressure between the weight above, the tectonic force from the side below and the intense heat of the magma

---

And how do you square that with the Cardenas lava reaching the (then) surface while the Dox formation was being deposited ?Sorry, wild theorising which ignores so much of the relevant evidence does not constitute a sound argument.