Summations Only

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.

Reality, facts, process, procedures, mechanism, methods, models, actual observations do have a way of piling on fantasies and nonsense.The problem is you keep making claims but never present the process, procedures, mechanism, methods or models that might actually do the things you assert happened simply because what you assert is impossible.The Biblical flood never happened.We have the fossils, the geology, the process, procedures, mechanism, methods, models, the observations and the theories that explain reality. All you have are old stories written by ignorant humans and the dogma of your cult.

quote:

---

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

---

You mean that it disproves it. As I said in my previous post the fault in the supergroup alone disproves it. Don’t you think it would be a good idea to stop trying to use evidence against your position as proof? You complain about your arguments being trashed but that’s practically begging for it.

quote:

---

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.

---

Ridiculous falsehoods aren’t facts, Faith.

quote:

---

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.

---

Since absolutely nobody has made that argument I don’t see how your claim of too many is possibly true. Nor even one of your opponents has bought into your fantasy, Faith. And it really is insulting of you to try to pretend that even one of us had. (You do realise that the Grand Canyon area is not the entire planet ? You do realise that we can see that even there, there were disturbances before the present geological column was in place?)

quote:

---

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.

---

Isn’t it amazing how all your evidence is false? There is plenty of evidence of erosion between layers. You’re even attempting to pass some of it off as evidence for your daft ideas about angular unconformities - so it is rather hard to see how you can honestly pretend it doesn’t exist.

quote:

---

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

---

Because 790 foot high hills are so straight and flat.The next paragraph can be answered with the simple point that cherry picking the examples consistent with your view (making the unsafe assumption that you aren’t misrepresenting the lava dike) is hardly proof. Ignoring contrary evidence which is there for all to see is hardly a sensible way of arguing.

quote:

---

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.

---

It would hardly sillier than your posts. And no, you have not adequately dealt with the many criticisms of your claims.

quote:

---

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.

---

Two posts is not much of a pile-on. I’m not counting shorter replies to other posts you made.Just one final point. If your evidence is either false or obviously cherry-picked how can you complain if your argument is trashed ? Especially if you misrepresent your opponents into the bargain. It would be unfair of you to expect us not to trash it.

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

quote:

---

The fault in the Supergroup disproves nothing I've said.

---

I suggest that you look at it more carefully. Consider the facts that the supergroup is equally tilted on each side of the fault, that the contact with the strata above them is neither flat nor smooth, that that contact is a curve - a curve which does not follow the tilt, nor show a step, where the fault occurred, nor do the magma intrusions penetrate the upper strata.Clearly the supergroup was penetrated by magma intrusions, then tilted, then faulted, then eroded. And only then were the upper strata deposited.

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

So a violent contact made tons of rock simply vanish. Really ? You say you’ve thought this through ?

quote:

---

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.

---

You can’t see the Shinumo Quartzite sticking up into the Tapeats ? Even though you know it does ?

quote:

---

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.

---

The tilt obviously did NOT push the upper strata upwards. I remind you that the upper strata do not follow the slope of the tilt as should be obvious.And why shouldn’t the intrusions penetrate the upper strata ?And how come the upper strata are so hard in the first place when they were supposedly deposited relatively recently ? Shale isn’t noted as a particularly hard rock even when it is lithified. So the Bright Angel Shale isn’t likely to pose that much resistance.

quote:

---

I would get 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

---

It is hardly what the evidence shows. You have zero evidence of horizontal motion you assume, I remind you that the upper surface of the supergroup shows erosion rather than abrasion. And you haven’t pointed to one piece of evidence that contradicts my scenario.

quote:

---

Yes I have thought all of it through many times,

---

Then I am sorry that you are so bad at thinking.

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.

quote:

---

The tons of rock did not disappear, it's all there in the Vishnu schist.

---

So the step, by being pushed up, ended up underneath the rocks it was on top of ?What evidence do you have for this ?

quote:

---

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

---

You said that the Supergroup did not penetrate into the Tapeats. The Shinumo quartzite is an element of the Supergroup. So obviously what you said was wrong.And take a look at this diagram. (While it is not directly relevant you might like to consider just how flat the Surprise Canyon and Temple Butte Formations are, too)

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.

Again, you are simply posting word salad. What tectonic activity and what is the process, procedure, model, method, mechanism involved in a tectonic event that would allow those specific intrusions between layers?Faith, you got some 'splainin to do.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin...even+t

I came back and was delighted to see some movement on this thread ...... only to find it has been ruined and turned into another Faith flood foolery thread.

Why not sea bottoms? Water bodies deposit sediments, or are you not aware of this? Rivers erode rock at higher elevations and they make their way to bodies of water where the sediments settle out and produce flat layers. This is basic geology, and you get it so, so wrong.

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.