Summations Only

OK, show me one of those unconformities you are talking about. Remember, we're talking about an unconformity that is confined to a layer within the stack, I can see the unconformities that occurred to the stack as a whole and I see no other kind. Also at this point I've put the Great Unconformity aside, so you have to come up with something else. If someone else has illustrated such an unconformity and I missed it too bad, I stopped reading most of the obfuscating insulting posts. Why wouldn't it be? The law of horizontality is not violated by layers that thin out or terminate in other layers over a huge distance. So the only question should be about the thicker ones though I think this too is to be expected over a huge distance, some sediments simply accumulating more deeply in some places. And if you all believe that Walther's Law describes how the strata were all laid down and you have no problem with the variations in thickness, why should the Flood which must have been laid down according to the same principles.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

OK, I get the picture now, thanks. I don't know how to explain it but it doesn't look like surface erosion to me.Really a lot of variations on the Temple Butte scenario it seems to me, unless that's all just the effect of streamlining or schematizing the drawing.That is, for instance, the Temple Butte unconformity is a surprisingly smooth regular shape-- in reality, not just in a drawing. Not sure how to interpret that except that it doesn't look like something that would have formed on the surface, it looks like a shape that was carved out of the limestone by another limestone ( in one case in your illustration, sandstone), or their wet sediments I mean, a different sediment that was either more or less liquid, or more or less dense, or something like that.And those shown on your diagram seem to be similarly unnatural looking if I may use that term, meaning also too smooth and regular, unless, again, that's to be chalked up to schematic drawing.None of it looks like the kind of erosion that would form on the surface to me. And interestingly it's all carved into limestone, every one of them. I suspect it's got something to do with the chemistry of limestone, meaning, again, its original sedimentary form.So I don't know but I also don't think the conventional interpretation is very convincing.======================
But I'd also argue that the evidence I've already given -- about the way the strata lie as shown on that cross section, plus the other evidences of nothing much happening until the whole stack was laid down, after which kaboom everything happened at once -- is enough to call Old Earth explanations into question. The "erosional surfaces" are trivial in the big picture and need another explanation than the usual one.======================
It's also interesting, I think, that your diagram shows the Vishnu schist, or the "Vishnu group" to be filling in the space beneath and surrounding the Supergroup, which we've just been talking about. And there's enough "metasedimentary" rock found in that formation to suggest, to me of course if nobody else, a connection between the two.

Why would I need to know any more about their criteria than that their theory tells them it must be so?I'm not up to answering the rest at the moment.

So? I suppose I could go back and find the adjective equivalent if you're going to play tyrant on this point. Probably not but as usual you aren't making sense. I guess this is supposed to make sense but it doesn't. I never said they were "perfectly" parallel and it's ridiculous to think I could have meant that. Totally incomprehensible. The video was about the Great Unconformity which I'm leaving out of this discussion, which is only about the strata from the Tapeats up. No, through the entire stack up through the Claron. Nothing in the entire area from the Grand Canyon area through the Grand Staircase, or the entire "Phanerozoic" or until ALL the strata were laid down from Tapeats to Claronl. To repeat: "no tectonic buckling or tilting during the laying-down phase, no sign of magma intrusions during the laying-down phase, no sign of faulting that occurred during the laying-down phase" from Tapeats through Claron. You bet. In my scenario that also occurred at the same time as the whole tectonic event which occurred after all the strata were in place. If it occurred after the laying down of the strata then it did not affect sedimentation on the Colorado Plateau.I would be interested in what evidence you think shows it occurred before. !? I think it's unimportant. As long as you agree that there was nothing even remotely similar before all the strata were laid down. ? Not the Muav. The Temple Butte is a limestone intruding into the Muav, another limestone. Would you like to supply me another term for it? Well, as you know, I include the disturbance beneath the Grand Canyon as part of the tectonic and volcanic event that followed the laying down of all the strata. Pre-Cambrian supposedly but really didn't happen before the strata were in place.But if you agree that the whole "Phanerozoic" stack didn't undergo such disturbance until all were in place then you should grant that there's a good case there that those hundreds of millions of years are a fiction. Or perhaps Flood level. But I'm leery of this "some warping" idea. I'm not evading anything. Give me a break. There are a million ways for us to misunderstand each other, you don't have to accuse me of evading. I'm sure that is out of context. You had said "Cenozoic" which didn't compute for me but in fact the GC in my scenario was cut at the same time as all those tectonic events that occurred after all the strata were in place, that also cut the Grand Staircase cliffs and canyons and produced the fault lines and the magma dike etc. etc., which in your system is Cenozoic. For this demonstration I was. What's your point? That I'm leaving out the Precambrian or what? Well, obviously the uppermost strata, for the mile or so above the Kaibab, DIDN'T survive the uplift and warping very well. But the lower segment, the "Paleocene" segment maintained its parallel form even over the uplift. So you tell me how that could have happened,. To me it suggests malleability and contradicts any idea of their being millions of years old.The whole scenario I have in mind includes all the strata above the Kaibab through the Claron as originally covering the entire area above and surrounding what is now the Grand Canyon, as well as all that area north of it. The uplift that created the mound into which the GC is cut would have uplifted that entire stack, but just as is evident in the Grand Staircase the upper part broke up, and, in my scenario washed away in the receding waters of the Flood. The canyon was opened up by the strain of the same uplift and the faulting that occurred at that point. Again, the upper strata broke off and washed away. In the GS area the same upper strata broke off leaving cliffs but in the GC area they completely disappeared from above the Kaibab, except for that butte south of the area. I've lost track of the context here. What? As I believe I said, the evidence is 1) the strata being all of the same malleability or flexibility maintaining their parallel block form up and over the uplifts both in GC and GS areas. If millions of years old they should have been so brittle they broke off and left gigantic rocks along the slope of the uplift but instead they follow the curve of the uplift; 2) lack of tectonic activity for hundreds of millions of years makes no sense on an "active planet," so that hundreds of millions of years didn't happen, it was a much shorter time; I forget the rest I'm getting tired.I hope I don't regret talking to you again.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Percy called for readers of the thread to express their approval of edge by cheering one of his posts, and they came through for edgy. They provided him with a nice big collection of those little green pillows to soothe his hurt feelings after the mean old lady creationist objected to his insults. This COULD be funny except that we’re all required to wax indignant over anything that challenges the great modern god Science. Keep a long face in church you know, frown at the restless children. Swing that incense.The idea that a nongeologist creationist on a talk forum has to meet scientific standards for every speculation that comes to mind is silly. I get ideas about this or that, if they don't work so what, I'll get other ideas. But also maybe they do work and just need some time to gestate and accumulate more information. The scenarios I have been working on have in fact grown quite a bit over the years of being bashed by geologists and others at EvC forum. Information that is useful sometimes comes up in these discussions. I think the sea transgression model is eventually going to be very useful. Good reason for tossing half-baked ideas into the arena. They get ripped to pieces by snarling EvCers but often they survive nevertheless and I get more rather than less convinced of them.It offends the geologists, which I suppose is to be expected, except it surprises me really. Yeah I despise the Old Earth theory, absolutely despise it, I think it is stupid. I suppose that's offensive but that's what I think and maybe it could eventually stop being so offensive and start to look like a reasonable assessment if I repeat it enough. An awful lot of Geology just makes me glassy-eyed with its claims to know what happened millions of years ago, based only on some accidental geological artifact dug out of a rock. It's always stated so assertively: "This formed in shallow warm seas some blah blah millions of years ago." Just like the ToE: "This creature lived during a tropical period" based on the mere fact that fossilized tropical plants are found in a certain rock, or some such. Blah blah millions of years. It's not that things dug out of rocks can't reveal something or other, but this is like reading tea leaves. NEVERTHELESS, between the fantastic assertions of things that couldn't possibly be known there are usually interesting REAL facts that do reveal the physical world. I try to be alert to those, but it isn't easy when getting dogpiled and chewed to bits.There's no way to be "scientific" about any of this. The supposed science involved is already not scientific, it's all hardened speculation treated as fact. Maybe if I keep saying it somebody will stop and think, hey maybe that's so instead of continuing this absurd rant about scientific evidence where there is no scientific evidence. Na. Here cue avalanche of blustering indignation.Probably the last time I picked up and looked at rocks was as a child. There are some pretty ones on the Nevada desert, with colored stripes and translucent areas and glittery parts. Near the mines you could find highly polished round stones and slippery mercury that rolled around in your palm. I hated hikes on the desert though, with the heat and the dust and the scratchy sagebrush and the snakes and the scorpions. Reason to be grateful for dysfunctional joints that make it impossible to hike any more. I do suspect that the actual vastness of the Grand Canyon would blow me away if I ever got to see it, but I’m not going to get to see it, though one wonderful thing about being a Christian is that it opens up amazing possibilities such as maybe getting to see all kinds of things after this life is over that we missed while we were here. If we care any more of course.Hey I really like my scenario based on different facets of that Grand Canyon area cross section and believe it kills the Old Earth. You have to pry your eyes off the microscope though. I think it stands quite well on its own. The erosion in the layers isn't going to change that picture, neither is the question of where the rubble went on my favorite interpretation of the Great Unconformity. What the scenario strongly indicates is that there were no millions of years between the Tapeats and the Claron layers, no Phanerozoic Eon at all, because the usual disturbances on this "active planet" didn't happen during their laying down but only afterward, pretty much all at once, in an enormous tectonic bashing that no doubt began with the splitting of the continents, that released magma, raised land, shifted and faulted land, broke off chunks of strata leaving cliffs, cut canyons, raised the Rockies and other mountains, in some places twisted whole blocks of strata (not in the GC area but lots of other places) and so on.Probably all started either just before or during or after Noah and clan got parked on the mountains of Ararat, just as the waters were receding or right afterward. They probably had to put up with a lot of earthquakes for a while but maybe they weren’t so intense in their part of the world.In any case, the erosion between the individual layers is going to need some other interpretation than millions of years at the surface of the earth.Oh bring out the frownies now, swing that incense, keep the children from laughing.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This is one of the annoying things you do that make me start ignoring you. Don't you read in context? I left the GU out of the post on the strata ONLY, to avoid getting off the main points I wanted to make there. The video was in response to stuff others brought up about the GU.Your diagram could be interesting in itself but in the context of what I posted it's irrelevant.The rest of your post isn't worth thinking about. Yes I regret responding to you, I'll try to remember never to do it again.

There doesn't need to have been an actual gap, just the shifting of the material in a confined space where lateral pressure compressed it enough to raise the whole "package" upward. It wouldn't be "lifted from underneath" but pushed from the side. Here's an illustration I just thought of: Put some damp clay between bricks on four sides, filling up the space, with some damp (somewhat flexible) flat clay layers overhead, then press in on the bricks from the side, or just one of the bricks leaving the others in place as resistance. The clay between the bricks will be forced upward and if the layers above are both resistant and flexible enough, the upward-pushing clay will push them upward too, probably in a mounded form like the uplift beneath the GC. I guess the clay between the bricks could be in layers too. Might be worth trying to set something like this up. First time I've actually thought of something that might work as a model for what I have in mind. I looked it up myself. There is some rock in the Vishnu that is metamorphosed sedimentary rock. Doesn't prove it's from the Supergroup I guess but it IS "metasedimentary" rock. It's been hard to come up with a model for it until I just thought of the one I described above. All I had before was an experiment Lyell describes using books and a stack of cloths, not for the same purpose but it's the closest I could find to what I have in mind. He stacked folded cloths, laying them flat like the strata, between two upright books, with a book on top straddling the side books. Pressing inward on the side books buckles the cloth into the curved formations he had illustrated from Siccar Point and the Alps, making a series of folds. He was just trying to show how strata buckles, using lateral force, and because he was using cloth he needed a weight on top to keep it confined in order to demonstrate the buckling, but to my mind the book on top is like the strata from the Tapeats up, that remained horizontal while the lower strata buckled. Lyell was also showing that although the lower strata in an angular unconformity can appear merely to have broken off and tilted, the usual situation is that they folded or buckled and then the upper curves were eroded away. He illustrates this I think near Siccar Point, how the upright strata are simply folded over and not tilted. In my scenario the abrasion against the upper layers would have eroded away the curves.It also just occurred to me that perhaps if Lyell had had a heavier cloth on top it would have remained horizontal while the cloth beneath would have buckled and pushed up the heavier cloth.The model I thought up above would only show the effect of lateral pressure in pushing material upward, but it would be nice if I could also figure out how to layer it between the bricks as well as above so that the lateral pressure would actually buckle or tilt the lower layers as in the Great Unconformity. I'll have to see if I can come up with a way of doing that.There's also the phenomenon of pulling a tablecloth out from under a whole collection of objects without disturbing them, showing that you can disrupt lower material independently of upper.The tectonic force would be mostly from the side, but it pushed up the whole area by compressing it laterally. I think the volcanic eruption could have had something to do with displacing the strata too. The whole area was uplifted right at that location. I find that to be a lot less likely, especially the part about their being the root of a huge mountain range that lasted millions of years and then eroded down to a level enough surface for the strata to deposit on top. Typical Rube Goldbergish system.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : PUNCTUATIONEdited by Faith, : punctuation

I believe what edge did would be called Gish Gallop if a creationist did it. Pile it on and laugh when the creationist is buried under the pile.But there are a couple points I've pondered: More clarity would help, which is not your forte so I don't expect it from you.I expect what I see in the Grand Canyon area to be a model for what happened everywhere. The diagram is simply a nice simple way to demonstrate a phenomenon I believe is universal though not as easy to demonstrate elsewhere. This is the Flood I'm talking about after all. It requires reinterpreting almost everything Geology says.So in this case when the reference is to rocks of Pennsylvanian age this means of course rocks at a certain level in the strata. In the GC area it is clear there is nothing disturbing those strata at any level until they are all in place. Disturbances in most of the photos of the area also show the same order of events, having occurred after all the strata were in place. This of course contradicts conventional Geology but at least it can be shown on that cross section.So I'd suppose that wherever disturbance can be shown to have occurred at a particular level, that too had to have occurred after all the strata were in place. Demonstrating it is something else of course, and would probably take more than a diagram but we'll see how far I can get with it.Salt deposits come up as a challenge to the Flood quite a bit, and I have thought about them quite a bit, so might as well just say what I've thought.Here's the illustration: http://higheredbcs.wiley.com/...hap_tut/images/nw0224-nn.jpgI looked for other diagrams and photos of the area but haven't found any that clarify it for me. For instance this is a "Pennsylvanian" age phenomenon, so what happened to the strata that were once above it, and is that upper straight surface the Pennsylanian aged rock?So it looks like all the strata that had been laid down above got washed away as they did in the Grand Canyon area only in this case down to the level called Pennsylvanian. This isn't a case of disturbance occurring WITHIN the stack but after the upper strata are no longer there.And the salt formation happened after all that.Anyway, what I'd been thinking about salt is that it's an active thing that changes form, and what I'd guess is that the underground salt basins we see on so many diagrams could have been created from salt water precipitating out of the rock strata above. That is, they weren't once on the surface but formed after all the strata were in place as the water trickled down through the levels above. And I'd suppose this would be wherever there was sufficient salt in the strata above and space where the salt water could collect below as well. The water keeps trickling through the rock beneath the salt basin as well so that the salt could eventually even dry out underground, just as all the strata themselves eventually dried out, or wherever there is vertical displacement of the strata or vertical openings the water would run out there, especially from between the layers.So that's been a thought percolating in the back of my mind for some time, and I actually just found a blog that suggests that something along the lines I've been thinking does in fact happen. The explanation here has to do with the weight of the rocks above, however, acting on salt layers: there is an interesting diagram at this point that I couldn't figure out how to post here of a salt anticline said to have formed from salt flowing into it from the synclines on either side.So, SOMETHING having to do with the movement of salt underground, in water and even not in water, after the layers were laid down seems to be the direction to go to explain how these salt basins could have occurred after the Flood.==================
Oh and I've accounted for the Rockies, more than once now.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There is absolutely nothing in that diagram that shows any such thing.

It shows two layers, Pennsylvanian and Mississippian, both limestone, the Pennsylvanian exposed at the surface although that horizontal line I asked about apparently isn't surface, just "datum" so that isn't clear either. Whatever layers used to be above it, however, are no longer there, and surely there would have been the usual stack there all the way up to the Tertiary or Claron just as we see in the GC-GS area.So this cross section represents what is left of that original stack, AND what happened to the layer now exposed after the stack was gone.AFTER.For this to represent anything that happened during the laying down of the strata should at least involve surface erosion, since that was the big claim in the discussion about the strata in the GS cross section. But no erosion is shown here and if there was erosion the fact that the layer is exposed NOW would explain it, not anything that occurred during the laying-down period. All the distortion of the sediments, the salt trap and all that, also contribute nothing to the claim that it happened during the laying-down. Very easy to explain as happening since the rock was exposed.Then there's that fault line to the right of the picture. Nothing about that indicates a time factor so you can't claim it shows tectonic activity during the laying-down period either. Just as in the GS-GC area it most likely occurred with all the tectonic disturbance that happened afterward, and then after the strata that had been above the currently exposed layer were washed away, of course the fault line was still there, only merely to the height of the strata that remain there.There's nothing about this formation that demonstrates your claim. I'm even surprised you thought it would.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Glad to see you asking edge about this diagram because if I did he'd only call me names. You he'll no doubt answer.Here's a page on Anhydrite Gypsum: http://igs.indiana.edu/...ceDocs/GypsumAndAnhydrite_Card.pdf

I don't either but he hasn't been clear about what the surface actually is. In any case there would have been the whole stack above it originally as there still is in the GS area. In which case my explanation of how the massive erosion in the GS-GC area occurred after all the strata were in place would also apply here. Nor am I. Yes, that may be the main feature he had in mind. I also answered that. That is of course the standard explanation but as I said there is no evidence whatever in that diagram that supports that explanation. In fact what evidence is there at all for that explanation? This or that is said to have occurred in such and such a time period when the only evidence there seems to be is that the phenomenon appears to have affected a particular layer more than others or some such idea, which is very odd logic. Uh huh. My claim is that the tectonic activity BEGAN right after or at the end of the Flood, that there was NO tectonic activity during the laying-down of the strata, and I've been doing a pretty good job of making the case for this. What is going on in our time is something else. Again, what is going on in modern time has nothing to do with my claim that tectonism BEGAN after the strata were all in place, that is, at the end of the Flood. I do tend to ignore your posts too, Percy, but my guess would be that this occurred afterward too. Just because a particular layer is particularly affected does not prove that a particular event occurred in the time period associated with that layer. Again this is just the typical confusion between time and physical location which riddles establishment geology. Buried faults do NOT prove they occurred in the time period associated with a particular layer. That's silly. They could have occurred at any time afterward but the forces stopped short of faulting the entire stack. ABE: As a matter of fact those that occurred after the rock was lithified might have been less likely to penetrate the whole stack because of resistance to shifting in higher layers. /ABE No it doesn't. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : add a word and remove a commaEdited by Faith, : remove "that"

Yes this makes sense. This unconformity developed over time, long after the Pennsylvanian limestone was laid down. Or just evaporation over time from one regressing sea.

None of this is happening during the "period" you claim it is.

Fine with me too.ABE: My point is that your point is wrong, that there is no evidence whatever for ascribing any time period to the phenomena illustrated, that's all an artifact of the Old Earth theory, not borne out by the facts shown in the diagram. /ABEEdited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.