Have any Biblical literalists been to the American Southwest?

quote:

---

It is based on witness evidence, the very best kind of evidence there is.

---

Faith.Have you forgotten our conversation from many months ago regarding the unreliability of eye-witness accounts?Do we need to go over the facts again?

You are not addressing what was actually said. The context of my comment was the Grand Canyon area to the far right of the diagram, and its hump and slope to the north of it. The strata remain neatly parallel in the diagram which would not have happened if they had been deposited after the hump and its slope had been formed.As for the fault line area to the far left of the diagram, it merely begs the question to insist that V could not have been in place when the tilt occurred, simply because of its flat nature. I have been pointing to other clues that it was indeed in place before, mostly the upward curve toward the fault line of the parallel strata on the upper right of the fault line, which is maintained by the V layer as well as the others. This curve would not be there if V had been laid down after the fault had occurred. The upper surface of V would have been horizontal, not curved in that case. Also the V layer to the left of the fault line would not simply look so neatly sheared as it does. It would have most likely drifted against the fault line if it had been laid down after the fault shift had occurred. Also the tilting was most likely caused by the faulting itself. Therefore it was all in place and the tilting occurred without disturbing the upper horizontal layer -- and I believe there were likely many many more horizontal layers there to be counterforce to the tilting. Again, you are addressing the wrong thing. Again you beg the question. This is not so if the signs that V was already in place are correct. There had to be the same amount of erosion there as horizontally, as the same amount of corners of the layers are missing there as along the horizontal line, and had to be sheared off somehow or other, as they are tilted against the fault face in the same way. Take a horizontal block of layers, tilt it and form a new horizontally oriented block -- that involves cutting off the ends of the layers to get it to fit. Erosion had to happen in both planes. I've been proposing that the forces involved -- the faulting on the far left, the magma rising under the GC -- sheared off the top of the tilted layers in the act of tilting them, the shearing being caused by friction between the upper layers and the lower layers, facilitated by the weight of the upper layers and slippage between layers. But if I've shown that V had to have been in place before the fault occurred, as I believe I have, then the explanation can come later in any case.

Not here. It is off topic. However, I couldn't possibly have forgotten that conversation. You consistently refused to address the main point I was making, never even seemed to grasp it, and your argument was therefore completely irrelevant to that point although I conceded your completely irrelevant points as they were correct enough in their own context, and this was the case from the beginning to the end of the discussion.Cheers.

This is the kind of statement that illustrates the problem in trying to discuss geology with you Faith. You presume to have more knowledge based on looking at a few diagrams and pictures then an army of geologists who have spent lifetimes studying the ACTUAL ROCKS, the interfaces, chemical composition, radionucleotide content, etc. Yes they are sure of this because the mechanics are impossible. There is no "otherwise" about it. The mechanics can be tested and observed. Sedimentation and magma intrusions have been directly observed. It is known what happens when magma cools in air versus what happens when it cools inside a rock formation. It is known what an eroded interface versus a sheared interface looks like. But even a trained geologist cannot be sure of such things from a picture alone let alone a diagram. You have incredible chutzpa thinking you can second guess field geologists using a diagram from your wannabe geologist armchair perch. On top of all that you have a completely unrealistic notion of geological time that no competent geologist accepts - that is refuted with multiple dating techniques including tree ring data. Ok. Rant finished and so am I with you as far as geology discussions go. We are getting nowhere.

How does the flood explain why the evidence for Appalachian Orogony is spread out over 3 continent?. In other words, why do the Appalachians exist in North America, Western Europe, and Northern Africa?This message has been edited by Jazzns, 09-09-2005 02:37 PM

---

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

Sorry, Ben, I don't know what I might have misattributed to you in that post and I'm sorry if that was the case. I'm kind of swamped at the moment however and your post is a side issue.I don't even want to get off onto this topic. I didn't claim I was doing science, I was merely answering the refrain that I'm arguing religion, which I'm not doing, even if my premise comes from the Bible. Even the premise is not a "religious" premise, it's a question of historical and physical fact.If you have another name for what I'm doing than "science," as long as it isn't "religion," I'll consider it, but I don't see what's wrong with the term "science" myself even if I haven't been pushing it -- I think it was robinrohan who brought it up. Anything that raises questions about the physical world and tries to answer them in physical terms ought to fall into the category it seems to me.But I really don't care a whole lot at the moment. I'm rushing on to other posts in this thread, as my preoccupation is with the formations in the Southwest and not these side issues, but I may come back to yours later.

Calling oneself a Christian without believing the whole Bible is very problematic, to put it nicely. For those who believe the Bible and commit to taking it exactly as written without imposing any extrabiblical notions on it, YEC is the only position consistent with its revelation.Also, the rational mind is NOT merely "a part of creation." We are fallen. That means our rational minds are NOT trustworthy. The whole creation is fallen. That's why we need revelation.

Faith,Fair enough. But I think at the center of your interaction with the others is this disagreement about science. In my view, the disagreement is what blocks you and your debate partner from really engaging in simple productive debate. Things are too tense because of a fundamental disagreement with the philosophy that's going on. You feel slighted because you feel your methods are the same as those of scientists, and others feel frustrated because they're trying to force your methodology to be science, and arguing against it as if it is.I'd appreciate if you make some time to talk it through at some point. I'd really like to find a way to promote better interaction between members who engage you and you. I'm not blaming either side; I think neither side is seeing what the major problem is.At least, how I see it from my perch.Ben

If you want Biblical literalists to respond to a topic like this, since most of us have been banned from the science threads, you are going to have to put it in the nonscience fora -- as was done with this one because our input WAS wanted -- or simply realize that you are only going to have these discussions between yourselves.I was perfectly content on this thread to simply state that the Southwest looks to me like it was formed by a great flood, in answer to Schrafinator's contention that to her equally subjective observation it validates OE theory. But I got challenged and off we go into the scientific questions.

You are in no position to judge either my Christianity or the genuineness of my belief in the Bible. Belief in the Bible is not contingent on what parts one takes as literal historical truth and what one treats as allegory. We all pick and choose to one extent or another. Besides not all Christians even accept the same Bible so which "whole" Bible do you refer to? I know, off topic so you don't have to answer but I could not let that presumptious statement slide.

OK. First, there ARE no layers above V at the moment. I postulate however that there WERE when the faulting occurred. V does not continue over to the Grand Canyon area either.I'm more interested in establishing that V had to already be in place than the mechanics of how it occurred, because if it was already in place then I can leave it to the geologists to figure out the mechanics. But the counterforce I keep proposing is the great weight of the upper layers plus the slippage factor between layers. In the Grand Canyon area the upper layers are there -- except that those that continue over the Grand Staircase must have once been there and since eroded away. At the hurricane fault I postulate that there had to have been many layers above V that have also since eroded away, in order to have the upper weight be the counterforce. I keep thinking I have seen this phenomenon on a small scale but I can't come up with a good illustration or experiment. I think of stacking all kinds of things to see how force from beneath can displace lower levels but not upper ones, but I can't think of things that are very close to layers of sediments. Clay doesn't really work -- too sticky and you need different composition of different layers. Cardboard or boards don't really work -- too slippery. Pancakes don't really work -- too soft and crumbly. In all cases you CAN displace lower layers without disturbing the horizontality or at least parallel structure of the above layers, by holding down the upper layers to simulate weight while you turn lower layers, but it wouldn't be all that satisfying an experiment without a better approximation to the real structures and forces.This message has been edited by Faith, 09-09-2005 05:15 PM

quote:

---

You are not addressing what was actually said. The context of my comment was the Grand Canyon area to the far right of the diagram, and its hump and slope to the north of it.

---

This is a lie. I was addressing what was said by pointing out contradictory evidence.

quote:

---

As for the fault line area to the far left of the diagram, it merely begs the question to insist that V could not have been in place when the tilt occurred, simply because of its flat nature

---

This is another lie. It is no different from your insistence that the stratum to the right must have been deposited before the fault. Except that the evidnece is better - and against what you want to beleive. But neither of those make it "begging the question"It is not begging the question to offer an explanation of how the right hand side of the fault could appear as it does if V was deposited after the fault. Your objewction therefore is obviously false.

quote:

---

Again, you are addressing the wrong thing.

---

Another lie, relevant evidence is precisely the RIGHT thing to discuss. It does not become "wrong" simply because it is against the conclusion you want to reach

quote:

---

Again you beg the question. This is not so if the signs that V was already in place are correct.

---

Another lie. It is not "begging the question" to look for alternative explanations for the appearance formations on the the right hand side.

quote:

---

There had to be the same amount of erosion there as horizontally, as the same amount of corners of the layers are missing there as along the horizontal line, and had to be sheared off somehow or other, asthey are tilted against the fault face in the same way. Take a horizontal block of layers, tilt it and form a new horizontally oriented block -- that involves cutting off the ends of the layers to get it to fit. Erosion
had to happen in both planes.

---

That just doesn't make sense. Firstly V shoud be affected in the same way and it obviously isn't. Secondly, there doesn't need to be much erosin at the fault. When the fault occurrs it is like a cut, so it will remain straight. Afterwards the forces pushing the rocks together (the reason why the strata are buckling upwards) will maintain the contact, even if it also forces further tilting.So there is no need for significant erosion at the fault line - or any reason to assume it.

Maybe you missed it, maybe you skipped it, I've noticed you are replying to posts after my 142, so I'll just ask again here.If the layers beneith "V" tilted and left "V" flat, then the area to the layer directly beneath V (Sub-V) should be sloping away from V at the same angle as all the others.My question is, given your theory, what do we expect to find in the space between V and Sub-V, as the further we travel to the left of the diagram, the more vacant space should appear.If you are having trouble visuallizing what I'm talking about. Take two pencils and set them on top of one another. Now tilt the bottom one down away from the top. See the openning it creates? Something's gotta be in there.

No of course not. What point would you be making? Yes. But what point are you making with this observation?

If I'm following what you are saying, and I'm not entirely sure, but if so I would anticipate possibly the rubble created by the shearing of all the layers in the process of tilting might fill the gap. Or possibly there would not be a gap at all but the chunk of layers would break at that point, with possibly another separate chunk of the same sequence of layers to the left, tilted the same perhaps --another broken and tilted fragment like the twin unconformities illustrated under the Grand Canyon. Or possibly even the horizontality wasn't particularly disturbed to the left of it and another sheared-off interface occurred. Or maybe even the upper layer would slope down over the tilted layers. It depends I suppose. Do you happen to know what is there? OK.But I fail to see how my guesses would say anything about my observation that V was no doubt already in place before the fault occurred.