Origin of the Flood Layers

No it certainly is not, it's a physical edge. The edge even has a slight bevel to it, and the inner border is way too sharp to be a shadow. Also that shadow is just way too dark, showing no features at all of the supposed surface that would have to be there. Yet even the vertical edge the clasts are stuck in, which is in shadow itself, is so light it would reflect light enough to pick up features in that dark shadow even in the original photo, if it really was a shadow on the same level, but that is not the case. All this is so obvious I see I can't trust anything you say about a photo image.Then tyou go on to outline in green a part of the higher surface on the bottom left along with the lower shadow in the depression, claiming they are on the same surface. Sheesh, this is ridiculous.ABE: Your marked photo for reference: ]Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

We looked at your model and found that it was totally refuted by all of the evidence.You did not explain either the heat or pressure and I'm not at all sure you have a clue what an explanation would be.If you wish to show there was some pressure pushing up you need to provide the evidence of that pressure.If you wish to claim magma is the source of the heat then you must explain why there is no sign of general heating from magma and why the magma is found as intrusions which show the Vishnu Schist existed before the magma.And the different layers are NOT changing the subject, both the Vishnu Schist and the Tapeats Sandstone can be shown to exist.But don't worry, once you provide an explanation of how those two layers could be created in 6000 years we will move on to the next issue.

The Vishnu does not have to have existed AS SCHIST before the magma intrusions, just as rock rubble the magma plus weight from above then metamorphosed into schist.You refuted nothing. In your dreams.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Have you been a complainer all of your life? All I wanted some clarification. I'm pretty sure that it's not just air. Whatever it is, it appears to have a laminated fabric not related to the original schist. However, I think it was derived from the schist. What do you think it is? I probably misspoke. I had been looking at some images on line where there were some fairly large boulders in a sandstone above an unconformity. My error, however, such things do exist. Yes, there is a bedding plane in the image. Actually, I pointed this our well before Percy did. I mentioned that the larger image with the geologist was from the exact location of the original picture that you posted.

Stop and think Faith.Schist is not made from rock rubble. It is made from mudstone or shale and that requires weathering other rocks to produce the fine material that becomes shale or mudstone.So your explanation needs to show how the original material was produced.The magma was in the form of intrusions an so it did have to be schist before the intrusion. Otherwise the material surrounding the intrusion would be something other than schist.If you wish to apply pressure from above you need to provide the model, method, mechanism, process or procedure that produces the material and deposits it above.How long will it take to produce the mudstone or shale, to bury it deep enough to create temperatures and pressures needed to convert them into schist.So let's talk about the weight from above.We know the Vishnu Schist was definitely schist before the Tapeats Sandstone was laid down.So walk us through what could have compressed the shale or mudstone heating and converting it into schist since the Tapeats Layer was not there?

Not at all. I never had much to complain about until I came to EvC. But why would you need it with the question right there that I was answering? I think it is schist. The lightening of the image made the whole area of that dark shadow reddish and not a whole lot easier to read than the original. No idea where you get the "laminated" idea. Yes, in fact there is a boulder of quartzite about fifteen feet in diameter embedded in the Tapeats elsewhere in the canyon, above the unconformity, that clearly broke off the Shinumo quartzite of the Supergroup, and that's what the term suggested to me when you said it. That "bedding plane" is about half an inch deep and follows the curved border area between the Tapeats and the Vishnu. You really call that a bedding plane? I misread you then. I thought you were merely saying that picture was taken in the vicinity of the other. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, it doesn't have to, I suppose, but it probably did. First of all, the development of a schist (with a platy foliation) is dynamothermal, meaning that there was deformation along with heating. If the intrusion caused the schist development, then there should be some geometric relationship of the intrusion to the orientation of the foliation. That does not appear to be the case.As to the burial origin of the foliation, if that is due to the Paleozoic section being deposited, then the foliation should be closer to vertical (ETA: this should read 'horizontal'). In fact, IIRC, there are some folds in the schist, which would suggest some kind of lateral compression. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

No it wouldn't. The magma intrusion baked whatever it was into schist.

First of all, I find Jar's message to have significant flaws, and I suggest that Faith abstain from replying to it.Secondly, considerations of the Great Unconformity should be at the Evidence that the Great Unconformity did not Form Before the Strata above it topic.I (non-admin mode) am going to try to get a message posted to the unconformity topic soon.Perhaps this topic needs to be shut down, as being a disaster area.Adminnemooseus

I wonder if you would be so kind as to translate these paragraphs into simple English for us mentally challenged YECs? I would really like to have some idea what you are talking about. {My non-admin counterpart has taken this message to Message 199. Please continue things unconformity there. - Adminnemooseus} Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Message in red.

I am concerned only with the foliation in that material and it is completely different from the underlying schist. I'm pretty sure that it is schist weathered to some kind of clay or soil and then compacted, or it is transported clay minerals derived from the schist that are now deformed around the base of the clasts. It is also visible where there are no clasts.The true color is actually dark red, being indistinguishable from a dark shadow. I'll try to work on an annotated image, but there's a lot of basketball on this evening and I'm hungry. Yes, more evidence of erosion during the Great Unconformity time. Yes, there is probably some draping, but as you know images can be deceiving. I believe I said 'exactly'. Maybe not...

That is just silly Faith, really silly and again, all of the evidence says 'Taint so!'.If the magma baked whatever it was into schist then you would see some relationship to a common heat source for all of the schist, but like the shot that missed the target, that evidence is simply not there.And you still have not provided the model, mechanism, method, process or procedure to produce the original mudstone or shale or the materials in your what-ifs that would have provided the pressure needed to convert the mudstone or shale into schist.

Even geologist edge didn't say it was completely out of the question that the magma could have caused the schist, though he gave some technical reasons why he doesn't think that is what happened. Your posture of ridicule is out of place. And it's the COMBINATION of the heat from the magma PLUS the enormous weight of the three-mile stack of strata above that I proposed were the two factors that turned the original rock into schist."Common source of heat for all the schist?" I believe that is plentiful wherever there is schist in the canyon because granite is usually associated with it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You read me wrong, Faith. What I'm saying is that there is no evidence to support your statement.Now, I could imagine some exception to the case such as local effects or maybe an intrusion that we presently know nothing about; but these are completely unsupported. When I combine that with the schistosity formation, your point goes out the window. And when I combine all that with your misplaced confidence, it actually becomes a ridiculous notion.

OK, fine, I will hold my theory alone then that magma intruding into rock rubble could transform it into schist, especially with the added pressure of the enormous weight of three miles of strata above it. However it happened, though, the mere presence of granite in the schist shows the presence of enough heat from magma in the general vicinity to fry the stuff.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.