Origin of the Flood Layers

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.

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

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.

No, I just didn't register HBD's point. He switched from subject to subject ignoring all the effort I'd put into trying to get across my view of that photo and I'm afraid I gave some of his post rather short shrift. I didn't get what he was saying and didn't want to be dragged from pillar to post any more which is what it seemed he was doing.Of course the canyon was cut into the stack of strata. On my Floodist time scale I've guessed that it was caused by the uplift that's right over the angular unconformity soon after all the strata were laid down all the way up to the top of the Grand Staircase.And yes from the cross section it certainly looks like the Vishnu was directly covered by the Tapeats sandstone where the Supergroup for whatever reason had been displaced. I mentioned that in a post recently I thought.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

THAT is hilarious! I had no idea that picture contained the other picture. What a difference scale makes! There was no way to tell from the single photo how big the clasts were, if they'd fit in a human hand or really were "boulders" as edge called them.It did occur to me that the grains in the sandstone were rather large but I didn't spend enough time thinking about that; I really thought I was looking at an area of landscape, not a tiny little space with clasts the size of small pebbles. And that ridge behind the clasts is not a "bedding plane" either as edge called it.The only interpretation I'm not going to give up yet is that it still looks like those little clasts do fit in the depression in front of them, only now it looks like it could be the schist that shrank away from them. But I'm not interested in arguing about it.

I'm not sure this is the direction this thread should go at this point, but I'll give my usual thoughts on these things. The Vishnu schist is composed of quite a collection of different rocks according to something I read and posted on here briefly quite a ways back. I've suggested it must be composed of some of the rubble from the Supergroup when it was pushed into its tilted form, but others answered, on another thread a long time ago now, that it doesn't contain the same rocks as the Supergroup. However, the source I just mentioned, which I might be able to find, suggests there are enough different rocks represented in it to make that a question. The dating of the rocks also raises questions, but I'm still thinking along these lines nevertheless. I don't think we need this basic description at this point; lithification has been discussed many times elsewhere. I still have the idea that the pressure that pushed up the Kaibab uplift also broke and tilted the Supergroup and pushed blocks of it up into the bottom of the Tapeats which was already the lowest layer in a stack of layers three miles deep. The weight of that stack resisted the pressure from below, probably tectonic in origin, contributing to the tilting of the Supergroup and probably causing it to slide some distance under the Tapeats as well. And somewhere in that same time period the magma from below was released that you can see represented in the granite fingers that penetrate into the schist, which then developed from that heat plus the pressure between the tectonic force and the weight of the stack above. With all that going on I don't think any great amount of time was needed to do all these things, weeks maybe, months to metamorphose the rock that became the schist, maybe months or years to cool the magma to granite, VERY short time to uplift the whole stack and tilt the Supergroup up against it etc..No Flood involved in creating any of this unless perhaps it contributed to the cooling, and no 6000 years needed either. I think of all this as occurring in the last stage of the Flood when the water was receding, because receding Flood water seems to me to be the best explanation for how the strata broke up over the Permian/Kaibab, under the stress caused by the Kaibab uplift, carving the Grand Staircase and most likely the Grand Canyon as well.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : typoEdited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't know but the tiny scale of that picture may not give an accurate impression of the sandstone in general. When I speak of it as liquid I'm thinking of the idea that it was deposited in water, which fits both the Flood scenario and Old Earth descriptions of how most of the layers were deposited.

Not interested in getting into that right now. If you want to start a thread on designing a model for the Flood MAYBE I'll post there.

Just want to say Hooray for Percy, he may yet straighten us all out. I hope you have the time to get through the whole mess, Percy.

Drying is a huge part of lithification, and others with some expertise have agreed on former threads, but I've never said it's the ONLY way rocks harden.

That was when I thought the picture was on a much larger scale than it turns out to be, so that I interpreted the depression in front of the clasts as where a vein had been, and the clasts as fragments of that vein that had broken off and been lifted out when stuck in the sandstone. They clearly ARE stuck in the sandstone whatever else you want to say about them, AND they still look like they came out of that depression. The shape and size are right. I figured the sandstone had to be sticky in some way because the clasts STUCK in it. Nothing mysterious here. They ARE stuck in it. Again the true scale makes that schist only a few square inches instead of the square feet I'd originally thought it was. That small area simply does not look eroded, that was all I said.
]

Lightening the photo in order to better visualize what's in the depression is a good idea but now it's so light I have no idea what it turns out to be.

There IS a depression there, you can see the edge of it in the lower part of the yellow circles. Not really sure what you've ended up showing here.

I suspect you aren't referring to the same post of mine that Percy is referring to.

No, that's a physical edge and what's on the other side is lower. However, it looks much shallower than I expected nevertheless. With the shadow completely gone I can't tell depth at all. But there is still a hint of shadow right under the clasts.