Summations Only

You replied three times to my Message 1297, so I'll reply to them all here:Replying to your Message 1298: There's no question that it's *a* contact line, but what layers does that contact line lie between. Is that contact line between the bottom of the Coconino and the top of the Hermit? Or is it between the almost-the-lowest Coconino and the absolutely-lowest Coconino? If the latter then that would make the bottom of the one-inch something the contact line between the Coconino and the Hermit.There's also those two papers from creationist author John Whitmore that imply that inch-wide something at the bottom of the Coconino is substratal liquefaction of the basal Coconino:

• Sand injectites at the base of the Coconino Sandstone, Grand Canyon, Arizona (USA)
  
• Sandstone clast breccias, homogenized sand, and sand intrusions: Evidence of substratal liquefaction in the basal Coconino Sandstone (Permian), Grand Canyon, Arizona

One of the abstracts says:

quote:

---

Field evidence and thin section analysis suggest the base of the Coconino Sandstone underwent substratal liquefaction prior to lithification of the unit.

---

So there *is* doubt. If you know the true situation, if you're somehow able to derive certainty from an image, then how do you know? Tell us.Whatever the inch-wide something is, whichever layer it belongs to, the contact is indeed sharp. I think Edge is treating "knife-edge tight" as a synonym for sharp contact, because when I challenged your characterization of "knife-edge tight" he responded that in geological circles that contact would be characterized as a sharp contact.But I'm finding myself increasing uncomfortable with that characterization, because images clearly show an inch-wide something between the Coconino and the Hermit but do not provide enough information to determine what it is. I also share HereBeDragons view that "knife-edge tight" isn't a meaningful geological term.But the larger question is why you think that 20-foot stretch of Coconino/Hermit contact is significant. It's certainly not unique in the canyon, as shown by the images of other longer stretches of the Coconino/Hermit contact that appear the same. And the Coconino/Hermit contact is not unique in being sharp, as there are many other strata boundaries within the canyon that are equally sharp, miles and miles of them.So if you think that particular Coconino/Hermit contact is in some way special in a way that provides support for your flood, then why is that, especially since a flood seems most unlikely to create sharp contacts? I'm just trying to get you to admit that you can't really know from an image whether that inch-wide something belongs to the Coconino, the Hermit, or is some kind of transition.Replying to your Message 1299: You said that the shadow lies "IN the contact", which you describe as "knife-edge tight." I was just making the point that something so narrow it can be described as "knife-edge tight" is far to narrow to have a shadow cast within it.Replying to your Message 1303: Yes, that's Baumgardner's image. Evidently in his opinion that represents the contact line between the Coconino and the Hermit. But in the opinion of Edge, HereBeDragons, Tanypteryx and myself that is only one of the possibilities, and the image doesn't provide enough information to tell with any certainty. That's not impossible, but that isn't what the images appear to show. If you expand my image you can tell that the texture of the inch-wide something is different from the Coconino, and both the texture and the color are different from the Hermit. Yes, we agree, there is definitely a slight ledge of Coconino above the inch-wide something across most of that image. While not impossible, this is not how the inch-wide something appears in the image. It appears to be as vertical as the rest of the rockface. I still don't know what you mean by "fine line." Is this the same as what you previously called the "darker fine line"? If so then that's a shadow. If instead by "fine line" you just mean the contact line, then yes, there is a contact line at the top of the inch-wide something. The evidence says your eyes are not just fine for this photo. That's a strange thing to say. I'm not the one with macular degeneration sufficiently severe to use as an excuse to avoid viewing evidence. Do you sense a pattern here? No, it's not. Anyone with good eyesight and a good resolution monitor can see the difference between the Coconino, the Hermit, and the inch-wide something in between. There are differences in texture and color. Here's the image that best shows this again: What is the resolution of your monitor? I won't say this is impossible, but it seems extremely unlikely. Explaining the contradiction, you describe the contact as "knife-edge tight," then say there's no rule the contact couldn't be an inch thick. You keep repeating this, but it just confirms the poor quality of your eyesight. I interpreted him as saying that even including the inch-wide something that the Coconino/Hermit boundary is a sharp contact. Quoting that exchange from Edge's Message 1251: Back to your message: This tells me that either your eyesight or your monitor or both make it impossible for you to see the textural difference in the inch-wide something, which contains speckles. It is not an illusion. The next time you refuse to look at some piece of evidence because of your eyes I'm going to refer you back to this. Anyway, you're clearly having trouble discerning fine detail in images. Again, not impossible, but that's not how the image appears to everyone else. Well, you let me know when you can make out the speckles in the inch-wide something. I thought you introduced the Baumgardner image because you believed it provided support for the flood. Why do you think that?--Percy

Here's another image of the Coconino/Hermit contact, this one from a little closer: Note that it labels the entire inch-wide something as the contact, and that it is just as vertical as the rest of the rock face. It is not "knife-edge tight," but it is certainly a sharp contact.This is from the paper Paleozoic stratigraphy of part of northwestern Arizona. I'm unable to get to the paper itself, so I can't get more detail. This quote comes via a Google Scholar search, and without more context a conclusive interpretation isn't possible, but it seems to imply that the contact between the Coconino and the Hermit is made of sandstone, which would make it part of the Coconino Sandstone, not the Hermit Shale:

quote:

---

The upper contact of the Hermit formation with the Coconino sandstone is abrupt and is marked
by a sharply defined line separating pink and gray sandstones.

---

--Percy

When Faith first started using the "knife-edge tight" term I responded several times that most unconformity boundaries would be "knife-edge tight," that what was unique about the 20-foot stretch of Coconino/Hermit boundary in that image was how clearly discernible it was because of the flatness of the rock face, not that it was unique because it was a sharp contact, which are common throughout the canyon. My own inexpert understanding is that unconformities tend to be sharp contacts, while continuous deposition across a context change tend not to be. For example, a sea transgression gradually transforming a coastal depositional region of sand into an off-coast depositional region of silt and mud would be continuous deposition across a context change and would be unlikely to produce a sharp contact. I'd didn't know that a magmatic intrusion could reveal evidence about the nature of a contact. She avoids the subject. I think you're saying that if we accept Faith's premis that there was a global flood that deposited many of the world's strata that the first land-based strata in the sequence could only occur after the flood had receded, and that therefore all strata above that must be post-flood, and any erosion of those layers must also be post-flood. If I have that right then that would be the logical view that accepts the way the world really behaves.But Faith does have answers for that. They don't have evidence or even make sense, but those aren't high priorities for her. I think her position is that the Coconino is marine and that the tracks were made during temporary recessions of the flood water. When pressed for evidence or explanations for how this could be possible I can only recall a couple of the ways she has answered this. One is that she provides no evidence or explanation and simply declares it so, as if she doesn't understand the need for evidence and rationale. The other is tides, which is another explanation that has no evidence and makes no sense. I think Faith's beliefs are sincerely held but that she finds herself unable to suppress inner demons when her beliefs are challenged.--Percy

You're stilll just repeating your opinion without evidence. What evidence tells you that the inch-wide something is part of the Hermit? I think everyone agrees that there are slight angles all across that entire Coconino/Hermit rock face. It is primarily vertical, but none of it is consistently at the same angle, including the inch-wide something. And you know this how? Yes, of course. That's one of the possible scenarios I described. Let me be more clear about this. These are the possibilities I see (there may be more, but these are the ones I see):

• The inch-wide something is a transition layer between the Hermit below and the Coconino above. There are two contact lines, one at the top of the inch-wide something at the boundary with the Coconino, and another at the bottom of the inch-wide something at the boundary with the Hermit.
  ​
• The inch-wide something is part of the Coconino, but it is sufficiently different that there is a bedding plane contact line between the top of it and the rest the Coconino. There is another contact line at the bottom of the inch-wide something between it and the Hermit.
  ​
• The inch-wide something is part of the Hermit, but it is sufficiently different that there is a bedding plane contact line between the bottom of it and the rest of the Hermit. There is another contact line at the top of the inch-wide something between it and the Coconino.

I'm not arguing for any of these possibilities. I'm just arguing that anyone who says they know for sure which it is needs to offer more evidence than just the images, because the images are inconclusive. And I say this even after having read to the end of the thread and seen Edge's, HereBeDragons and Tanypteryx's posts. But it *is* there. The inch-wide something has a contact line at both its top and bottom. If it did not have these contact lines then it would not be discernible as an inch-wide something. But what appears to divide the Hermit and the Coconino is an inch wide. What seems remarkable to me is that not only do neither Garner nor Baumgardner mention the inch-wide-something, at least on the Internet no geologist has mentioned it, either, that I can find. HereBeDragons got access to the paper and provided an excerpt revealing that the above quote is incomplete, but I'll get to that when I reply to HereBeDragons. For now let's just take that quote as I originally found it in my Google Scholar search. The quote says that there is "a sharply defined line separating pink and gray sandstones." Everything pink is below the inch-wide something. Everything gray is from the bottom of the inch-wide something upward into the Coconino.The excerpt HereBeDragons provided also describes the "shale" in Hermit Shale as a misnomer, saying that it is really predominantly sandstone, but in my reply to HereBeDragons I'll point out that that there seems to be other opinions on that. Well, if the Hermit is pink and the Coconino is gray, and since the inch-wide something is gray, guess where the line between the Hermit and the Coconino has to be? You use a lot of pronouns. I can't be sure what "that" and "it" refer to. Similar to what I said above, if the Hermit is pink and the Coconino is gray, guess what the gray inch-wide something has to be part of? Bedding planes are incredibly common within layers. What is your rationale for calling it absurd? The majority of the arguments in your list were flawed, and I very much doubt that I'm wrong that the images contain insufficient information to make a conclusive determination. But the paper I cited that HereBeDragons found cites a paper from 1922 as evidence that it's sandstone, so I wouldn't be too sure. See my reply to HereBeDragons.--Percy

Thanks for tracking this down. Your excerpt provides a clause that was missing from mine. Here's my excerpt that I got from a Google Scholar search:

quote:

---

The upper contact of the Hermit formation with the Coconino sandstone is abrupt and is marked by a sharply defined line separating pink and gray sandstones.

---

And here's your excerpt:

quote:

---

The upper contact of the Hermit formation with the Coconino sandstone is abrupt and is marked by a sharply defined line separating pink and gray sandstones from the conspicuously cross-bedded lower layers of the Coconino sandstone.

---

So my quote was missing the clause "from the conspicuously cross-bedded lower layers of the Coconino sandstone." Once that clause is added then it does seem to be saying that the pink layers and the gray inch-wide something are all part of the Hermit. I'm starting to lean this way myself because this image that I provided earlier does seem to show some interfingering of red Hermit into the inch-wide something: Yeah, I agree, I don't need the paper. I think the paper relied too much on Noble regarding that the Hermit is mostly sandstone. Most descriptions of it that I find vary in how they describe the Hermit, e.g., the Wikipedia entry on the Hermit Formation:

quote:

---

The Permian Hermit Formation, also known as the Hermit Shale, is a nonresistant unit that is composed of slope-forming reddish brown siltstone, mudstone, and very fine-grained sandstone. Within the Grand Canyon region, the upper part of the Hermit Formation contains red and white, massive, calcareous sandstone and siltstone beds that exhibit low-angle cross-bedding. Beds of dark red crumbly siltstone fill shallow paleochannels that are quite common in this formation.

---

A little brochure I picked up at the Grand Canyon 20 years ago called An Introduction to Grand Canyon Geology by Michael Collier says:

quote:

---

Hermit Shale, 300 feet. Slope former.
Early Permian (280 million years old)
Composed of bright red siltstones that are easily eroded to a low slope. Oriinally combined with the unerlying Supai Group, the Hermit was defined as a separate formation by Levi Noble in 1922. Like the Supai, the Hermit was deposited in swamps and lagoons.

---

So Collier knows about Noble, but he still says the Hermit is composed of siltstones.And this from USGS Geology of National Parks: Hermit Shale:

quote:

---

Hermit Formation (Lower Permian)Red, slope-forming, fine-grained, thin-bedded siltstone and sandstone. Upper part contains red and white, massive, low-angle cross-bedded calcareous sandstone and siltstone beds in western one-quarter of map area. Siltstone beds are dark red and crumbly, and fill shallow erosion channels that are widespread. Siltstone beds form recesses between thicker sandstone beds; locally contains poorly preserved plant fossils in channel fills in lower part of formation. Sandstone beds thicken and thin laterally either as channel fill or low sand dune accumulations. 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. Unconformably overlies Esplanade Sandstone. Dark-red, platy, thin-bedded siltstone of Hermit Formation fills channels as much as 60 ft (16 m) deep eroded into the underlying Esplanade in eastern part of map area, and as much as 130 ft (40 m) deep in Havasu Canyon area, south-central part of map area. Erosional relief is generally less than 10 ft (3 m) in northeastern part of map area. About 260 ft (80 m) thick along eastern edge of map area, increasing to about 850 ft (260 m) at western edge of map area.

---

They all describe the Hermit Formation differently, one mentioning sandstone a little, one a lot, another not at all. They all mention siltstone, only one mentions mudstone. Personally, I don't know what to think. This differs from what Edge said earlier, where he doubted that much Hermit had been eroded and that the boundary might represent a diastem, which means the Hermit couldn't have been lithified when the Coconino was deposited upon it since it had nothing previously atop it to create the pressure necessary for lithification. I saw that Tanypteryx asked about the possibility of chemical hardening for near-surface deposits, and Edge replied "Certainly," but he also used the phrase "not well cemented," so I think he meant something that could be crumbled easily by hand. Whitmore is writing from a YEC perspective. I only cited him because I thought Faith might give more serious consideration to what he said than to anything we might say, but she ignored both times I referenced his papers.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Clarify.

Well, this is different. What would have happened to the top of the Hermit during the seismic events? Does this have anything to do with the inch-wide something? Do you no longer think the Coconino sand penetrations into the Hermit were mud cracks?Also, I looked up the Bright Angel Fault but couldn't find anything about whether there was slippage along the fault during deposition of the Paleozoic layers, something Faith would be interested in since she believes the region completely tectonically quiescent during the period.--Percy

Radiometric dating is just one of the 20 or 30 issues you're ignoring in this thred. Maybe Edge or HereBeDragons can confirm, but I would expect that dating a fault that goes to the surface would be difficult to date, which appears to be the case for the Bright Angel Fault. I thought I was maybe on to something with the Cataract Creek fault zone, but no luck.Nevertheless let me tell you what I found. A webpage about the Cataract Creek fault zone, some of which is part of the Bright Angel Fault System, has this to say:

quote:

---

These faults are located on an erosion surface cut on Paleozoic rocks between the Mogollon Rim and the Grand Canyon. Extensive unpublished mapping has been conducted in this area (Shoemaker and others, 1974 #2166), but no intermediate or large-scale published maps exist for most of this area. Cataract Creek faults displace Paleozoic bedrock; Quaternary alluvium is sparse in this area. The geology of the southeasternmost faults of the Cataract Creek system has been mapped in detail (Newhall and others, 1987 #2154). These few faults apparently do not offset Pliocene volcanic rocks.

---

As near as I can gather, the Cataract Creek fault zone extends from the Grand Canyon 40 miles south down to the Mogollon Rim. About the southeasternmost faults it says that they have been mapped in detail and that they "do not offset Pliocene volcanic rocks." The Pliocene began about 5 million years ago, so these particular faults of the Cataract Creek fault zone must be at least 5 million years old. But since these faults extend through the Paleozoic layers, they must be younger than 250 million years old.So it seems that we can only date these particular faults to a range between 5 and 250 million years ago, and they definitely did not form while the Paleozoic layers were being deposited. Ah, well. There is no evidence in the sedimentary layers of the Grand Staircase region of sudden deposition by a flood, for a sizable and varied number of reasons that you're ignoring. See Message 1258 for that list of issues.--Percy

I rebutted your bulleted list in the very message you're replying to. Here's the rebuttal again straight from my Message 1329: It's incredibly easy to get the impression that you don't read most of what is posted to you, that you just pick out one thing that catches your eye and reply to that. In this case you replied to my first sentence and apparently never read down to where the rebuttal of your bulleted list appears.--Percy

I think what Tanypteryx meant when he said "from a distance" is that detailed examination often reveals a contact that isn't so flat but has irregularities that can't be discerned from a distance. That doesn't happen to be true of the Coconino/Hermit contact that you describe as "knife-edge tight," but it is true of many other contacts.More generally, contacts between strata come in all varieties, from sharp contacts to regular contacts to transitional to interfingered and probably lots of contact types I'm unaware of. And sediments can be deposited on flat and mostly horizontal surfaces (a common case) but also on sloping and irregular surfaces. Thicknesses of strata can vary greatly across their extent.I think the real focus of Tanyperyx's question was how extensive and flat sedimentary layers rule out millions of years between some layers, in other words, unconformities created by erosion of the underlying layer before sedimentation resumes. As has been shown, erosion flattens landscapes. By "straightness of strata" in mountains do you mean tilted but straight? If so then this doesn't seem unusual for mountains, particularly for basin and range terrains. How could uplift subsequent to deposition have anything to do with how the layers were originally deposited? Yes, Google Image has changed, and as is the rule for software updates these days, not for the better. You're using Internet Explorer, right? Follow these steps in Google Image:

1. Enter the search terms you want for the image and hit return (or click on the little magnifying glass icon).
2. Click on the image of interest. It will create a new section just below the image that includes a larger version of the image.
3. Right click on the larger version of the image and select Properties from the menu.
4. From the properties window select the image URL text and copy.
5. Go to your message entry box at EvC Form and paste the text of the image URL into your [img] code.

If you've upgraded to Windows 10 and instead are using Microsoft Edge (in essence, that's Internet Explorer for Windows 10) then abandon all hope ye who enter here. Follow these steps:

1. Enter the search terms you want for the image and hit return (or click on the little magnifying glass icon).
2. Click on the image of interest. It will create a new section just below the image that includes a larger version of the image.
3. Right click and select "Ask Cortana about this picture". This will bring up a sidebar.
4. Click on "See full size picture".
5. The picture will be displayed in its own tab with the picture's URL in the address box at the top. Copy the URL text.
6. Go to your message entry box at EvC Form and paste the text of the image URL into your [img] code.

Chrome is much better and easier because it isn't insane after step 3:

1. Enter the search terms you want for the image and hit return (or click on the little magnifying glass icon).
2. Click on the image of interest. It will create a new section just below the image that includes a larger version of the image.
3. Right click on the larger version of the image and select "Copy Image Address".
4. Go to your message entry box at EvC Form and paste the text of the image URL into your [img] code.

I had trouble parsing this - is maybe the second "was" not supposed to be there? But yes, one layer has to be laid down before the next can be laid atop it, which is Steno's Law of Superposition. I hope that's the Steno law you decided to keep. And yes, a layer is as old as radiometric dating says it is, possibly millions or billions of years old. Of course, sedimentary layers cannot be directly dated. We have to hope for serendipitous volcanic deposits within or at least bracketing a layer, and intrusions can put a lower limit on age.--Percy

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

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

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

Sure thing! And I fixed the Namibia image. You might have an easier time just switching to FireFox or Chrome. Come to think of it, don't switch to Chrome, switch to FireFox. You like to edit your messages a lot and Chrome only lets you edit a message once for security reasons. Why do you think straight flat bedding planes prove the Flood? The only trouble I'm having with the inch-wide something is in understanding what it is and whether it belongs to one of the layers that bracket it or is its own layer. You don't know that. If the inch-wide something belongs to the Coconino, or if it is its own layer, then its bottom is a bedding plane. But you also don't know whether the top of the inch-wide something is a contact line between the Coconino and the Hermit, or is a bedding plane between the almost-bottom of the Coconino and the top of the bottom inch of the Coconino. I did say to Moose earlier today that I'm now leaning toward it being part of the Hermit because of the interfingering that is visible at the bottom of the inch-wide something in this image: But what is the Hermit interfingering with? Looking back through some old messages I see that Edge may have already answered this question way back in his Message 1263: And more recently in his Message 1346 he said this: If Edge is correct then unless there are other factors the inch-wide something is Coconino that interfingers down into the Hermit.Of course, there were additional things that Edge said about things likely being very complex. I think what is most notable of those trying to explain the inch-wide something is the degree of tentativity they express or the additional explanations they provide, something you're ignoring. For example, at the bottom of his Message 1353 Moose says, "The '1 inch layer' might be only superficial dust from the Coconino," which again would make it part of the Coconino.But whatever that inch-wide something truly is, that's not what's truly important. The important issues are:

• You're the only one who seems certain. Though you claim to know, you couldn't possibly. Images are not often sufficient to provide certainty.
  ​
• What is the significance of that 20-foot stretch of Coconino/Hermit contact? It isn't a unique part of the Coconino/Hermit boundary, because I've shown you other images of the same boundary at other locations in the canyon that look exactly the same. And it isn't unique as a sharp contact, because there are miles of sharp contact boundaries between strata in the canyon.

--Percy