Evidence of the flood

What is the model, method, mechanism, process or procedure for your flud to deposit millions of alternating layers of fine silt covered by coarser silt?Someone may have asked that question once or twice before.Please understand that the question will still be waiting for your answer when you try claiming the flud did something.

Maybe because folded sedimentary rocks exist? What's your take on the Cape Supergroup?

What is the model, method, mechanism, process or procedure Faith?

What is the model, method, mechanism, process or procedure that will allow your flud to lay down millions of alternating layers of fine and the coarser silt?

What the heck is "THE STRAT COLUMN"? Me, personally, have logged hundreds of different strat columns.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

But Siccar Point proves you completely wrong.There is no requirement that lower layers are not disrupted prior to continued deposition above them.Why should I not show deformed rocks?Just because you assert that it cannot happen does not make it so. No. Volclanic rocks, for instance do not need to conform to any particular shape or size. There is no such requirement for a stratigraphic column. In fact, you will often see at the top of a diagram something we call Qal, which is recent alluvium. Still part of the column. Nonsense. Are you not presupposing a flood here?If there was no Bible, would you say the same thing?And no, deformation has occurred throughout the geological record and that fact has little to do with the stratigraphic column for any given location.You have been given a fairly large number of places where sedimentation continues in the same fashion as always. All you really have here is denial of that fact.

and the dance of denial, now accompanied by the full caps shouting ... Except that they are. That's how they form. It's how the sediment layers in the Grand Canyon formed. You have not shown this is not possible or even not a likely process over many many years. Years that occurred before the 17 million year start of the erosion of the Grand Canyon from west to east, culminating 14 million years ago ... while erosion still occurs in the riverbed.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : added

Remember, sandstone and granite and coal and salt and shale and mudstone and aeolian deposits and marine deposits and quartz and limestone are all the same "kind"; rock kind.Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

We have been over this before. No, they are not necessarily flat on top and bottom, the fact that formations vary in thickness negates your point.And why can there not be sharp contacts when we know that depositional environments change rapidly on a geological scale.Faith, you are just rehashing old assertions here. It is getting to be very tedious.
Please support one of them with actual evidence.

Ah, thanks jar. Now you enlightened me on "kinds". All rocks belong to the same "kind". I don't think those exploration and mining companies share that world view, though.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Well, clearly declarations that you're abandoning the thread are just as reliable as all your other statements. Does it never occur to you that developing credibility requires doing what you say you will do and saying things that are true. This current post of yours is just as poorly thought out as all the rest. But they are. Except for not being lithified (by virtue of being recent and unburied) they are identical to the rest of the strata. Sedimentary deposits along the coastline are unlithified sandstone. Those further offshore are unlithified slate or shale. Those ever further offshore are unlithified limestone. Those in the deep ocean are unlithified pelagic sediments.This is why we say the present is the key to the past. The sedimentary layers we see forming today are identical to those more deeply buried that have already been turned to rock. Except for not being compressed by the lithification process, they are as "FLAT FLAT FLAT' as the more ancient strata, which are not all that flat. When examined closeup the flatness of the boundaries between strata disappears, and of course the strata certainly aren't level since that wouldn't be possible given that the thicknesses of the strata vary. Sediments occur on lake bottoms just as on sea bottoms. This is just a bald declaration with no supporting evidence. First, there is no evidence of the Flood in the Green River Formation. Second, the evidence of the varves themselves indicate they were deposited by "annual twos". Third, the radiometric, paleomagnetic and fossil evidence all indicate that the varves of the Green River Formation were laid down over several million years around 50 million years ago.--Percy

It isn't possible that strata that have already been deposited, buried and lithified could later have the effects of surface erosion, volcanism and your brand of plate tectonics imposed upon them. We have examples of surface erosion on deeply buried layers, which create unconformities. There are examples of this at your favorite geologic location, because the the Wikipedia article on the Geology of the Grand Canyon area states, "There are at least 14 known unconformities in the geologic record found in the Grand Canyon."An example of strata being eroded away after plate tectonics is also at the Grand Canyon, as represented by the Great Unconformity. You can see how the blocks of the Grand Canyon supergroup have been tilted, and then the tops have been eroded away to be (mostly) level with the landscape at the time: Examples of volcanism in the stratigraphic record abound. There are magma intrusions and lava layers. Magma intrusions can be been in the above diagram.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Clarify.

I know what Faith is trying to say: "The police say that everybody in this room is a suspect. I didn't do it; therefore I am not in this room."Anything that doesn't fit her scenario doesn't exist.

THEY DON'T "LATER HAVE THE EFFECTS OF SURFACE EROSION!" YOU'VE OBVIOUSLY NEVER UNDERSTOOD ONE THING I'VE EVER SAID ABOUT THAT CROSS SECTION, WHICH I SUSPECTED LONG AGO.LOOK AT THE CROSS SECTION. THERE IS NO "EROSION" UNTIL THE CANYON AND STAIRCASE WERE CUT AND THEN THERE IS MASSIVE "EROSION"THE MAGMA STARTS AT THE VERY BOTTOM AND PENETRATES TO THE VERY TOP -- OBVIOUSLY BEGUN AFTER ALL THE STRATA WERE IN PLACE. I'VE EXPLAINED THIS HUNDREDS OF TIMES ALREADY WHEN THIS CROSS SECTION HAS COME UP.I ALSO ARGUE THAT THE GREAT UNCONFORMITY FORMED AFTER ALL THE STRATA WERE IN PLACE AND HAVE ARGUED IT IN GREAT DETAIL.I REJECT THE WHOLE IDEA OF INVISIBLE UNCONFORMITIES AND THERE IS CERTAINLY NO EROSION BETWEEN LAYERS THAT COULD HAVE OCCURRED ON THE SURFACE.IT IS SICKENING TO HAVE TO START ALL OVER EXPLAINING WHAT I'VE EXPLAINED SO MANY TIMES ALREADY TO SOMEONE WHO NEVER BOTHERED TO UNDERSTAND ONE WORD OF IT.THIS COULD BE MY PROBLEM OF FAILURE TO SAY IT CLEARLY ENOUGH THOUGH I EXPLAINED IT ALL SO MANY TIMES I DOUBT IT, NOW YOU ARE COMING ALONG KNOWING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT ANY OF IT. BUT WHATEVER THE PROBLEM THERE IS NO POINT IN EVEN TRYING TO HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH THIS DEGREE OF MISCOMMUNICATION. WHAT A PATHETIC JOKE DEBATE AT EVC IS.

OH GOOD GRIEF. A SLIGHT SLOPE THAT IS NOT EVEN VISIBLE DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT OF THE FLATNESS I'M TALKING ABOUT.THE PROBLEM IS THAT YOU AREN'T INTERESTED IN UNDERSTANDING WHAT I'M SAYING.THERE IS NO POINT IN THIS DISCUSSING. THIS IS SICKENING.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.