Since I gave some of my arguments against creationist biological views in the last couple of posts, might as well ow give an argument or two against the geological gcreationist view as well. Why not? Now I can have both Todd Wood and Paul Garner rolling their eyes and snarling at me in my everactive imagination.
For this topic I rely heavily on one cross section of the area from the Grand Staircase in Utah south throught the Grand Canyon in Arizona, a couple hundred miles I think. It shows all the strata to a depth aof almost two miles I think, on the north eled and up tot the Permian or about a mile at the south end. It shows the cliffs tat the top left that form the Grand Staricase with its canyons, and it shows the Grand canyon cut into a mounded area at the other end, as well as the Great Unconformity beneath theGrand Canyon and a volcano on the far notrth end.
jI first used this cross section to argue that there is nop disturbance to the strata during their long millions of years, to prove that they couldn't be time periods on this very active planet with such a calm history, but now that I've heard from the creatinoists that great tectonic activity is supposed to have occurred during the Flood, which according to creationists is when the strata were laid down, this answers that idea as well. There is simply no hnint toof the kind of bashing and crashing they desdribe during the period of the laying down of the sedimentary layers. None. There they are, all laid out obviously originally hoizontal and originally straight.
They are only slightly move from their horigonatal straight position on the crsos section, as the entire block of land is show n to have been uplifted on the north, from which it inclines downward to the Grand Canyon area, interruptyed there by that mounded area where the land is pushed up above the Grat Unconformity, while the strata remain in place all as one unit or block over that mound. This clearly shows that the tectonic upheaval that lifted the land on the north and made that mound on the right occurred after the strata were all in place, not during or before it. The strata follow the contour of the entire land area. You may be able to find the cross section at Grand Canyon Escalanate National Park, but the last time I found it they'd put some notes ove it which to my mind makes it less valuable as a resource although the main information may still be available.
The fact that there was no tectonic disturbance until all the strata were in place has implications first of all for the theory of evolution, since if you can get tyhat much disturbance in our time how could it have happened that it never occurred during those muillions upon millions of years as the so called time periods were passing over the surface of the planet?
But now it has implications as well for the creatijnist view of the tectonic activity that they think occurred during the Flood. Surely it would have disturbed the strata during their laying down if that had been the case no? But there is no sign of such disturbance. ALL the disturbance to be seen on this cross section clearly occurred AFTER the strata were all in place from Cambrian to Holocene.
Not only was the land uplifted as described abov after the strata were all in place, but the volcano erupted afterward, as can be seen in the fact that the magma rises from the ery bottom of the stack to the fvery top at the far left. One straight line of magma from bottom to top. The volcano erupted AFTER the strata were in place and the magma rose up through ALL the strata that were already there.
The upligting of the land to the north is no doubt what caused the breaking up of the land that created the cliffs that became the Grand Staircase, washing away whatever was loosened probably in the receding Vlood waers. The upper strata were all washed away down to the Permian lahyewr from the bottom cliff of the Staircase through the Grand Canyon area. The Grand Canyon itself I figure was cut at the same time as the mounding of that area aoccurred, also after the strata were all in place. I figure the uppermost layers would have been strained by the mounding and started breaking up and washing away and that's when the canyon was cut into the south side of the mounded area.
So from all this I also conclude that the Great Unconformity formed after the strata were all in place as well, being as I think the diagram clearly shows, the ause of that mounding up in the Grand Canyon area above it. Tectonic formces pushed strata beneath the Cambrian layer into that tilted position at that point and that pushed the whole bllcick of strata lying overhead into the mounted form, into which the canyon broke as a result of the strain on the upper layers from the mounding. That's my theory.
I get a lot more out of this crosss section than just these points but I think they are enough to bget across why I don't accewpt the idea that there was a lot of tectonic activity during the Flood. There is simply no evidence for it on the cross section.
Of course I suppose you can always say it's the cross section's fault, it's just an artists's rendition after all.
faithswindow@mail.com
If I think of more that needsa to be said I'll be back later.
