Summations Only

That drawing is not evidence, but rather an artist's compilation and representation of the actual evidence. The actual evidence are the rock formations themselves. Others have tried to point you to the actual evidence and presented photographs of the actual evidence (which are much better than a drawing that is not even to scale), but you have refused all evidence in favor of that drawing.Faith, how many years has it been that we've had to repeated ask you to please learn some geology! You never have. Why not? Because of your bad theology? You presented the "basic felid created kind" in order to argue against macro-evolution. For once, you went against type and actually thought through the problem and stepped through the process by which the original Ur-felid had through the accumulation of micro-evolution steps resulted in the formation of new species. When we pointed out that that result was macro-evolution, you immediately went into denial and started redefining the world. Changing reality through redefining only works for lawyers, theologians, and deceivers. It does not work in the real world.

I'm sorry, you are wrong, the drawing does indeed show evidence that proves the earth is young. It would have to be grossly in error on a few simple points for this conclusion to be wrong, and it's not.I've read a lot of Geology, I have five Geology books I consult. You just can't stand the idea that anyone would find them at fault.No idea what your example means. I don't remember it and you don't give enough information to figure it out.

The dating shows its old.Creationists have never been able to do more than try and hand-wave that evidence away. They have to ignore what they can't disprove.

You've again have posted a response with no substance. In terms of evidence that supports your position, no, you really haven't. For example, this is from your Message 881: Do you see what you did here? You declared what happened, that the strata were pushed up by the Supergroup, and then you call that evidence. You're doing things precisely backwards. You should not baldly declare what you think happened and then call that evidence. You should first find the evidence, then figure out what the evidence says happened. In this case you need evidence that the Supergroup somehow caused the uplift of the Grand Canyon region. Given that the Supergroup underlies only part of the Grand Canyon region, not all of it, you shouldn't expect to find such evidence.You'll never find evidence that the Supergroup blocks tilted while buried because that's impossible because it would require cubic miles of rock to disappear.Back to the current message: All you've done is baldly declare that there was one tectonic event without evidence or argument.First, even to you it must be obvious that there is more than one tectonic event represented in the diagram. On the left by Cedar City is one set of tilted layers, and on the right is another set of tilted layers. There are at least two independent tectonic events represented in the diagram.Second, you know that tectonic forces can tilt layers. So obviously, since buried layers cannot tilt without affecting overlying layers, the Supergroup was tilted by one tectonic event, an uplift event since the Supergroup layers were later eroded flat. Much later after the Paleozoic layers had been deposited the Grand Canyon region (all of it: the Vishnu Schist, the Supergroup blocks, and the Paleozoic layers) was uplifted, creating tilted layers to the left and right of the highest elevation.Third, look closely at the tops of the two Supergroup blocks - they follow the contours of the overlying Tapeats. That's because the Supergroup was already flat when the Tapeats was deposited, with the exception of some hard Shinumo Quartzite that eroded much more slowly than the rest of the Supergroup and so was an island in the sea whose coastline formed the Tapeats.If you want your scenario of the Supergroup strata tilting while buried to not be rejected out of hand then you need an explanation that's not impossible for where the cubic miles of rock went.--Percy

What are you looking at in this diagram of geological strata that says "young" to you?There is a huge amount of evidence that says the Earth is ancient and that a global flood did not create the geology we observe, and you've proven unable to account for any of it:

• Floods cannot leave behind alternating sedimentary layers such as sandstone then shale then limestone then shale then standstone.
• In a flood the heavier and denser the sediments the faster they should settle out. The heaviest/densest sediments are not at the bottom of the geological column, and the lightest/least-dense sediments are not at the top.
• Rock does not form quickly by drying - lithification takes great pressure and time.
• Walther's Law is a slow process that requires runoff from land to feed into coastlines where sediments are sorted according to water energy, the densest sediments settling closest to shore (sand), and lighter sediments settling further from shore (mudstone, siltstone, claystone).
• Fossils increasingly differ from modern forms with increasing depth, consistent with the tempo of evolution and impossible for a flood to achieve.
• Radiometric elements increase in age with increasing depth, a type of sorting of which a flood is incapable.
• Radiometric dating confirms the great antiquity of the Earth.
• The dating of moon rocks confirms the great antiquity of the Earth/moon system.
• In order for a sedimentary layer to lithify into rock it must be deeply buried. Given sedimentation rates of several inches per century (an average) it takes a great deal of time for a sedimentary layer to become deeply buried.
• In order for a layer of buried sedimentary rock to be exposed it must be uplifted through tectonic forces, then the overlying layers must be eroded away, which takes a great deal of time.
• An eroded surface that becomes a region of net sedimentation will have an unconformity between the old and new layers. The sedimentary sequence at many places around the globe includes many unconformities, and each unconformity represents the passage of a great deal of time.

In what ways would the diagram have to be "grossly in error" for it to say "old" to you? Knowledge of geology is not reflected in your messages. We'd be delighted to find geology books, indeed any science books, at fault. New science is exciting.--Percy

Sure, that's the Kaibab uplift. That's always been known to be late. Look at one of the controlling faults about half-way across the section. Once again, easy. The Vishnu was eroded back in the Proterozoic and then the Supergroup was deposited on that erosional surface.

You are correct. It is deceiving. I'm not convinced that the north arrow is correct on the diagram. My vague knowledge of the region tells me that the section runs WNW to ESE. Yes, however, I should have written 'upthrown' to be more specific. Dip directions are always in the down direction. So if the fault dragged the layers on the east side down they should dip to the west. Dow to the east. Okay, this is the tricky part. The actual uplift is west of the Hurriane Fault even though it is now 'downdropped' against the east side of the fault. As far as I'm concerned, if I didn't make the section it is to be questioned. I think there is a bit of artistic license going on here. Exactly. Anything still buried should retain the original relationships across the fault. If you project the fault upward it goes into the sky. rocks to the east of the projection are exposed to erosion. Exactly. That is the point. The downthrown side that we can see is not eroded and retains the drag fold aspect. If you went farther off to the west, I think you would see the rocks reverse dip and rise to the west. In fact there is an angular unconformity that I'm not sure about. It shows a lot of deformation and erosion prior to deposition of the Claron.This section covers a whole lot of territory and is at least partly schematic.

All good observations. I was wishing earlier that it was more of a scientific cross section, but when you think about it, the thing covers a vast amount of terranes. Honestly, I drove across parts of it just yesterday and it's really a lot more complex than shown here.

quote:

---

I'm sorry, you are wrong, the drawing does indeed show evidence that proves the earth is young. It would have to be grossly in error on a few simple points for this conclusion to be wrong, and it's not.

---

Or you would have to grossly be in error. Which you are. I think that has been more than adequately established. Just one of my posts to remind you of that Message 889It’s really amazing that you almost never admit your errors even when you obviously know that your position is indefensible. E.g. the lack of any reply to Message 836 after already evading the question once. Or even worse the refusal to answer Message 789 because it had already been shown to you that your claim was ridiculous - and you still doubled down by repeating it. It’s daft enough to say that something has to be true when you have neither evidence that it is or know of any reason why it should be.

quote:

---

I've read a lot of Geology, I have five Geology books I consult. You just can't stand the idea that anyone would find them at fault.

---

I don’t think that disagreeing with your fantasies can reasonably be considered a fault in the books. Although you seem to consider it so.I will also note that reading material without taking it in and remembering it is hardly useful.Remember Faith, we are not your support group. We don’t have to pretend that you are right. When you are ridiculously wrong we get to say so, and whining about it and attacking us for doing so is just an attempt at bullying.

Distribution of Tapeats Sandstone in North America:A beach???! Knife-edge tight contact between the Coconino Sandstone and the Hermit formation in the Grand Canyon:Millions of years between deposition???! East Kaibab monocline spanning Kaibab to Muav to Bright Angel Shale to Tapeats:No problem, rock can be millions of years old and even different ages in the millions of years and bend easily as a block? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The image says nothing about what it's showing. Can you provide a link to the document it came from? The image itself resides at the Southern California Seminary's website. Steve Austin and John Baumgardner are on the staff: The Faculty, Staff, and Guest Lecturers for the SCS.This webpage from the United States Geological Service says that the areal extent of the Tapeats is Arizona, Caflifornia, Nevada and Utah: USGS: Tapeats Sandstone. What you probably actually have there in that image is the total extent of similar sandstone layers that extend across not just North America but much of the world. As Six bad arguments from Answers in Genesis (Part 3) says:

quote:

---

Sandstones analogous to the Tapeats Sandstone form a continuous layer at the base of the Cambrian sediments in much of North America. In Montana this layer is known as the Flathead Sandstone, in Colorado it is the Sawatch Sandstone, in the Midwest it is the St. Simon Sandstone, and in New York it is the Potsdam Sandstone.

---

That webpage goes on to quote from the book The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record by Derek Ager:

quote:

---

Even more remarkable than the basal Ordovician quartzite is the one that is found, almost all over the world, at the bottom of the Cambrian. [] Perhaps all that it is safe to say in this context is that very commonly around the world one finds an unfossiliferous quartzite conformably below fossiliferous Lower Cambrian and unconformably above a great variety of Precambrian rocks. This is true wherever one sees the base of the Cambrian in Britain, it is true in east Greenland, it is true in the Canadian Rockies and it is true in South Australia. In fact it is even more remarkable than this, in that it is not only the quartzite, but the whole deepening succession that tends to turn up almost everywhere; i.e. a basal conglomerate, followed by marine shales and thin limestones. In the northern Rockies one can even recognize at this level the Pipe Rock’ of the Scottish Highlands—a bed full of borings known as Skolithos.

​

(Ager, The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record, 2nd edition, p.11).

​

[a few explanations: 1. For our purposes here, quartzite is a very-well cemented or slightly metamorphosed sandstone. 2. Skolithos is a trace fossil interpreted as worm borings or tubes]

---

These sandstone layers are coastal deposits, so they could represent coastal desert, beach, or nearshore deposits. The contact between the Hermit Formation and the Coconino Sandstone is an unconformity, meaning that the top of the Hermit was eroded away before the Coconino was deposited. The separation in time between the top of the Hermit and bottom of the Coconino cannot be known with precision, but it must be less than 5 million years since that is the difference in age between the two layers. The Hermit varies in thickness from 100 to 900 feet (Geology of the Grand Canyon area). I don't know how flat it is throughout its extent, but erosion does tend to erode things flat, like the New Hampshire coastline I posted about yesterday, or like Kansas: Yes, of course, how many times has this been described for you? On a scale of miles rock is very pliable. Keep in mind that the vertical scale in your image is greatly expanded. I assume you found your image at the webpage Grand Canyon strata show geologic time is imaginary of the Creation Ministries website, which says:

quote:

---

Yet, the evidence indicates that the sediments were soft and unconsolidated when they bent. Instead of fracturing like the basement did, the entire layer thinned as it bent. The sand grains show no evidence that the material was brittle and rock-hard, because none of the grains are elongated.1 Neither has the mineral cementing the grains been broken and recrystallized. Instead, the evidence points to the whole 1,200-m (4,000-ft) thickness of strata being still ‘plastic’ when it was uplifted. In other words, the millions of years of geologic time are imaginary. This ‘plastic’ deformation of Grand Canyon strata dramatically demonstrates the reality of the catastrophic global Flood of Noah’s day.

---

But as I said, the vertical scale of the image is greatly expanded. In reality it looks something closer to this: Creation Ministries says the great bending would have produced fractures and elongated grains, but the great bending simply isn't there, and again, on a scale of miles rock is plastic anyway.So, no reply to any of the messages to you?--Percy

You're right about that map. I was involved in a discussion of exactly that at at Talk Rational which I can't find now. I will look again.

Ah: Geological Provincialism | The Institute for Creation Research

quote:

---

By the way, the rock layer called the Tapeats Sandstone is not restricted to Grand Canyon. The same rock layer in central Utah is known as the Tintic Quartzite; in northeastern Utah it is the Lodore Quartzite; in Wyoming and Montana it is the Flathead Sandstone; in Colorado it is the Sawatch Sandstone; in South Dakota it is the Deadwood Quartzite; in the Midwest it is the St. Simon Sandstone; in the Ozarks it is the Lamotte Sandstone; and in northern New York state it is the Potsdam Sandstone. The confusion of names should not obscure the fact that it is one continuous sandstone layer; the Potsdam Sandstone of the Northeast is unbelievably similar to the Tapeats Sandstone of Arizona, complete with the Great Unconformity at the base and worm burrows near the top!

---

Testy Explains the Layers Which Include the Tonto Group - Page 68:

quote:

---

Look at the formations you listed. Different depths, different compositions, some metamorphic. Obviously the same, right?

---

The source of the Tapeats map is an article by Baumgardner at the seminary's website. What it says is "...and its equivalents" means it's all one continuous layer, so what's the problem? Even sand covering four states is no "beach' but when you add all the other deposits that cover the continent in the same layer it's even less of a beach. What point are you trying to make? Everything you quote about the consistency of the deposits across the world supports the Flood. Not THIS flat for pete's sake. It is utterly absurd to think such a tight contact could occur from erosion, let alone after millions of years.I don't know how you can deny that the Tapeats map is referring to a single layer, or claim with a straight face that a knife-edge contact would occur after millions of years. Evolution/Old Earth theory is nuts.I'll give you the Kaibab Monocline though since I didn't allow for the exaggerated vertical scale. I don't think rock hardened over millions of years is going to follow even that gentle slope however.
, Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's all one continuous sandstone layer. Quartzite is just metamorphic sandstone.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.