Summations Only

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.

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.

Hills indeed. The Shinumo was never anything but a layer in the basement rocks beneath the Grand Canyon, from which a piece thrust into the upper strata when the tectonic upheaval that split the continents moved all those rocks horizontally.How does a boulder of quartzite with a diameter of fifteen feet get "eroded" from anything anyway? This idea that beaches can become rocks in a stack of rocks, or any other landscape for that matter, is just way too bizarre for me. The efforts to show how it could have happened are imaginative but impossible. Great. So I'll stop describing the contact between the Supergroup and the Tapeats as "abraded" and say it's eroded. As long as there is evidence of disturbance at the contact it fits my hypothesis well enough. I guesws so. At some point the futility of having my arguments unfairly trashed over and over does get to me and it's just time to stop.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's utterly irrelevant to the point I was making, which is that these rocks aren't just local. All the strata are originally flat wherever they are found. The main difference with those in the GC/GS is that so many of them remained flat for such a depth while strata in other locations are often found tectonically distorted, buckled, bent, twisted.Besides, this is NOT the problem since you've done nothing but deny and deny and deny that there is any flatness or tabularity at all. I can't even make a simple obvious point about flatness without being told I'm wrong even about that. This kind of futility nobody should ever have to endure. It's a form of abuse. Yes, that is correct, I tend to blur the canyon with the Grand Staircase since they are really a unit. The illustrations of landscapes apply to the rocks in the Grand Staircase which is where the dinosaurs are located. So what? The task I described can still be done with the Triassic period which is one of those amply illustrated at Google image with loads of foliage and Animalia. It is that sort of landscape that has been addressed too, such as by Modulus. Why don't you address it? Describe how the Triassic landscape became the Triassic rocks. Of course landscapes become rocks. They have to if your idiotic time periods explanation makes any sense at all. Fossils in the rocks are supposedly the remains of what actually lived on that spot, --abe: DON'T YOU DARE DENY THIS AFTER SO MANY HAVE SAID SO FOR THREAD AFTER THREAD /abe -- so show how they got there from their original habitat, or, how the habitat itself got there. The same processes must describe the marine layers too of course. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I can't keep the quote order in mind for some reason.Your example of the eroded "face" is about a kind of rock that is more easily eroded than quartzite:
Wikipedia says: But I find the whole landscape idea absurd anyway. The Shinumo is a layer of quartzite among other layers, it's not a hill in a landscape, just as the Tapeats is a layer of sand in a depth of strata and not a beach. I have an overview of the whole geological situation in the canyon area based on that cross section that has been referred to so many times in the past, and the overview is what dictates the horizontal movement and the thrusting. The schist and the granite are also pretty much confined beneath the Paleozoid strata. There are photos of the Tapeats as a hard shelf of rock showing both its flat horizontality and its position on top of those rocks. The quartzite is the only rock that penetrated into the Paleozoic strata. The strata were pushed up by the Supergroup, it did not penetrate the Tapeats as the quartzite did. This is just one piece of evidence that all the basement rocks were confined beneath the strata when the Supergroup was tilted. Tilted and obviously pushed upward into the Tapeats. The quartzite was the only rock capable of benetrating the Great Unconformity because it is harder than the others. The mounding or rise over the Supergroup is evidence that the strata were already in place when the tilting occurred because strata would not deposit neatly on such a mound. I know you disagree but you are wrong to disagree. All the strata are originally laid down flat and horizontal everywhere, and except for that hill or rise over the Supergroup that is what is seen in the canyon area too: straight flat strata in the cross section and in most of the photos of the walls of the Grand Canyon. The main evidence of horizontal movement is the boulder which is a quarter mile from its origin.But the tilting of the Supergroup is also evidence of that, as it is in any angular unconformity. Yes Geology interprets all of this differently, I disagree and have a different interpretation. Once I've got the whole scenario in mind Edge's little pieces of evidence, such as whether a surface is "abraded" or not are simply irrelevant.I also interpret Walther's Law to apply with a rapid rise of water and not just a slow rise. Why not? The slow rise is just an element of the standard Geo interpretation which I disagree with.But also the idea that Walther's Law defines the Tapeats as a former "beach" is ludicrous. Are all the basement rocks we see in the GC underneath that beach? Did the sea retreat that far that we now have a canyon in a desert where the beach used to be? I suppose this will be insisted upon but I can't buy it. Walther's Law applies to the ordering of the strata but the Tapeats was a "beach" for a very short period in the rapid rising of the sea and the rapid deposition of the layers. Well, we have a definitional problem here. Erosion is simply disturbed rock, rubble, and it does not have to have occurred at the surface, it can also occur between strata and I would assume when one rock moves in contact with another. There is enough evidence of the tilting of the Supergroup while buried in the mounding of the strata over it.As long as I have a clear idea of how all this worked together, and the evidence for it I've already mentioned, Edge's preoccupation with the lack of things like faulting is simply irrelevant. The overall scenario works, so the small scale evidence has to give. He's always going to be thinking in his own paradigm and I'm always going to be thinking in mine where his observations are irrelevant.I'll try to get back to this later.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I never said I was AMAZED at anything. This kind of misrepresentation is reason to leave this idiotic conversation. Sheesh.And I KNOW water creates flat deposits because I know the Flood created the geological column. But sea bottoms, no.How utterly screamingly ridiculous, Taq. Water BODIES like seas are NOT sedimentary layers, and I was talking about the extent of the LAYERS, I didn't even say anything about how they were deposited.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That cross section of the Grand Canyon / Grand Staircase area proves for starters that all the strata were laid down before any tectonic or other disturbance affected them. And that is the EVIDENCED foundation of my paradigm. It is also proved in other cross sections and in photo after photo of tectonically deformed strata where they are deformed in blocks and not independently. The implication of this of course is that the strata were NOT laid down millions of years apart but very rapidly one after another. Jusst the fact that there is no evidence of any kind of disturbance of the layers until the whole stack was in place is evidence of that. The attempt so many have made to claim that there is nothing odd about the planet's being undisturbed for hundreds of millions of years and then suddenly being violently shaken is too absurd for me to accept. The absence of any kind of erosion between the strata of a sort that would occur on the surface of the earth is more evidence. I think it was edge who posted the diagram of what such erosion might look like, quite a ways back a few days ago, but the picture was removed by Photobucket. Anyway that is what erosion would do to the strata and it is very clear it did not do it in the Grand Canyon. abe: it would only do it to land layers so I should say Grand Staircase. Just the fact that the strata LOOK so uniform, so identically straight and flat, is evidence that there were no time periods of millions of years.The erosion that did occur, that cut the Grand Canyon itself and the cliffs of the Grand Staircase, occurred after all the strata were laid down. There is a magma dike on the far left that starts beneath the whole area and spills out at the very top of the GS, showing that it occurred after all the strata were laid down. So did the fault line with the tilted strata to the north or left of it in that same area. The whole scenario shows disturbance after the strata were formed, and that is part of the reason the basement rocks had to be disturbed afterward too. It was all part of the same tectonic movement, which I figure occurred with the splitting of the continents. It triggered volcanism as well as deforming strata everywhere. I also attribute all the angular unconformities to it.Now all the silly debunkery is coming out here and that is just too tiring for me right now. I've dealt with all this too many times already to have much interest in doing it again, at least not right now.And I was going to come back to answer the rest of your earlier post but the pile-on while I was gone asks too much of me.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The fault in the Supergroup disproves nothing I've said.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No problem. I thought this through ages ago. The curve follows the high point created by the upthrust Supergroup as it impacted the Tapeats. The no-doubt violent contact with the upper strata removed the "step" and the faulting is simply the breaking of the Supergroup into two sections due to the same violence. The Supergroup did not prenetrate into the Tapeats showing that it was resisted by the weight above and was merely shaved down to its present remnant. It caused the curving of the Tapeats and the strata above by the force of its upward movement, first sliding horizontally under the Tapeats and then sliding under the curve as it formed. Yes, that is further evidence that the upper strata were a barrier that resisted penetration by everything except the quartzite, as the whole basement was forced horizontally under it as the Supergroup's tilt pushed it upward. I would guess the events happened almost simultaneously, perhaps the magma first but the tilting and faulting and erosion together beneath the whole stack of the upper strata. The horizontal movement of the whole unit would have cut off the magma as well as the all the rest of it.Yes I have thought all of it through many times, Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The tons of rock did not disappear, it's all there in the Vishnu schist. Yes I've finally become convinced of that after suspecting it for a long time. The material was available and so was the pressure and heat.And I merely failed to mention the quartzite penetrating into the upper strata because I was making a point about the curve and what caused it. But trust you, and everyone else here, to pretend I committed some kind of error when I didn't.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

My guess is that those irregular areas between strata were not laid down with the strata but formed during the tectonic upheaval. It didn't destroy the basic horizontality, but it caused enough disturbance to allow those intrusions between layers.

Sea bottoms are not as flat as the geological column strata. It's some kind of strange delusion that you'd ever get the stratigraphic column from a sea bottom. You can get layers of sediments in many ways, but not as flat and straight as the geo column. And of course the fact that the column is up on the continents is a clue that it wasn't formed on a sea bottom. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, the upper part of the Supergroup was. The lower part was probably just not subjected to the pressure as the upper part was. The movement stopped short of affecting it. Something like that.