Summations Only

quote:

---

"...and its equivalents" means it's all one continuous layer, so what's the problem?

---

It more likely means that it isn’t all one continuous layer. You have got to stop misrepresenting your sources.

quote:

---

Even sand covering four states is no "beach'

---

The material at the Grand Canyon is a coastal deposit, but some of that was underwater. Remember that the monadnocks were islands ?And it does not cover four states, only parts of four states - according to Wikipedia: northern Arizona (Grand Canyon), central Arizona, southeast California, southern Nevada, and southeast Utah.ABE and another important point. This is part of a transgressive sequence, so it will cover a larger area than the beach covered at any particular point in time. That’s what Walther’s law is really about.

quote:

---

Not THIS flat for pete's sake. It is utterly absurd to think such a tight contact could occur from erosion, let alone after millions of years

---

The Hermit Shale would have been pretty flat to start with, I haven’t found details but I guess it dried out and was eroded by wind. There is evidence of terrain features within it and below it. So, this is very much cherry-picking. Hermit Formation

quote:

---

I'll give you the Kaibab Monocline though since I didn't allow for the exaggerated vertical scale. I don't think rock hardened over millions of years is going to follow even that gentle slope however.

---

Under sufficient pressure, rock is plastic and flows. We know this. It just takes the right conditions and time. Edited by PaulK, : Walther’s law!

If I had the gung-ho, there are a lot of details in many messages of both sides of the debate I could quibble over. But I don't.Re: Quartzite (from a Faith message a bit back) - Strictly speaking, a quarzite is any quartz sandstone that is so well silica cemented that it will sometimes break through the grains rather than between the grains. This is independent of it being metamorphosed or not. Also, even in the scientific literature, the term has been misused to include quartz sandstones that do not not actually qualify as real quartzites (or did meet the definition before, but no longer does). An example is the "orthoquartzite", which used to mean a nearly pure quartz sandstone of any degree of cementing. The preferred modern term for such a "non-real quartzite" is a quartz arenite. The same sedimentary unit may have different names at different location, regardless of whether it was once continuous or not. Maybe it was once continuous, but no longer is because of erosion. Also, it may be continuous but not visibly continuous because of being covered by later sedimentation.Re: I'm sure that the unit (or equivalent) can be found over the area as illustrated. But not continuously. Probably parts of that area have been eroded away, and I'm confident that quite a bit of that area is covered by later sedimentation. Big kudos to bring up Walther's Law. Saved me having to do it.Moose

The point about equivalents is an attempt to keep the language correct. I do not believe that equivalent means contiguous even if in this case the formations are or were formed by contiguous deposits.And to clear up another point of potential confusion, on this scale we are really thinking of a coastline rather than a single beach - and with the coastline moving leaving deposits according to Walther’s Law as it moves.And with that Faith’s point collapses.

Not if it moves at the speed of the rising Flood waters, which has been my view of Walther's Law all along anyway.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Again Faith, we know what the evidence for a flood looks like and a contiguous layer of sandstone ain't it.You keep making stuff up and claiming "The Flud Did it" yet you never provide the model, mechanism, method, process or procedure that would allow your flud to create the evidence that exists in reality.

The problem is that it's not all one continuous layer.ABE: Note that there's no evidence proffered for that claim.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Not if it moves at the speed of the rising Flood waters, which has been my view of Walther's Law all along anyway.

---

Your persistent failure to understand Walther’s Law - and why the sequences it produces are evidence against Flood geology is well established.Again, if you don’t want your arguments to be trashed, don’t invite it by making the same silly mistakes all the time.

Walther's Law describes the deposition of sediments in layers by rising sea water. The Flood involved sea water rising over the land. The layers in the Grand Canyon were shown by RAZD to follow the pattern of Walther's Law. What's the problem?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I would assume most or all of it was covered. The Geo Column has a lot of layers to it and the Tapeats (or its equivalent) is just the lowest layer above the Great Unconformity. Core samples taken all over the Midwest show the whole depth of the Geo Column.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Walther's Law describes the deposition of sediments in layers by rising sea water.

---

Not exactly. It’s mainly about how shifting environments mean that a stratum may not be deposited all at the same time, and the Principle Of Superposition is only safe in a strict vertical column.

quote:

---

The layers in the Grand Canyon were shown by RAZD to follow the pattern of Walther's Law. What's the problem?

---

The other problem has been described to you more than once. Recently I did so (again) in Message 882

This whole notion of different "environments" strikes me as some kind of invention within evo theory. I even doubt that Walther studied anything BUT Flood deposits. How would you know one from another? I've never seen a beach with anything other than sand on it so where are the other deposits the sea throws up? When did the sea EVER rise except in the Flood? All that's happening here is you all following the requirements of your paradigm, not evidence, and I'm following mine.

quote:

---

This whole notion of different "environments" strikes me as some kind of invention within evo theory.

---

That’s because you can’t admit to your mistakes even when they are blindingly obvious. Of course there are differing environments along a coastline. And of course they will move if the sea rises or falls.

quote:

---

I even doubt that Walther studied anything BUT Flood deposits. How would you know one from another?

---

What makes you think that he didn’t look at how sediments are being deposited now ?
It seems rather obvious that he would need to.

quote:

---

I've never seen a beach with anything other than sand on it so where are the other deposits the sea throws up?

---

Go inland and you will find you run out of beach. Head out to sea and you will find that things are different again. You must have noticed the first, at the very least. But no, you think that is some kind of invention within evo theory.

quote:

---

When did the sea EVER rise except in the Flood?

---

It is slowly rising now. There are island populations in real danger of losing their homes. It’s starting to be a problem for Florida.

quote:

---

All that's happening here is you all following the requirements of your paradigm, not evidence, and I'm following mine

---

Of course. I care about the truth. You care more about pretending that you are right. No matter how many times you end up being foolishly wrong because of it. Really, it’s so obviously counter-productive I have to wonder why you keep so hard at it.

You need to go to more beaches, I think. Brighton, UK has pebbles, ranging up to cobbles. Oregon has boulders. Louisiana has mud in places.

But we know what flood deposits look like Faith, and what is found in reality is that there is no sign of any world wide flood.Change leaves evidence.Floods leave evidence.The Biblical Floods left no evidence and in fact what was left shows that the Biblical Floods never happened.There is no way that any flood can sort the fossils and the geology and the radiometric data and the anthrological data as that evidence exists in reality.We have the fossils, the geology, the radiology, the sociology, the anthropology and the models, methods, processes, procedures and mechanisms that do explain what exists in reality.All you have a two fables written by humans.

Boy, I'm really not getting this. If the layers to the east side were dragged down making layers to the west higher, why is the dip to the west? But the upthrown side to the right of the fault that isn't exposed should retain the drag fold aspect. Is the upthrown drag folding just something we should assume is really there even though it isn't shown? That makes sense. Yes, the Claron is another mystery. How can it lie atop an angular unconformity to the left of the fault, but lie atop the Kaiparowits to the right of the fault?--Percy