Origin of the Flood Layers

This piece of clothing made me think of Faith ...

But "Archaeologists get to the bottom of things!"(Although "Our lives are in ruins.")

No idea why you are saying this. I'm just dealing with the picture as an interesting picture that doesn't look to me like what you all are finding in it.And for reference, here's the picture again, with my yellow lines on it: Because it LOOKS like it was thick when laid down, and the thick edge with the clasts stuck in it, which is clearly vertical as shown by the shadow on it, doesn't LOOK to me like it was eroded, though JonF keeps insisting it does to him, and also because of the way the clasts seem to me to have come out of the depression in front of them. It's possible the appearance of thickness came as the sand was lithifying, after pulling the clasts out of their seat in the Vishnu I guess. That's the only other possibility I can see.Sorry to say but neither JonF nor edge seems to be able to read how light and shadow define three dimensional forms, but it happens to be one thing I'm pretty good at. I'm also usually pretty good at spatial relationships. No idea what your last sentence is referring to, but this picture simply doesn't look like my usual scenario. That scenario describes what happened at some point in the GC area due to the uplift as shown on the cross sections, and I don't know where this picture was taken in relation to that, but it does not look to me like the Tapeats ever had a layer above it here, nor does the exposed part of the Vishnu look to me like it did either. Can't see the clasts as the result of erosion due to surface exposure, look clearly to me like they were dislodged by the movement of the sand above. No. The more I look at the picture the more I see it as I've described it. Edge posted a picture -- Message 247 -- showing a wall of schist with veins of quartz exposed in it -- apparently a normal presentation of Vishnu schist. So I figure the quartz chunks in the picture we are discussing would have been broken out of such a vein here too, with the aid of wet or drying sand that seems to have had a sticky quality to it, at least while it was drying and hardening which I've suggested it did while lying over the quartz vein, then gradually pulling pieces of the quartz with it as it dried and hardened more, shrinking and retracting from the position over the vein. Being a different kind of rock I'd guess that the quartz may be relatively easily loosened from the schist. Since I do think the quartz pieces would fit into the parts of the depression indicated by my lines on the picture I continue to see it this way.Edge keeps calling the picture a "cross section" yet has not been able to show me what he means by that. I wonder if he thinks the Vishnu surface in the right foreground is vertical as it is in another picture he marked from the same area. Looks to me like the sunlight defines it as horizontal in this picture here, or at least more or less horizontal, as it does the Tapeats to the upper left behind the edge or little wall of the Tapeats where the quartz pieces are stuck. That edge is in shadow, showing its verticality, while the Vishnu in the right foreground is in sunlight. Maybe, but I am very convinced by my own interpretation of this picture and find the dismissive way others deal with it to be discouraging and frustrating, especially since I think they are misreading basic things like light and shadow, verticality vs. horizontality and so on.And one more thing: "The contact between the Tapeats and the basement rocks" seems to be reduced by some here to the front edge of the Tapeats where the Vishnu begins to be exposed, both edge and JonF referring to the supposed fortuitousness of the Tapeats stopping just "right there" as I see the picture. I would have thought that an unconformity defined by a contact would mean the whole surface of both upper and lower layers where they contact each other.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There are easy ways these days to look up terms and learn their meanings. One need not remain in the dark for long.JB

Again you reduce my comment to a mere definition. Good grief. I've posted dozens of cross sections myself, I know what they are and this picture does NOT look like a cross section.

The question you need to answer Faith is "How do you make enough sand to create the Tapeats Sandstone in just 6000 years?"

That would be an interesting situation for the Tapeats and the Vishnu to never have had layers above them. That photo was taken in Blacktail CanyonI think it is safe to assume that ANY surface we find expose within the Grand Canyon WAS exposed by erosion. If a surface (within the GC) is exposed to the air, then erosion certainly HAS acted on that surface and exposed it. Or another way to put it, there is NO visible surface within the Grand Canyon that has not been acted on by erosion. So ALL the surfaces you see in that image were made to look the way they do by erosion. There is just no doubt about that.The Great Unconformity is deep with in the canyon, so it certainly had layers on top of it. Here is the source of that image. There are more photos taken in Blacktail Canyon on that blog. For example... Look how deep that is. There is a person down there at the bottom of the canyon. That is a good 300-400 feet deep. Here is an amazing 360 degree panoramic view of Blacktail Canyon. The Vishnu is the lowest rocks, mostly darker and more vertical. The layers above that are more horizontal, sand-colored and more prominently layered are the Paleozoic rocks (not sure of the specific units). You can see the clear demarcation between those distinct types of rock. That line between them is the Great Unconformity. It has rock above it, lots and lots and lots of rock.(actually look at some of the other pictures at that website, they are incredible!) You are reading WAY too much into that picture. It is a picture of clasts that originated in the lower layer (they are granite from an intrusion) and have been incorporated into the sandstone of the upper layer. It's that simple. Trying to makeup some alternative way to interpret that one picture is not going to change the fact that the Great Unconformity is an erosional surface. We can just drop that "ambiguous" image and move on, yes?HBD

You think you can just blithely dispense with my observations with such a flat assertion of the party line? Certainly for VISIBLE surfaces NOW, yes, but millions of years' worth? Of course, erosion going on NOW since they were exposed. But that totally glosses over the important questions how LONG they were exposed, whether the currently exposed Vishnu was ever covered by the Tapeats, and whether any buried surfaces ever were exposed to the surface.As for this picture, I don't care what it is supposed to represent, it's so frustrating to have my observations dismissed out of hand at the moment I don't feel like continuing any of this discussion. You keep making these flat assertions that prove absolutely nothing. "Certianly had layers on top of it." Well, that's maybe an article of faith for you, but it's a meaningless statement to me, as anything would be that blithely brushes off what I've been seeing in that photograph anyway. I don't know what it changes but what I see in that photo is NOT what you all see and that has to mean something. And although you call those clasts granite they do not look like granite, they look like quartz. And I am NOT "making anything up," I simply see what I see there. Wow, just declare it done according to your will and it's done.I no longer see that photo as ambiguous. Again I could not care less what it is supposed to represent about the Great Unconformity, I don't see in it what you see and I don't give in to raw assertions presented as if they were evidence.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith, you do realize that you are not making any sense here, right? Well, you could try being reasonable...I have to say that this is the funniest post I've seen in a long time. It does more to destroy YEC than anything we could have written. Please, keep up the good work.

So it is the evolutionist party line that the Grand Canyon was formed by erosion? Never said anything about millions of years. It could have happened in 5 minutes, but the Grand Canyon was carved by erosion. If it wasn't erosion that exposed them in the first place, what did? Is not the Grand Canyon composed of layers? Is not the Tapeats the lowest layer of the Paleozoic group? Wouldn't that mean there were layers on top of it? I fail to see how this is an article of "faith"???? Notice the question mark? Do you want to continue arguing about that same image? So... what is your conclusion? So now, stating that the Tapeats had layers above it and that the Grand Canyon was carved out by erosion is a "raw assertion?"You complain about how others respond to you. Do you ever consider the way you respond? Your post was anything but respectful.HBD

Both of you guys aren't making any sense, sorry.

Faith has not grasped that, if the Vishnu was never covered by other sediments, then it has been eroded since even before the Tapeats was deposited. That, of course, contradicts her point that there was no erosion before the entire sedimentary sequence was deposited.Standard YEC fare, but kind of entertaining in this case. And almost 100% predictable.

Heh, heh ...Ummm, no apologies necessary.

I don't even know what to say here...ABE: Never-mind...Edited by herebedragons, : pointless to continue

Oh good grief. What utter futility.HBD, you just blithely dismissed everything that concerned me about that photo, and you do just make assertions that are nothing but reiterations of the OE theory, but if react to that I'm being "disrespectful."What's your point about the canyon's being formed by erosion?What on earth does erosion of the Vishnu since the Flood have to do with the millions of years of erosion posited by OE theory? If it was exposed that long sure it was subjected to erosive elements. NEVERTHELESS IN THAT PHOTO it doesn't look particularly eroded, and the clasts appear to have been dislodged by the Tapeats, not by weathering. AT THIS LOCATION. IN THIS PHOTO. Wherever the whole stack of layers from Tapeats to Permian was laid down there is no reason to suppose any of it was ever exposed at the surface.What utter futility.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.