Summations Only

quote:

---

Sorry, no matter what problems you can find, the fact remains that the rise or hill over the Supergroup occurred after all the strata were in place and pushed up the entire stack.

---

Even if you’re right it has no real significance to my points.

quote:

---

Yes I didn't answer you very clearly but you need to be asked where the tilted Supergroup went if it wasn't the reason for the rise over it. If there was only, say, schist there, how did the Supergroup get there?:

---

This makes no sense whatsoever. First you ask where it went (implying that it was there and went away?) and then you talk as if I think it wasn’t there at all.So let us make it simple. I think that the supergroup was tilted and eroded to pretty much its present state before the Tapeats was deposited, as the evidence indicates. The uplift curved the surface but did not add to it or remove anything from it. And I am quite happy to believe that the uplift occurred even later than the deposition of the Tapeats.

I'm not sure what "cross cutting features" are, but I know from the cross section that the strata had to be laid down before any of the tectonic disturbances occurred including the rise over the Supergroup, which was caused by the pushing up and tilting of the Supregroup..Don't follow you about the Kaibab uplift. I suppose it's the whole pushing up of the stack that I attribute to the tectonic movements below the Tapeats? Yes, but younger by a very short period of time. Pressure occurs, pushing the Supergroup, splitting it into two blocks and sliding it up against and under the Tapeats. Probably all happened within a very short period of time, the faulting occurring just before the impact with the Tapeats.. No, that is not true: not younger than their deposition, they were already formed as strata, but then they split into two blocks in the tectonic event. Don't picture "below the Supergroup" but wherever the unconformity directly cuts the granite, or the schist, it IS younger but not necessarily by much. Neither of those rocks occurs above the unconformity. Yes of course Not at all. Even in the one overall tectonic upheaval things would have happened one after another in a brief time frame. But nothing you've said disagrees with me.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There is no evidence for that. Surface of the eroded Supergroup? How did it curve it? So it also curved the Tapeats and all the other strata followed that curve? But there is no reason for it to have caused the curve. And I reject the idea that the strata deposited on the curve.

quote:

---

There is no evidence for that.

---

There is plenty. The monadnocks in the Shinumo quartzite, the fossils - especially the trace fossils in the Tapeats, even the boulder you keep mentioning.

quote:

---

Surface of the eroded Supergroup? How did it curve it?

---

By pushing it up - the force greatest where the curve is highest.

quote:

---

So it also curved the Tapeats and all the other strata followed that curve?

---

That’s what you’ve been saying.

quote:

---

But there is no reason for it to have caused the curve.

---

Why not, and what do you think did ?

quote:

---

And I reject the idea that the strata deposited on the curve.

---

Then obviously they were pushed up by a force that would produce the curve. And the uplift fits perfectly.

If it was limestone rather than quartzite I might have to take it seriously, but quartzite no. Not if the Flood caused it all. The boulder is evidence of the horizontal movement pf the Supergroup beneath the Tapeats. What force? What was there to push it up?: I certainly have not. I've said strata will not deposit on a rise. I've said they were already laid down and THEN the whole stack was curved as a block. It would take tectonic force to curve a layer or layers, and that's what I think did it, AFTER all the strata were in place. You haven't given any cause for the uplift to have occurred. How is the uplift a "force?" You need a force to CAUSE the uplift but you haven't given one. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If you push up from the bottom the greatest pressure will be on the bottom strata due to the weight of the strata above it.

quote:

---

If it was limestone rather than quartzite I might have to take it seriously, but quartzite no

---

I note that you offer no explanation of the supposed problem.

quote:

---

Not if the Flood caused it all.

---

That’s a silly response. If I used the same sort of argument you’d never accept it. Anyway the evidence very strongly indicates that the Flood didn’t cause it all. Creationists have had 200 years to find an explanation for the order of the fossil record. And they still haven’t got close. Remember the topic? We have the fossils, we win.

quote:

---

The boulder is evidence of the horizontal movement pf the Supergroup beneath the Tapeats

---

If there was this massive horizontal movement filing down the rocks you would have better evidence. The abrasion marks for one. (The filing down IS abrasion. No marks, no evidence of abrasion)So no, that boulder is better explained as a rock detached from the Shinumo while the Tapeats was being deposited.

quote:

---

What force?

---

There has to be some upward force for an uplift right ? Do you have an explanation for the curve that doesn’t involve some force pushing it up ?

quote:

---

I certainly have not. I've said strata will not deposit on a rise. I've said they were already laid down and THEN the whole stack was curved as a block.

---

Sorry, I thought that you understood that after the Tapeats was deposited includes long after it was deposited. Potentially after everything else. It really doesn't matter for this discussion how late you push it so I’m not arguing about it.

quote:

---

It would take tectonic force to curve a layer or layers, and that's what I think did it, AFTER all the strata were in place. You haven't given any cause for the uplift to have occurred.

---

Then go with that. It has nothing to do with the evidence that the supergroup was tilted before the uplift occurred.

Here's the diagram again for reference: I just looked up the Hurricane Fault to see if I could get some more details about it, and now I'm more confused than ever. The diagram is a north/south cross section looking in from the west. The diagram shows the Hurricane fault, so you'd think the fault must run east/west, but Wikipedia says it runs north/south. How can the diagram display a north/south running fault in a north/south cross section?I know the answer. Obviously the Hurricane Fault doesn't run precisely north/south, and so it does intersect with the diagram's north/south cross section, but unfortunately for me my visualization skills don't extend to these kinds of subtleties. I'm unable to extrapolate in my mind what the diagram's layers are doing behind the page (east) and above the page (west), and your explanation describes strata in terms of east and west. Anyway, I'll struggle on... Is the upthrust side to the right of the Hurricane Fault in the diagram? Why to the west? I understand about the original tilt, but I can't tell from the diagram whether the layers would be tilted upward or downward to the east. Which is it, and how did you figure that out? Not sure how to interpret "chopped them off." Leaving drag faulting aside, my main confusion is how the strata on opposite sides of the fault could have opposite tilts. It almost as if the region were uplifted centered roughly at where the Hurricane fault is now, then a large central portion of the uplifted region just disappeared, and what remained to the left and right of this central portion was somehow brought together at the Hurricane Fault.This is, of course, impossible, but what is shown in the diagram looks equally impossible. Is it possible that the diagram is inaccurate? Only a small extent of the layers to the left of the Hurricane Fault are shown. Could their tilt just be a greatly exaggerated representation of a dragging fault, while the dragging fault to the right of the Hurricane Fault was completely left out? But there could be no erosion of still-buried strata, and in the diagram there's no drag faulting of the buried layers to the right of the fault. Understood. So now I'll assume you're referring to the strata to the left of the Hurricane fault. But the strata to the left of the Hurricane fault are all buried - how could there have been any erosion? I don't understand this part, either. If the uplifted area was some miles to the left of the Hurricane Fault and off the diagram, why wouldn't those layers slope upward to the left?--Percy

This idiocy has been going on for years now. To my knowledge, all of Faith's objections are drawn solely from that very drawing, which is not even to scale. Coupled with her religion's requirement that she deny reality, that's all that she's going on.I'm sorry, but some people are just so hopelessly lost that we have to give up on them. Faith will just simply make no effort to think anything through for fear of what she might discover -- look at how she had proven all on her own that micro-evolution leads to macro-evolution, only to immediately back-pedal and deny everything the moment she realized what she had done. I'm sorry, but she is just a hopeless case.

If nothing else, it is an example to the world of how one has to ignore all human reason and human intellect in order to hold onto creationist beliefs.

That anybody could get things this wrong is pretty depressing but I guess all it really means is I'm stupid to post at EvC at all because nobody gets it right. For this particular argument yes that cross section is, not my "objections" but the basis for my own hypothesis that contradicts the establishment view. The evidence is there that the strata were laid down before anything else happened and that is evidence for a young earth. I do wonder what sort of mental aberration makes it so difficult for you just to follow the logic. Well, that's just wrong. I know the standard interpretation and I'm trying to get across my alternative, so I have no reason to keep slogging through the same old same old. You really are obliged, if you have even an ounce of fairness in you, to point out where I supposedly committed this folly. I've shown over and over that evolution is limited to microevolution, and has to come to an end because of the way population genetics operates.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Otherwise known as the evidence-based interpretation. You haven't presented any evidence. The diagram indicates more than one tectonic event. One tectonic event tilted the layers beneath Cedar City and Cedar Breaks. Another tectonic event tilted the layers of the Supergroup. Yet another tectonic event uplifted the Grand Canyon region, tilting the Paleozoic layers. There is no evidence or mechanism for rapid deposition of the geological strata. If by curve you mean the uplift of the Grand Canyon region, then this is wrong on a several counts. First, the vertical axis of the diagram is greatly exaggerated - the slope of the Paleozoic layers from the Chocolate Cliffs up to the Grand Canyon area is much less than on the diagram. Second, even if the slope were as shown, I proved a couple years ago that sediments have no trouble accumulating evenly on mild slopes, something that is intuitively obvious anyway. Third, the region had not yet been uplifted when the Paleozoic layers were deposited - it was usually submerged and fairly flat. I think everyone you're debating with is going to argue from an evidence-based persective. Really, you're done here? But you've already said as much a number of times. This is from your Message 705: And this is from Message 736: Adn this is from Message 769: And yet here you still are. Apparently not even you know what you're going to do.--Percy

I've described the evidence many times and I've made the case that it shows one tectonic event. End of discussion.

Now Faith, you know that is just another porker. You keep asserting stuff but you do not provide evidence or model or process or procedure or mechanism that explains how your magical flood can do such things.

For convenience, here's the image again: I'm again assuming that by curve you're referring to the uplift of the region from the Chocolate Cliffs to the right side of the diagram. The tilting of the Supergroup could not have occurred while buried beneath the Paleozoic layers because cubic miles of rock could not simply disappear. You said this in your Message 894: The missing rock did not become Vishnu Schist because it is Vishnu Schist and not the rubbled remains of Supergroup strata. And it wouldn't have been mere tons of rock. It would have been cubic miles of rock, which would have been billions and billions and billions of tons.And you said this in your Message 826: The missing rock was not washed down the canyon or buried because in most places the Supergroup is not exposed at all, being completely buried beneath Paleozoic layers. Note that in the diagram the left block of the Supergroup isn't anywhere close to the canyon. It isn't a "supposed problem". It is very real. You can't just ignore it.--Percy