Summations Only

Once you absolutely know something, having an open mind is stupid. Yes glaciers too, crossbedding tooOne of the main things about these pictures is the evidence that the strata were laid down before any major disturbance occurred, and only after that were the formations sculpted by erosion or twisted by tectonism. Since I'm talking about straightness I haven't included any of the twisted ones, but it's interesting tht all the rest have become hills and mountains through erosion after all the strata were in place. SUCH a quiet planet for hundreds of millions of years, and only then so drastically eroded and disturbed, how remarkable,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.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Change links to images into images.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Fix Namibia image.

Wow! A twofer.....2 correct statements for the first time in this thread. Flat and tight is irrelevant as evidence supporting your argument.The layers have been there longer than 4000 years, 50,000 times longer than 4000 years.

I don't have the time or enthusiasm to post much here.Faith says that the contact's nature argues against there being a "millions of years" gap represented there. I don't recall anyone advocating that there is any major time gap represented there. As Edge posted uptread somewhere, even if the Coconino has been tagged with a age "millions of years" younger than the Hermit, that does not mean that the contact represents a "millions of years" time gap. I thought I saw Percy somewhere advocate that the "1 inch layer" is part of the Coconino , based on it being the same color. I would be very careful about doing such based on just color.Just looking at the surface texture of the rock face, I would include the 1 inch layer as being part of the Hermit "shale". The base of the "1 inch layer" doesn't seem to always be sharp, and the coloration sometimes appears to cross bedding planes. Having a real geologist look at the rocks directly and report on the observations would probably clear up this real fast. A solid conclusion can not be gotten by looking a a picture (OK, maybe if we had a high resolution close up of that "1 inch unit').My guess is that the "1 inch layer" is some alteration/bleaching of the Hermit "shale", long after the lithification of all the units. Perhaps there is sometime water seepage at the contact.The "1 inch layer" might be only superficial dust from the Coconino.Moose

Do you respond to persons other than jar any differently? No, so don't blame jar for your lack of cogency. The example of local floods that "collapse hills and bury cars" multiplied a billion times... and I "embellish" with a term like violent? Violent doesn't even begin to define what the flood you describe would be like.Do you remember the Tsunami of 2011? Here is an image of the aftermath of that wave It hardly stripped any sediment from the land and I would consider that episode to be violent. You propose something a billion times more powerful and I shouldn't call it "violent?" It does have to be ALL the sediment that it is going to redeposited, which in the GC area alone is thousands of feet thick. ALL that sediment had to come from somewhere... It must have stripped it from the land. But by ALL the sediment it doesn't mean there would be no sediments left unscoured, it means all the sediment that was deposited had to come from somewhere. Besides, what sedimentary rock do you think was not laid down by the flood? You even think the GC Supergroup was deposited by the flood. So your criticism of "It doesn't have to be ALL the sediment" is quite senseless.Oh, and how did sedimentary processes work before the flood? Where did all that sediment come from originally? Did God create the whole Earth as unconsolidated sediment? That's not what conventional geology does. It is your caricaturization of conventional geology that does that. What conventional geology does is when a fossilized fern is found in a layer, they say "ferns grew when this layer was being deposited." When a dinosaur skeleton is found in a rock, they say "This dinosaur lived during the time when this sediment was being deposited." You add a bunch of those observations up and you can begin to have a idea of what the environment was like at the time those sediments were deposited. Right... How is that no problem for a flood that was a billion times more powerful than the 2011 Tsunami in Japan? A billion times more destructive that the worst mudslides in recorded history? Do those transport intact systems? NO. They destroy and mix everything into a big mess. They don't transport intact nests and root systems and then stack them up, one on top of the other, to look like they have been accumulating over long periods of time. NO. How would you know, you didn't even look at the references I gave you did you. You dismissed them without consideration.Your method of dealing with evidence is "I know the flood happened, so none of the details matter." and not only is that logic extremely flawed, but you cannot claim to be basing you conclusions on the physical evidence since you don't even consider large portions of the physical evidence. Basically you ignore any evidence that counters your premise. WRONG! This "everything else" has to SUPPORT the main premise.Its not enough to make an observation and call it evidence. You have to connect that observation with reality. Remember my example I gave several years ago where I observed cows on the side of a hill and the grass had been cut to spell "MSU?" If my conclusion was that the cows selectively chewed the grass to produce that message, that would be daft. But why? Because it is not enough to make an observation and draw a conclusion from it. You have to connect that observation to reality. Cows don't spell messages in grass.And floods don't sort sediment into the types of layers we observe in the GC. Floods don't transport intact root systems and reefs and nests. If you disagree, then you need to explain how that could happen. You need to connect those observations to reality, not just assert your conclusion. That is not evidence. For example, looking at that cross section and saying they look so flat that it destroys the idea they could have been deposited over millions of years. That is just an observation; and one that is very similar to thinking that cows cut a message into the grass. But in order for it to be evidence, you need to connect that observation to reality. So far, its a no-go.HBD

I was responding to jar, who really shouldn't be allowed to post at all.Violence suggests wind whipped rain, not just the effects of all that water but OK violence will work. There's just no need to add the term to dramatize it. But isn't it obvious that's what I meant? I was answering your complaint that there couldn't be animal tracks during the Flood because there wouldn't have been any land left after it was stripped bare. Yes mine was a brief caricature but I don't see any appreciable difference between it and your account above. And again I feel I have to add the reminder that the rock would have been depositing in the same place as those ferns and dinosaurs and displacing their living space. Yes I know there are all kinds of ways you get the sediment buried and lithified but there's no way to get it huge and flat over many thousands of square miles without displacing living space, if its even possible at all without being deposited by the Flood.Yes I very rarely look at references for these constantly repeated challenges that don't address the main point.I do believe the Flood has been proved by actual physical evidence and that being the case there is no reason to get distracted by questions I can't answer. It will all sort itself out when the main point is recognized."Floods" don't do much of anything like the worldwide Flood would have done, but as far as sorting sediments as seen in the GC, it would depend on what sediments were available to the flood in question since floods DO sort and stack sediments in layers.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I doubt I said "gap" but if I did it isn't what I meant. What I keep trying to say is that it argues against there being millions of years difference in age between the layers no matter how or when they were deposited within their assigned time frame. In other words it is not a contact line. ABE: or a bedding plane /abeYour interpretations of bleaching or superficial dust to explain the mysterious one-inch area are a lot more reasonable than all Percy's weird stuff.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The pictures show ORIGINALLY flat and straight and tight strata. About 4500 years ago. Yet a lot of them are STILL extremely straight and flat and tight.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You say, "If the cracks are as geometrically related to the Bright Angel fault as they say (and knowing the source, that's a big 'if')," by "source" do you mean Whitmore? I only referenced Whitmore for Faith because I thought she might find him credible and he implied that there was "substratal liquefaction" at the base of the Coconino. I don't consider him reliable, and you don't seem to either.But if some of what you say will be based on Whitmore's paper then maybe it would be a good idea to send me a copy. I can post it to the website so it's available to everyone. How can there be substratal liquefaction of the Coconino base that has no effect on the Hermit with which it is in direct contact? Don't the diagonal bedding planes in this image argue that the Coconino has not been subjected to substratal liquefaction? And doesn't the absence of any trace of bedding planes in the inch-wide something argue that if there was any substratal liquefaction that it was there?Given the source is Whitmore, you're not really giving substratal liquefaction serious consideration, are you? But you mentioned other sources ("I've traced some references back to the late 60's"), so are there other researchers pushing substratal liquefaction?I'm aware that my belief that it's ambiguous whether the inch-wide something belongs to the Coconino or the Hermit is not widely shared (or perhaps is not shared at all). That the inch-wide something is uncommented upon by anything I've read about the Coconino/Hermit boundary says I'm wrong to think it significant, and if I'm wrong I'm wrong. I've been adjusting my views to align with the evidence when it becomes available - I'm okay with being wrong, but I would like to understand what's up with that one-inch something so I can judge for myself whether it's significant. For example, I cannot be convinced that it is part of the Hermit until I know enough to answer the question, "How do you know that one-inch something is part of the Hermit?" I can't just blindly accept others' opinion. Until I can fill in the ellipsis of, "We know that one-inch something is part of the Hermit because ...," then my answer has to be that I don't really know, and that I don't think anyone else really knows, either.This answer from the USGS Geology of National Parks: Hermit Shale webpage let's me give voice to my doubts about "official" explanations:

quote:

---

Sandstone bleaches to yellow-white color in vicinity of breccia pipes throughout map area, and at upper contact with Coconino Sandstone or Toroweap Formation in western half of map area.

---

What kind of bleaching action produces an inch-wide something that stretches for miles and miles? How can it be the result of bleaching action when the above image shows some rather obvious interfingering? Is the bleaching action a surface thing, or does it extend back into the rock face? Presumably the Hermit is red because of the presence of iron oxide, so it would only turn red where exposed. If you broke off a piece of Hermit Shale, wouldn't it be light-colored behind the surface?Also, for me that the Hermit Formation is described in such a variety of ways lends further uncertainty as to what it really is.So I'm still looking for something that makes sense to me. I'm not sure how clastic dikes fit into the picture, but more information would be good. But don't the diagonal lines in the above image represent crossbedding? Suggesting there could have been no liquefaction at this part of the basal Coconino? Well, there seems good reason not to trust Whitmore. He's starting with conclusions unsupported by evidence and working backwards.--Percy

Responding to several of your messages...Replying to your Message 1348 to Edge: But you don't know that the Flood happened, don't even have any evidence for it. And the sedimentary layers are neither flood deposits nor the same age. Here's a list of things found in the sedimentary layers that could not have been deposited by the Flood:

• Increasing radiometric age with increasing depth.
• Increasing difference of fossils from modern forms with increasing depth.
• Burrows, worm holes, termite nests, coral reefs.
• Strata of large heavy sediments above strata of small light sediments.

For a more complete list of issues see Message 1258. If you don't know how it happened then how do you know a flood was responsible? If you don't care then how will you ever learn how it happened? Amen. You may all be seated.Replying to your Message 1350:I fixed your message so that the images reside within the message instead of just being links. I think many of the layers that you think are strata may actually be bedding planes, some of them even just layers of volcanic ash. Perhaps one of the geologists can comment.Since floods only sort by size/density of sediment and do not normally create sharp contacts, what is it about these images that says "flood" to you?Replying to your Message 1351 to Edge: The shameless and unembarrassed way in which you declare this speaks volumes.You again didn't place the images in your message, just provided links. I fixed this again. Since there were multiple images at the Namibia link I just left it as a link. Is there any particular image you wanted presented from the Namibia link? If you let me know which one or ones I'll add it/them to your message.I did send you detailed instructions for how to insert images into messages in my Message 1344. Do you need additional help? Do you have any questions I can answer? There is no requirement that tectonic events occur on a timetable. What "major disturbances" are you referring to in the images? Most layers are marine, so uplift (tectonism) is required before erosion is possible. Most of the planet is quiet seafloor, sedimentation is a slow and gradual process the vast majority of the time, and erosion of rock is a very slow and very gradual process (though, again, I think some of your images may be of volcanic ash beds). There isn't much unusual about it.--Percy

Thank you, I did my best to get the picture onto a page of its own but that didn't work with some of them, and even when I got it the best I could do it reverted to the whole page anyway. The one you didn't fix was the third on the top line. I will follow your instructions for Microsoft Edge next time.Bedding planes make the point I'm after as well as separated strata I think.But in the photo you have been having so much trouble with you don't even have a bedding plane beneath the Mystery Inch, and the contact line above it is what should tell you that the Inch belongs to the Hermit. But perhaps edge or Moose can make it clearer to you.

If you go back through my messages you'll see that I've referenced online sources saying everything from no gap to millions of years of gap. Google Scholar hasn't been much help as the past decade has seen significant decreases in what is available for free from geology journals. Right. A transgression that takes millions of years is going to leave behind sedimentary layers whose age not only differs significantly from top to bottom, but also from southwest to northeast (to use the transgression that created the Tapeats as an example). I reget it if I ever expressed it with such certainty, but my views have certainly evolved as more evidence has been presented. As I said in my Message 1330 that immediately followed the one you replied to: Back to your message: Not that I disagree, but...I can't even find anything online (again, Google Scholar has left the room, so online resources are limited) that acknowledges that that inch-wide something exists. I can't guarantee I've been meticulously tentative in my expression in every message, but on the other hand Faith ignores more than half my messages forcing me to repeat points, and I probably become more rushed and brief with each repetition. Yes, this is the interfingering I mentioned earlier. But you say at the end of your message: Wouldn't that make it part of the Coconino? Agreed. I commented on bleaching earlier today when replying to Edge in my Message 1358: --Percy

What I hear you saying is, "Look at how flat and straight the strata are. This rules out millions of years between the end of deposition of one layer and the beginning of deposition of the next." So far you haven't been able to explain why you think this. As I said in my Message 1330: Back to your message: You never posted a meaningful reply to my Message 1329 (nor any at all to my Message 1342 where I repeated the rebuttal of your bulleted arguments). If you think it weird then it's incumbent upon you to explain why, and if you can't support the arguments I rebutted then you should stop making them. Why do think bleaching or Coconino dust are reasonable explanations?--Percy

Not so much. No photos from 4500 years ago. Not so much. I'm through taking anything you say seriously. Your defense of your argument is increasingly incoherent and chaotic. And now we see that you are stuck and will never improve your mindset to see the glaring inconsistencies your fantasy creates.

Why do you think "flat and straight and tight" strata are evidence that they're 4500 years old, particularly given the wealth of evidence that they are much older:

• Radiometric ages of strata range from recent to billions of years old.
  ​
• Fossils in strata increasingly differ from modern forms with increasing depth at an evolutionary pace consistent with radiometrically established ages.
  ​
• The evidence left behind by life (burrows, worm holes, termite nest stacks, tracks, coprolites, etc.) indicates that many strata were once living landscapes for considerable periods of time.
  ​
• Modern measurements of sedimentation rates are consistent with the ages of geological strata.
  ​
• Walther's Law is a slow process taking millions of years to build sedimentary layers to significant depths. There's no such thing as a "rapid Walther's Law" because the deposited sediments are fed by erosion from the land, which is a slow process.
  ​
• Unconformities that represent considerable periods of time require uplift or lowering of sea levels to expose sedimentary layers to erosion (millions of years), followed by erosion of sedimentary layers (millions of years), and subsidence or increase of sea levels so that sedimentation resumes (millions of years).
  ​
• Striping on the sea floor is consistent with reversals of the Earth's magnetic field, which occur on average every few hundred thousand years.
  ​
• The rates of sea floor spreading and continental drift are consistent with an ancient age for the continents and most sea floor, where I'll arbitrarily define ancient to mean more than a million years old.
  ​
• The rate of slope retreat at geological structures like the Grand Canyon are consistent with their width and represent ages of millions of years.

--Percy

And I say Faith’s Flood because very little of it is in the Bible.In the Bible, the Flood doesn’t scour the land down to bedrock. The rising waters eventually cover the mountains or high hills (depending on the translation). Air-breathing life is wiped out within 40 days. (Genesis 7 18-23)In Faith’s Flood huge amounts of sediment are washed off the land, sorted, rapidly transported and deposited. Faith insists that this mustn’t be called violent - not because it would be an understatement but because it makes it obviously implausible that life could survive. And yet according to Faith it did, all over the world. And came out and left tracks when - in the middle of the Flood - the water somehow drained away from a region. Another thing not mentioned in the Bible, and not exactly something that would be expected. On top of this, when the Flood came back, it managed not to erase the tracks.Even if there were not massive amounts of other evidence against the Flood this alone should be enough to call it into question for anyone but the most fanatically dogmatic believer.