Summations Only

That was a lot to absorb. Peneplain was a new concept. Looking it up led me to wonder if my belief that plains are a result of erosion is correct, not because it doesn't still feel correct to me, but because Wikipedia says there is some controversy in the definition. Some geologists include base level in the definition, others don't and think peneplains have to be near sea level. Those who think they must be near sea level must have some other mechanism besides erosion in mind for plains that form at altitude, such as the Great Plains. So now I don't know what to think.I understand the idea of the race between uplift and erosion, and that erosion is exploiting faults and fractures and degree of relief, so a region that is just generally uplifted could turn into a mountain range through erosion. But in that case why didn't the uplift of the Colorado Plateau turn that region into a mountain range? Why did the strata above the Kaibab erode away so evenly leaving just the Kaibab instead of a mountain range? Was it lack of faults and fractures? The evenness of the uplift? Something else?Wikipedia says the Canadian Rockies formed by folding, but it doesn't mention uplift. Does that mean only folding was involved? Wikipedia says thrust faulting and folding were responsible for the Himalayas.--Percy

I think I get this. If the rocks were more competent then we'd have a more vertical and more narrow canyon, but they're not. As the Kaibab Plateau was uplifted the Colorado (or maybe the ancestral Colorado) downcut. Any insufficiently competent rock would erode away and initiate a collapse of the canyon walls that propagated upward from river level.Why do softer strata form slopes? I thought I understood why a slope would form when a softer stratum is gradually exposed by a downcutting river, but it doesn't seem like the same mechanism would apply to softer strata higher up on the canyon walls, so now I'm thinking maybe I don't understand.--Percy

The density of granite, sandstone, limestone and shale only differ by only about 10%, we know the average proportions of the major rock types, and likely the remnants of those ancient mountains in the form of sediments carried elsewhere reveal their composition. Presumably the research was peer-reviewed and published in a respected journal. Electron microprobes and mass spectrometers are incredibly accurate in measuring the composition of minerals like garnets.But your interest in research and precision and testing claims is refreshing. Can you tell us again about all the research behind your Flood ideas?--Percy

Given that 71% of the Earth's surface is ocean and that much of it is abyssal plains, it cannot possible be true that non-flat surfaces are far more common on Earth than flat.You're not specific about what non-flat surfaces you're referring to, so I'll just note that hills and mountains are not flat, but neither are they depositional environments.The surface of depositional environments, even where the original surface was very uneven, eventually become flat because the lower portions will accumulate sediments at a slightly higher rate. I showed three images (not one) of uneven strata, and marine sediments are flatter than any of them. Again, three images, not one. Which one are you talking about? Again, I chose those images because they show non-flat strata. I can only guess that you're referring to the Chinle formation. As explained before, it preserves a region networked with streams and lakes and swamps that gradually filled in as sediments continued to accumulate. If you're going to wax sarcastic you might want to avoid a display of ignorance by not explaining a terrestrial formation with a sea transgression. Sandstone has 60% of the volume of sand, so obviously there is a flattening effect for sandstone, and the figures are probably similar for the other types of strata. What extra depth of sediment? There you go with the pronouns again. What are you imagining needs to be cleaned off during lithification? You mean stratigraphic columns, not the geologic column. Contacts between strata vary, from sharp to graduated to crossbedded to interbedded. I have no idea what you're talking about, but maybe you should ask yourself how the piled up sediments of your flood managed to be a hardening agent without becoming part of the rock it's supposed to be hardening? Different depositional environments. Forgotten how the Tapeats formed again, huh? Does a slowly transgressing sea sound familiar? In what sort of environment do you imagine the Flood sediments depositing if not a depositional one? Here's a high resolution photo from the Painted Desert. Blow it up and scroll around and you'll see that those strata aren't as flat as you thought - there's even interbedding.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typos.

So when we look at a layer of sediment being deposited on top of existing layers, we can't tell if it's newer than the layers it's being deposited on? What with the "time scale" no longer working and all?You are batshit crazy.

quote:

---

Very very few in comparison with what there should be if the Time Scale were correct.

---

Please support this claim.

quote:

---

And they are all very ambiguous and can all be interpreted more reasonably my way.

---

Since your explanation is riddled with problems - solved by inventing events ad hoc - and without any significant evidence, even the evidence that should be there - it cannot be called reasonable.

Why are you holding me responsible for a picture I didn't discuss? As you even quote, I referred only to the HILL in the picture I posted.However, the picture you posted shows lines that are so distorted by the wrinkled dried surface I would guess that they were originally quite straight and flat.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I gather you don't even know what the time scale is.It's too hard to have to keep correcting your ridiculous straw man arguments like this one. I don't think you've said one thing of any value since you decided to post here recently.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It was the video that claimed that "particular qualities of the garnets at the top of the Vishnu Schist required an overburden of about 6 miles in order to form". I really don't know the details of their reasoning, but I do know that the temperatures and pressures required for various metamorphic minerals to form can be determined through laboratory experiments. I have no idea where Faith comes up with that three mile figure. But she wants it to be the Grand Canyon Supergroup and younger currently present sedimentary rocks. Indeed. The rocks currently in contact with the Vishnu Schist were not there to be part of the metamorphism. Any rock at the same depth as the Vishnu Schist at the time of metamorphism would also have been highly metamorphosed.Back at the time of metamorphism, long before the Grand Canyon Supergroup and even longer before the Tapeats, there was supposedly (per the video) about six miles of rock above what is now left of the Vishnu Schist. That six miles, including a portion of the Vishnu, was eroded away prior to the Supergroup deposition. Were we able to see the nature of that long lost rock column, we would have seen progressively lesser grade metamorphism as we went up section.Metamorphism is not an on/off thing. You get lessening metamorphism as the pressure and/or temperature conditions decrease.Here's the analogy of how I see petrology (the study of rocks and their formation processes}:Sedimentary rocks are drinking milk.Igneous rocks are getting into drinking coffee of various strengths.Metamorphic rocks are getting into doing some heavy psychedelics.Or something like that.Moose

The only problem is that you don't understand the implications of your own idiotic babbling. Your words are unconnected to reality. As I pointed out a few posts ago, saying that the column has stopped forming is like going outside in a snowstorm and declaring that the has snow stopped accumulating as of five minutes previously, and that the snow falling now, piling up on the existing snow, has nothing to do with that.You are completely fucking nuts.

Typical. You expect us to accept your argument ... It's not just one, ALL the fault lines in that area run generally NNW to SSE while the canyon runs generally ENE to WSW ... perpendicular: this indicates that your crack alignment is not related to the actual tectonic activity caused by the Kaibab Plateau being pushed east up over the land to the east.That one fault is also perpendicular to the canyon, and the erosion along it maintains the fault line -- a straight line, with NO meanders. There is NO section of the main canyon that is that straight.Near the south and west end there is a section of the canyon that parallels a fault, but not in the fault.Conclusion: the main canyon did not follow any fault line, it's alignment is not related to earth cracking. The meandering shows it formed by natural erosion. Only if you ignore the parts that contradict it and cherry pick what happened in the tributary ... again typical. Above the fault line the river meanders like the Grand Canyon, but once it hits the fault line it becomes straight straight straight, and NOT like the Grand Canyon..There is NO evidence for your cracked idea, there IS evidence that contradicts it.Enjoy

How did the flood deposit material under already existing material without disturbing the older layer?Faith, you keep making assertions that the flood did things but never explain how the flood did those things.FACT: There are stone age sites all over the world and even pre-stone age sites.FACT: Those sites existed before the flood is claimed to have happened.FACT: None of those layers are more than a few tens of meters below the current surface.FACT: All of those sites were are ground/surface level.FACT: The evidence shows the site was at ground level at the time it was created by leaving evidence like fire pits and food remains and personal objects and man made objects.FACT: All of those sites were buried by known observable processes.Question: How could your flood deposit any material under an already existing layer without disturbing it?

No problem. The dating is wrong. All those sites grew up after the Flood.
NO material was deposited UNDER anything.

You go on to deny that this is evidence. Hard to have a discussion with someone who denies that, makes the whole conversation futile. The "unconformities" are merely missing strata, time gaps only on your theory but not mine, and missing layers are more consistent with the Flood than with the Time Scale.I was saying that there should be visible erosion between layers all over the place if the Time Scale were correct, not just here and there in small amounts, and the erosion should be very apparent, cutting into strata to some depth, making obviously visibly irregular contact lines. The few examples of erosion between layers that have been posted over the years are minuscule compared to what should be there, and easily enough explained as occurring after the strata were laid down, due to water running between the layers, or even tectonic disturbance that displaces them to a small extent, especially down near the GU where such erosion is most evident, according to my scenario. PaulK asked me to produce evidence of this and it's a fair request but it would take more time and energy than I've got right now. You refuse to accept this but I refuse to accept your refusal.. Same with evidence against the Time Scale (that the strata were all laid down without time gaps, meaning evidence of millions of years, Your faith is touching, but no, the Geological Time Scale is an artificial invention of Historical Geology based on the Geological Column with its fossils, it has no reality, it marks no real time, it came to an end when the column came to an end, at the end of the Flood which is marked by all that tectonic moving and shaking. And besides, the "missing" periods are more consistent with the Flood than the Time Scale anyway. Well, first, your four billion years are imaginary and not real, second, your missing periods are imaginary and not real, all that's missing is some sedimentary layers your theory says should be there. But my theory says there's no reason to expect sediments to be consistently deposited by the Flood. And the point I'm trying to make doesn't require the whole time scale to be there anyway, just the "oldest" and the "youngest" so that any deformation or erosion that occurred can be shown to have occurred to the entire range of strata all at once as a block or unit and not to individual layers.Partial stacks make it harder to make this point, but the whole range shows that all such disturbances occurred after all the strata were laid down. And as a matter of fact even the partial stacks show the same thing to whatever level they happen to reach, which I'll say more about farther down. I'm so far from forgetting that it's a major point I've been making all along. It's the laying down of the strata that is over and done with, all of them in place from Precambrian to Recent is over and done with, and THEN all the disturbances occurred, the erosion, the deformation etc. The whole point has been that the erosion and deformation have all occurred AFTER that, so of course they are still going on. But the laying down is over and done with. I've answered this but let me answer it again. The rest of the world has only partial columns, the GS and Smith's cross section of England being the only columns that cover the entire range of time periods that I know of (the state of Tennessee has all of them but I can't find a cross section, just the map) It's just that it's harder to prove my point with a partial column.But even in those there is also no evidence of disturbance until after the entire partial stack is in place, there is no disturbance between layers, but onlyl at the top, even if the top is somewhere down in the middle of the Time Scale. You (and Geology) merely interpret the disturbance at what is now the top as having occurred in that time period whatever it happens to be, but there is no reason to do that. All that's happened is that the strata above that point were eroded away, washed away in the Flood no doubt, leaving the partial column.What is left nevertheless shows the same pattern: no disturbance until the whole stack was laid down, whole in this case being only a partial Time Scale. If it goes only up to the Permian it is still true that all the layers up to that point were laid down without any disturbance: the disturbance occurred at the Permian level but not in any Permian "time period." If up to the Triassic, no disturbance until the Triassic level, not time period, then it occurred at that level. If only up to the Devonian, then no disturbance until the Devonian level not time period. Etc. The principle I'm claiming holds in all these cases you see, it's just that I can make the case more clearly with the couple of examples where the whole range of the Time Scale is represented, which happens to be only the Smith cross section and the Grand Staircase area as far as I know.

The Kaibab uplift is not "gently sloping land," it's rather steep, so it isn't going to form meanders. And your fault line doesn't seem to be in the right place for the Colorado to follow, AND without something like a fault line to follow there is no way the river is getting over that uplift. But I admit I'm not taking the time to read it all through so I could be missing your point.ABE: Just noticed your statement in an earlier post that I "expect" you to accept my argument and yet I don't spend time on your posts. Ha ha, hardly. I've long long since given up on anybody even really getting the argument let alone accepting it. So if I give short shrift to any particular post it's just that it's not what I'm thinking about at the moment or it's covering territory I'd have to spend too much time thinking about. or that sort of thing. Sorry, truly, there's just way too much stuff here for one person to deal with.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.