Summations Only

All I'm trying to do is take a TYPICAL scenario, which those illustrations are meant to express, that represents a particular period of time. If they put a lot of vegetation in the picture that's because the fossil contents of that particular rock indicate there was a lot of vegetation. And the point is to get from the scenario to the rock. You can do it with any rock but this type seemed to me to offer the clearest problems to be solved. The strata are remarkably similar in form considering their different contents. Anyone can invent the scenario, I'm not stuck on mine.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sounds like something that would happen in my scenario since the sediments are still wet that are being pushed up into the mound shape. Erosion? but it doesn't matter. The task just becomes explaining why there is no abrasion. There's no doubt a good reason in my scenario.I'm not able to be here much today but I'll get back when I can. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The problem you have is that a lot of other things would happen, too. Things that we don't see.For instance, we should see deformation of the Shinumo related to an inclined stress field (the one the forced the Shinumo up into the Paleozoic sequence, for example).But the real deal killer is that you expect to have all of this commotion in the lower block of rocks folding the Vishnu Schist and forcing the Shinumo upward, all without deforming the Paleozoic section that is supposedly still unlithified and therefor of low strength. This is exceedingly fantastic.In the meantime, we don't see a tectonic fabric in the Vishnu rocks that suggest a late deformation of the GC Supergroup rocks. If you have one, I'd love to see it.

This post goes a ways back, but I thought I'd respond because there are a few substantial misunderstandings that should be corrected. First of all the ages of the older granite and the younger lavas are completely different and certainly not derived from the same magma.Other than that, there is no evidence of a 'volcano under the Grand Canyon' that I know of. There are obviously volcanoes in the area, but they do not create large volumes of metamorphic rocks.And no, schists are not necessarily made up of 'many different kinds of rocks and minerals'. The can have a variety of compositions and derived from various rock types, but this statement is too broad. The commonality of all schist is that they have platy minerals aligned so as to form a pronounced parting. And the platy grains should be of a visible size. Well, a schist is a dynamothermal rock type. It is not just heated by a volcano.It takes a certain amount of shearing strain to orient the mineral grains that form a schist.I can just see Faith saying "Aha!" but the main point is that the schistosity ('platyness', if you will) would have some relationship to the deformation, but that is not the case with the Vishnu schists. Their schistosity has no relationship to any kind of shearing that Faith calls upon whether from the 'Great Unconformity' fault, or upthrusting of the GC Supergroup into the Tapeats Sandstone.

Everything you say is speculative and hypothetical you know, though of course it sounds very convincing with all your geological knowledge. But it IS all "would have happened" beause of course we're talking about events in the past. That being the case I do often find what you have to say very helpful, but since most of it is just a way of calling me wrong about absolutely everything, I can't really take it too seriously. If you say something that clarifies my own view I'm very grateful and often you do. But this steady diet of debunker while refusing even to see how clever my scenario is, with this constant battering of speculative reasons I'm wrong just turns me off. I shouldn't expect an establishment geologist to have any other view of it, of course. The upshot is that you may shift me on some detail or other but otherwise I like my hypothesis more and more.Yes I know the idea that the Paleozoic strata remained intact is hard to swallow but I see this pattern in all the angular unconformities. You see tilting before further deposition in all of them but I see tectonic deformation of the lower strata leaving the upper intact. In all the examples I've ever seen. In most cases the disturbance broke up most of the upper strata and all that is left is one or two horizontal layers stuck to the buckled portion, so the Grand Canyon is unique in that the upper strata didn't break up, only the uppermost strata that were there originally, above the Permian/Kaibab.I came to my conclusion from studying the cross section which shows plainly that all the strata were in place before at least one volcanic eruption occurred, and many other things I argued in other threads.Sorry I have to stop here again for now.swjpw\\\\\\\\Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

My 'speculation', however is constrained by evidence. There is a way to fix that ...I suppose that virtually every professional geologist could be wrong and you are right, but I think I'll go with the odds. Of course. For you, it's a religion. For me it's a journey in learning. Well, then maybe it's not what you think. Maybe you are forcing the data into your own narrow interpretation. Then your observation is wrong since the Cardenas Basalt is clearly of different age than the more recent volcanism, and once again, neither have any direct relationship to the old granites.

It's how the bottom of the sea is built up, Faith. Those are both marine deposits. Hence their sedimentology and fossils.And marine deposits do cover vast areas. Look at those huge continent-sized areas of marine sediment: Now consider how much bigger still they could be if the sea level was higher and America was partly submerged, as it was.You see how in real geology everything fits nicely together and no-one invokes magic?

If the section of the geological column from Tapeats to Redwall was covered by water it would be over half a mile deep. Is that what you mean by "partially submerged?"Of course whenever I hear of continents being submerged that deep I know it's just a way to try to make the evidence of the Flood prove something else. My own scenario does not rely on magic and it holds together impressively well. There is evidence galore for it that I have provided many times as a matter of fact. The cross section of the Grand Canyon area is a treasure trove of evidence for rapid deposition of the strata and a young earth.Whereas getting a few of the layers up onto the continent for a short stay which is going to require lots more stays while the rest of the strata accumulate, is just not convincing.The more I hear about the silly ways Geology has to twist itself to make up explanations for the geological/stratigraphic column, which can't work anyway, the more cynical I get about "real" Geology and the more convinced of my own hypothesis.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You didn't explain how the boulder broke off from the Shinumo. Shinumo "highland," Tapeats "beach." This is utterly ridiculous. How does this "beach" end up in the geological column by the way?
" You didn't answer whether there is erosion. Woulda coulda shoulda. The whole physical layout of the supergroup in relation to all the other features of the Grand Canyon fits my hypothesis superbly. What implies the strong force from the side is the position of the supergroup up against the Tapeats and the mounding of the strata over it. I could not care less whether some bits of it fit yours.Anybody who can accuse me of contradicting myself when I say the strata are straight and flat but also describe a section where they are deformed over a rounded hill shouldn't be taken too seriously. Even trying to make an issue out of saying "bent" when I was just looking for another way of saying mounded. Blech. This kind of gamesmanship is what makes EvC a nightmare for a creationist.Calling the Flood an "ancient myth" is how you and others here justify your refusal to think seriously about any of this, but just sling the jargon so you sound authoritative for the onlookers. The evidence for the Flood that I and other creationists have described as actually existing on this planet shows a REAL worldwide Flood in REAL earth time. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Water sorts sediments without mixing them. Layers formed by rivers. Dumping sediment on still wet rock adds mixture and lumpiness. Problem

Why would I have a problem with this? It's what would happen if the scenarios actually occurred that are being offered as how one gets from a landscape to a rock in the geo column, but since the column shows no evidence of such mixing we know this is not how the geo column formed. It's YOUR problem not mine.

Good grief, what is the necessity of making this ridiculously obvious pronouncement? What? If you can't see the flatness in the walls of the Grand Canyon you've got a BIG problem If you take core samples all over the Midwest, as I understand has been done, what you get is a record of all the strata in the Geo column miles deep. THAT is "not how the surface of the earth is built up" or formed or whatever. The surface of the earth today is not a flat rock and it will not ever become a flat rock. The surface of the earth at any time in the past was NEVER a flat rock, but the evidence is that all the pervious surfaces of the earth WERE flat rocks. That is, they were NEVER normal surface of the earth, the whole time periods explanation is a fatuous fairy tale.

quote:

---

Calling the Flood an "ancient myth" is how you and others here justify your refusal to think seriously about any of this

---

What makes you think that it is your opponent’s who aren’t thinking seriously about it ? After all you are the one who makes obviously false claims and runs away from justifying them.Like Message 777Do you want to explain why deeply buried material turning to rock mustcause animal life to disappear ? It’s not as if there are a lot of animals living down there.If your idea of thinking about the conventional model leads you to believe obviously falsehoods - as an excuse to reject that model - then obviously there is something wrong with your thinking.Or how about the idea that there is some rightorder to the sediments? Message 831

quote:

---

...but just sling the jargon so you sound authoritative for the onlookers.

---

And how would you know that it is that and not pointing out evidence that you haven’t bothered to understand. There is no shame in ignorance, but using your ignorance as an excuse to accuse others of dishonesty is certainly shameful.

quote:

---

The evidence for the Flood that I and other creationists have described as actually existing on this planet shows a REAL worldwide Flood in REAL earth time.

---

No. Certainly not. You do a better job of disproving it with the bizarre fantasies you have to make up to try and defend it. But there is still so much evidence younhave yet to come up with any answer to, beyond trying to sweep,it under the carpet. Anyone who seriously thinks about the matter will see what you are doing there, and know that you do not have case.For example, the title of this thread. The fossil record is strong evidence against your claims - until you can offer some sensible reason to think that the observed order is possible in your scenarios you have nothing.

In concert with the enormous pressure from above I'm getting more sure that that's what happened.I started thinking in terms of a volcano because of what I read years ago about there being a volcano there. All the granite in the area is a clue too. No reason that couldn't have been the result of what I keep describing of my favorite scenario. In fact it woujld very likely be the result. Golly gosh you sure put that one to rest didn't you? But you are right I said "aha" at that point and I continue to think you made the case for me. I failed to mention the pressure when I talked about the volcanic heat, but pressure there certainly would have been in my scenario as the whole collection of basement rocks beneath the Tapeats would have moved up against and along the length of the Tapeats with all the pressure of three miles of strata above it bearing down.

So is mine.