Summations Only

You're misusing the term geologic column again. The geologic column is conceptual, an amalgamation of all the information gathered from stratigraphic columns around the world. It isn't something real that you can find somewhere on Earth.What I think you mean to say is that there are only two end to end stratigraphic columns that you know of. If you're referring to the Grand Staircase and Smith's diagram of England, and if by "end to end" you mean they represent the entire geologic timescale from the Cambrian forward, then you are wrong. There are unconformities (missing time) in both. Since you think that layers are deformed and tilted as a whole unit, how can you also believe that that the Supergroup, which you think was once horizontal and part of the whole unit of horizontal layers above it, tilted independently? Since you say things about the diagrams that are demonstrably untrue, you either can't see them or can't interpret them or both. It's not clear what you mean by "truncated columns." Are you referring to the tilted strata of the Smith diagram? We'll get to "eroded as a block" when I reply to your next message. This is self-evidently true - why do you feel the need to say it. Of course strata cannot be deformed or eroded until they are "in place,", i.e., they exist.--Percy

The ambiguity wasn't really about what "eroded as a block" means or what "folded as block" means. It was much more about what you mean by "block". You say that that hill from the Painted Desert was eroded as a block. To make sense the block could only be those strata that are above ground and exposed to erosion.To add to the ambiguity, the strata included in your block will vary from location to location according to which strata are exposed. The Tapeats is exposed at the Grand Canyon (in some places) and so is part of your block, but it is not exposed at the Vermillion Cliffs and so is not part of your block. This is very confusing, because the Tapeats is definitely part of all stratigraphic columns where it exists extending all the way up to the surface.Adding to the confusion is that you also say strata are folded as a block. But folding mostly only happens to buried strata, so now a block is buried strata.At one point you also said these blocks were neatly demarcated, but of course there is no clear line of demarcation between what strata of a column happen to be buried and which happen to be exposed. Which strata are exposed is a function of how much erosion has occurred.I think it would be easier on all concerned, including yourself, if you adopted standard terminology. You're describing stratigraphic columns, and sometimes you're focused on the exposed portion of a stratigraphic column that is vulnerable to the forces of erosion, at other times you're focused on the buried portion of a stratigraphic column that is most vulnerable to the tectonic forces of bending, stretching and compression, and at yet other times you're focused on the complete stratigraphic column from top to bottom.You can still use the word block or unit to refer to a sequence of strata or formations or groups, but you can't say things like "strata are eroded as a block" or "erosion occurs to a block of neatly demarcated strata" (I'm paraphrasing) and be making much sense.--Percy

As has been explained many times, the Colorado Plateau region is unusual in how quiet tectonically it has been over an extended period of time. Yet during the period when the it was tectonically quiet other parts of the world were tectonically active, and some of these tectonically active regions are immediately adjacent to the Colorado Plateau. As the USGS webpage on the Colorado Plateau says:

quote:

---

One of the most geologically intriguing features of the Colorado Plateau is its remarkable stability. Relatively little rock deformation (ex. faulting and folding) has affected this high, thick crustal block within the last 600 million years or so. In contrast, the plateau is surrounded by provinces that have suffered severe deformation. Mountain building thrust up the Rocky Mountains to the north and east and tremendous, earth-stretching tension created the Basin and Range Province to the west and south.

---

Did you follow that? Regions adjacent to the Colorado Plateau were very tectonically active at the same time that the Colorado Plateau was relatively tectonically quiet. This directly contradicts your claim, or in layman's terms, you're wrong yet again. And yet every time you try to explain your way all kinds of problems emerge. That's why most of the time you just declaratively say something like, "The Flood explains things much better," avoiding specifics, entire posts and entire people. Other times you just endlessly repeat boneheaded claims, like that the geologic timescale has ended. A lot of the time you seem apathetic about getting anything right, as if you just need a pastime and saying provocatively wrong things gets you the responses you need to keep busy.To add to what PaulK says about the Smith diagram, while it was a revolution in understanding at the time, there is much Smith could not know and that is therefore absent from his (by today's standards) extremely primitive and undetailed diagram. This is not to take anything away from Smith, but it isn't like we haven't learned anything in the intervening 200 years.--Percy

You're making false accusations again. Yeah, so? Why does it matter what hills we look at in the Painted Desert? I needed a high res image so you could see the contacts up close, so that's what I posted. Yeah, but you can't see, and when you can't see something you just make things up. Anyone who can see who blows up the image and pans around will easily find examples of tilts, crossbedding, gradations, and interbedding. Here's the image again: I again encourage everyone to include any image under discussion in their message. It's very easy to do, and it has very little overhead.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

We already know your Biblically based beliefs. The discussion is your opportunity to present evidence supporting what you believe. It's understandable that you to avoid doing that, since every time you attempt it you make one misstatement of fact or logic after another, but it does raise the question of why you are here. Bored, I guess?--Percy

I didn't deny this was evidence, and you didn't quote my actual response. I asked about your evidence for rapid deposition, and the question remains unanswered. Undisturbed strata certainly isn't evidence of rapid deposition - lack of disturbance of strata is something that can only happen after the strata was deposited. The absence of tectonic activity after deposition is no indicator of what happened during deposition.You need evidence of rapid deposition, but you won't find it because rapid deposition is impossible. Tiny sediments falling out of suspension is an extremely slow process even in quiet water, and in the active water of your waves and tides and inundations tiny sediments would not fall out of suspension. What you're saying makes no sense. Whether strata were deposited in hours or eons they still represent spans of time, so missing strata are gaps in time whether the Flood happened or not. Why do you believe missing layers are more consistent with the Flood? How do missing layers happen in a flood scenario? You're repeating the same error you've made in the past about erosion. Erosion levels a landscape. These landscapes were created by erosion: Landscapes like this are very unlikely to become preserved as strata, but I've explained why many times now and I'm not going to explain again. Read back in the thread.Streams and rivers channel water will cut into a landscape, and such channels are preserved if the strata are preserved. The Kaibab was exposed to erosion carving channels up to a hundred feet deep before the Moenkopi was deposited atop it. Here's the description from the USGS Kaibab Limestone Webpage:

quote:

---

Unconformable contact with underlying Woods Ranch Member of Toroweap Formation attributed to solution erosion and channel erosion; average relief about 10 ft (3 m). Some channels have eroded as much as 150 ft (45 m) into the Woods Ranch in western half of map area. Erosion channels were filled with sandy cherty limestone typical of the Fossil Mountain, providing an extra thickness of the Fossil Mountain.

---

Do you ever wonder why the Painted Desert is a bunch of mounds, wonder why the material between mounds eroded away while the mounds did not? It's because the material between the mounds was softer, and it was softer because it wasn't lake deposits of limestone and volcanic ash. It was land. Volcanic ash would have fallen on land and lake alike, but in a short time (geologically speaking) the volcanic ash on the land would have washed into the rivers and lakes.Rivers eventually silt up and change course, so it seems like we should see siltstone layers in the Chiinle, and we do. You keep making this silly and untrue assertion. For example, about half the layers of the Grand Canyon have unconformities between them. I've provided this list to you before, here it is again:

• Supergroup/Tapeats: unconformity
• Muav Limestone/Temple Butte: unconformity
• Surprise Canyon Formation/Supai Group: unconformity
• Formations within the Supai: unconformity at top of each
• Supai Group/Hermit Shale: unconformity
• Hermit Shale/Coconino Sandstone: unconformity
• Coconino Sandstone/Toroweap Formation: unconformity
• Toroweap Formation/Kaibab Limestone: unconformity
• Kaibab Limestone/Moenkopi Formation: unconformity

That's a lot of unconformities. They are, with the exception of the Coconino, marine strata formed through Walther's Law, where sea transgressions grind landscapes away. Most terrestrial erosional features created by rivers and lakes and so forth would have been obliterated. Your scenario is just something you made up that has no evidence. You are correct about one thing, that the Great Unconformity represents a great deal of erosion. The Vishnu Schist once had mountains above it to a height of six miles that eroded away before the layers of the Grand Canyon Supergroup were deposited before being tilted and themselves mostly eroded away. No amount of time and energy will find what doesn't exist. This is just a bald declaration with no evidence or rationale. It also includes a pretty bad misunderstanding. The geologic timescale cannot be based upon the geologic column because they are one and the same. They're synonyms. The geologic timescale is a conceptualization of information from all the stratigraphic columns around the world. Your are correct that it has no material existence in that it is conceptual, the way the Periodic Table of the Elements is conceptual. It can't end by definition, as has been explained a number of times. You're replying to yourself?Anyway, you haven't done anything except repeat your bald assertion again. I can only repeat the question. How can a stratigraphic sequence that has missing periods and nothing before the Cambrian be considered complete? It's a rhetorical question, since by definition it cannot. There is evidence for approximately four billion years of geologic history, and other evidence points to an age of the Earth of about 4.56 billion years. There is no evidence for what you're pushing. There is evidence of the unconformities. There is no evidence for what you're pushing. You don't have a theory - you have some cockamamie ideas based on your own personal Genesis interpretations. Your confabulations are so distant from reality that it's hard to fathom why you don't just invoke God. No one would fault you for that. But you're for some reason trying to contrive naturalistic explanations for miraculous events while not understanding almost any science and having no intuitive feel for how the real world actually works. Yes, exactly. And yet you claimed the entire geologic timescale was represented, which is incorrect, and so your error was pointed out. No one ever questioned that a stratigraphic column would tilt together. In fact, the only one who has questioned this is you, who thinks the Supergroup tilted independently of the layers above. You may be looking at this in the wrong way. This stack of strata (I assume you're talking about Smith's diagram) is partial only in the sense that some time periods are not represented. The stack of strata is otherwise completely solid. An unconformity is not a disturbance, if by disturbance you mean strata being acted upon by tectonic forces. The same what thing? You mean disturbances? If so, what disturbances are you referring to? The tilting? If so, why are you arguing about the tilting? No one questions the tilting, although keep in mind that Smith's diagram is probably like most geologic diagrams, with the vertical axis exaggerated. The tilting is likely not anywhere near as great as shown. Say what? Do you get some perverse kick out of denying things you've obviously said? If the fact that things aren't "over and done with" for these strata has been a major point you've been making all along, then why did you say that things are "over and done with" for these strata? Contradict yourself much?Just for a hoot, point me to where you've made this "major point I've been making all along." Sedimentation is occurring all around the world today. Creation of new strata is not over and done with.In the context of sedimentation upon the seafloor, let's step inside your Flood scenario for a minute. During the Flood sediments deposit on the sea floor as well as the land. As the Flood waters recede from the land they carry sediments back into the seas, which already have a great deal of left over sediment. The sediments continue deposition onto the sea floors. Where the sediments are sufficiently deep lithification has already begun.The Flood ends. The land is uncovered by water and is once again exposed to the air. Rivers flowing off the continents deliver sediments into the seas. Rains cause runoff from the continents and deliver sediments into the seas. So the seas will always contain sediments, and deposition of sediments onto the sea floor will continue from the Flood right on up to the present.Where do you see some demarcation of deposition between the end of the Flood and the present that would mark the end of the formation of strata? This is just made up with no evidence. If you want to offer evidence for your scenario then we can discuss it, but if you're just going to make up empty claims then all that need be said is that they're empty. You may as well deny that rivers flow to the sea. You're just going to repeat your fictional account. Making stuff up is not an answer, and repeating the stuff you made up is still not an answer. Faith, once again, there is no stratigraphic column in the world that completely represents the entire geologic column. Not in the Grand Staircase region, not in England, not in Tennessee, not anywhere. You're repeating yourself. Here's that USGS quote again about tectonic activity surrounding the Colorado Plateau from the USGS webpage on the Colorado Plateau:

quote:

---

One of the most geologically intriguing features of the Colorado Plateau is its remarkable stability. Relatively little rock deformation (ex. faulting and folding) has affected this high, thick crustal block within the last 600 million years or so. In contrast, the plateau is surrounded by provinces that have suffered severe deformation. Mountain building thrust up the Rocky Mountains to the north and east and tremendous, earth-stretching tension created the Basin and Range Province to the west and south.

---

Back to your message: Well, sure, there's no reason to conclude anything about when geologic events occurred, except for all the evidence. We've presented our evidence and your response is to either ignore it, be unable to comprehend it, or deny it. Meanwhile you have no evidence for any of these supposed Flood events that occurred a mere 4500 years ago. Above what point? See the USGS quote about the Colorado Plateau again. There you go with the pronouns again. If what only goes up to the Permian? We all agree the Colorado Plateau region was tectonically quiet for an extended period, but not in the surrounding regions, nor in many other places around the world. As far as Smith's diagram, I don't know much about the stratigraphy of England, but compared to today neither did Smith. I don't know how you can look at Smith's diagram, that you can't see anyway, and conclude there was no tectonic activity during the deposition of strata. What disturbance are you referring to? I can't figure out most of what you're saying here, except for the last part, so I'll just repeat that there are no complete stratigraphic columns anywhere in the world with respect to the geologic timescale.--Percy

No, of course you can't spend any time on research. How could you post 12 messages a day if you had to waste your time researching and providing support for what you say? Much easier and faster to repeat the same old bald assertions and made up stories over and over again.--Percy

Why is this coming as a surprise to you? Of course lithification is a gradual process. If the weight of overlying sediments wasn't enough and/or the length of time buried wasn't enough, then the strata will incompletely consolidate, leaving you with a soft and crumbly rock. The rock at Bryce Canyon can be like this. This is from Landscape & Geology in Bryce Canyon National Park:

quote:

---

Much of Bryce Canyon's rock is limestone, relatively soft and crumbly, which was easily eroded into the park's numerous intricate hoodoos.

---

You seem to doubt that water would be forced out under pressure. Here's an interesting video where a roll of wet toilet paper is placed in a hydraulic press. I won't bore you with the whole video, this is positioned just as he crushes the wet toilet paper: All the water is forced out because of the pressure. This is what happens to crushed sediments. As the volume decreases the water is forced out of the interstices between particles and in essence floats upward in the stratigraphic column because it is both mobile and less dense. Folding and pulling apart? How does that match what we're talking about. The analogy is to your Flood scenario and what happens when bending and stretching results from the Kaibab Uplift. Just how much bending and stretching are you imagining was involved? However much that is, imagine your clay or dough being stretched by the same amount.In estimating the amount of bending and stretching remember that the vertical is exaggerated in the diagrams - your wet and malleable rock should be able to handle this small amount of bending and stretching without cracking with no problem. I know this is your magic rock that does anything you need it to do, but either it is malleable and can handle a little bending/stretching, or it's not malleable and it will fracture. Which is it?Why are you postulating wet and malleable rock anyway? It's made up and doesn't exist, and your Flood scenario seems to require rock that fractures rather than bends and stretches. I'm getting that from the fact that the Colorado River meanders. For the umpteenth time and as many people have told you, the river originally carved it's course when the region was lower in elevation and more level in topography. The river downcut as the region uplifted. Fractures wouldn't run across the plateau, and they wouldn't meander.--Percy

In Junior High I participated in a science fair where we transmitted sound across a room using light. We carefully explained this to the reporter. In the paper it became something like, "The light became brighter when they spoke into a microphone."The quality of science reporters varies. Becky Oskin, the reporter at Live Science, is apparently a respected science writer, a member of the National Association of Science Writers with many articles in Scientific American, so she's a good one. My guess is that "underground folding" was her translation of when Dickinson mentioned the role of subduction of the Pacific plate, which subducts at a shallow angle and causes strips of crust to pile up at great depth but well inland, like beneath the Kaibab Uplift. Maybe Edge has an opinion on that possibility.--Percy

No wonder you're impossible to keep up with. You just replied to a 332 word post with 36 words.Don't faults qualify, in your lingo, as a disturbance? The Hurricane Fault along the western perimeter of the Kaibab Uplift, and the Toroweap Fault along the eastern, occurred during the uplift.In your Flood scenario the Supergroup strata and the Paleozoic strata were originally part of the same block of strata.
You say that strata tilt as a block. If this were true (and it is if there aren't additional factors) then if the Supergroup and Paleozoic strata were all present at the time of the tilt then they would have tilted together.In the vicinity of the canyon the column of strata from the Vishnu Schist up through the tilted Supergroup and up through the Paleozoic layers to the Kaibab are all uplifted as a unit. The forces of uplift came from deeper within the Earth, pushing up entire column as a whole.As PaulK notes in the context of your Flood scenario, where the Supergroup unit on the right should have exerted the greatest upward pressure (its rightmost portion) the Kaibab lining the North Rim is actually lower in elevation than further north (further left). Here's the diagram for reference: A couple points from my post that you ignored that are worth noting:

• Since some Supergroup exposures lie outside the Kaibab uplift, we know the Supergroup didn't cause it. For example, Nanoweap and Unkar group strata are exposed well to the west of the Kaibab Uplift, see Figure 5.1 on page 77 of GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE OF THE GRAND CANYON - one of the authors is Dr. Karl Karlstrom from Mod's video.
  ​
• Here's a link to a page that has an animation of the tilting and eroding of the Supergroup that should help you visualize geology's views: Tilting, Faulting and Eroding of the Grand Canyon Supergroup. Just click anywhere on the diagram, or click on the little "Play" button beneath the diagram. It's a very short video, maybe only 10 seconds. Any comments?

And a correction. Though I looked it up at a couple sites, apparently they both incompletely defined the word deformation. Both Moose and Edge believe tilting is a form of deformation, and a bit more extensive poking around the Internet agrees, so I will of course adopt the correct terminology.--Percy

Edge didn't reply to this one, so I'll attempt a reply. This is yet another bald declaration with no evidence or reasoning.Assuming by arch Edge meant the Colorado Plateau and the Kaibab Uplift, why do you think tectonic forces incapable of creating it?Edge tends toward brevity and I don't always catch his meaning, presumably Edge will correct me if I have this wrong, but I think he is saying the same thing everyone else has been saying. Briefly summarizing in list form:

• The Supergroup layers were deposited in marine environments atop the Vishnu Schist.
• The region was uplifted and stretched, turning the Supergroup layers into a terretrial basin and range region, breaking the strata into large blocks and tilting them.
• The forces of erosion then wore away most of the tilted Supergroup strata.
• A couple hundred million years later the region experienced uplifts and subsidences that in turn caused sea transgressions and regressions that deposited the Paleozoic layers.
• The region was again uplifted, I'm guessing around the Middle Cretaceous.
• Erosion wore away the layers down to the Kaibab. Rivers and streams created incisions that eventually became the canyons of the Colorado River.
• The region was uplifted further (the Great Plains, then even more with the Colorado Plateau and Kaibab Uplift) and ancestral rivers downcut into the rising landscape creating deep canyons, in particular Marble Canyon and the Grand Canyon.
• At some point the ancestral rivers became the Colorado River, but it's hard to tell exactly when. Around 6 million years ago probably isn't too bad a guess.

This brief little video that I've linked to a couple times shows the Supergroup strata tilting, then being eroded flat: Tilting, Faulting and Eroding of the Grand Canyon Supergroup.The video doesn't include the detail that the Shinumo Quartize is very resistant to erosion and so eroded at a slower rate than other strata of the Supergroup. Hills and cliffs of Shinumo Quarztite rose above the surrounding plains. The sea transgression that deposited the Tapeats encountered and eroded these Shinumo Quartzite hills and cliffs, explaining why boulders and other detritus of the Shinumo Quartzite can be found embedded in the Tapeats.It is widely believed that some parts of the canyons of the Colorado River are as much as 70 million years old, which is much older than the 40 million year old (at most) Claron Formation, so the Claron is unlikely to have ever overlain the Grand Canyon region.So what layers did overlie the Kaibab in the Grand Canyon region before being eroded away? My guess is that all the layers from the Moekopi to the Carmel Formation overlay the Kaibab, but not the layers now overlying the Carmel because there is a significant unconformity atop it that dates to the Middle Jurassic. The Dakota Formation overlies the Carmel Formation and is much younger, Late Cretaceous, about 90 million years younger, so it likely never existed in the Grand Canyon region. There must have been other layers above the Carmel that once overlay it. They would have formed between the Middle Jurassic and the Middle Cretaceous then eroded away and are now forever lost to geologic history.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

What evidence causes you to think this? I'm not sure what "in the line of the tectonic force" means, especially as something that can separate adjacent strata one from another. Could you define it?And what caused this "line of tectonic force" to affect only the Supergroup layers but not the Paleozoic layers above it?In the context of your Flood scenario, how do you explain the wild coincidence that the Supergroup layers date much older than the Paleozoic layers, and that that's also where the division between tilted and untilted layers occurs.And just so you don't forget this important unanswered question, your Flood scenario has the Supergroup layers tilted while buried - where did the missing cubic miles of rock go? Please recall before answering your previous attempts at answers and how they were shown bogus, after which you went silent. It wasn't just the upper block (by which you mean the Paleozoic layers) that were lifted but the entire column, from Vishnu Schist to the Supergroup to the Paleozoic layers, as can be seen in your favorite diagram: What is your evidence for a general upheaval? Meaning that you can't define "block" because of the contradictory way you used it. It's understandable that you would like to avoid discussions where you end up in a train wreck, unable to respond to messages like my Message 1379 and my Message 1397. In the context of strata, erosion is the wearing away of the exposed surface of strata and is not a force. Why can't you just say that exposed strata experience erosion? If you want to refer to the strata of a stratigraphic column that are exposed, why not just say "exposed strata"? How is saying "strata are eroded as a block" doing anything more than sowing confusion about what you're trying to say?Saying "strata are deformed as a block" is at least comprehensible. This makes no sense. How are you defining stack? Why isn't it just another synonym for block or unit? I'm looking at Message 419 now, and I don't think you know what it is you're trying to say. It is self-evidently true that strata cannot erode or deform until they are "in place," i.e., until they exist. I have no idea what a "partial block" is. Except that they're not. Take this image for example: You're presenting this as a block of strata that erode as a unit, but this is actually only a partial block, as we can see if we pan out a bit: By your definition huge continuous stretches of the Earth are a single block because they're at the surface and they're eroding. For example, the entire Colorado Plateau is a single block because it is a block of eroding strata.Exposed strata erode, but that doesn't make them part of the same block. I think what you've made clear is that it is sufficient to say that exposed strata erode. And everyone already knew that.--Percy

I understand, but then after making that clear you later doubled-down on your claim that the geologic timescale is completely represented from the Cambrian forward. If you don't want me to keep pointing out that that is wrong then don't keep saying it. You originally said from the Cambrian to the present, but the Cambrian is a period, not an era, so if you're switching to eras as I suggested then you have to change it to the Paleozoic, in which case yes, this is true. But so what? You're not making any point for which that fact would be supporting evidence.Interestingly and confusingly, the Cambrian is a period while the Precambrian is a supereon (according to Wikipedia). Why do you think you're saying anything meaningful. It is a physical requirement that strata be "in place" before they can be part of deformation. How is this not something everyone already innately understands? I don't know why you're explaining the bloody obvious either. As I said yesterday in Message 493: --Percy

Opaque, even. Understanding what geology says is a prerequisite for criticizing what it says, don't you think? Most of the time you're flying blind.--Percy

You're selling yourself short. Your mistakes, misunderstandings and miscomprehensions are legion.You just replied to an 820 word message with a 101 word message. Here are the key points you ignored:

• The extent of the water isn't a factor. It's the rate of dropping water level that matters. Physics. It doesn't matter whether the water level is dropping at 1.5 inches/minute in a kiddie pool or an Olympic pool or a planet sized ocean.
  ​
• Transforming the rate into different units doesn't change anything. It's a minuscule rate, and your thin sheet of water of a few inches deep is only going to flow for 3 or 4 minutes before there's nothing left of the sheet, because the water level is dropping at 1.5 inches/minute. 3 or 4 minutes of a slow flow isn't going to erode anything, not even wet and malleable rock.
  ​
  Keep in mind that you're talking about a thin sheet of water a few inches deep. This isn't really much water, less than .1 cubic miles spread across an area of 1152 square miles, which is the area of the Kaibab Plateau.
  ​
  Also, as the amount of exposed land increases the rate of flow resulting from a dropping water level of 1.5 inches/minute will also increase. But the average land elevation on Earth is only 2750 feet, while the height of the Kaibab Plateau is around 8000 feet. In your scenario very little land is exposed at this point, and so the flow rate is still very slow.
  ​
• About water draining from a bathtub, at the drain it drains from the bottom. The further you get from the drain the more the water just generally flows toward the drain. And about its value as an analogy to water draining off the continents, it isn't an appropriate model for your scenario, where water would drain toward all seas, not toward one single drain.
  ​
• The ocean floor has not dropped. Surveys of the ocean floor after WWII in order to aid submarine navigation revealed a great deal of information about mid-oceanic ridges and sea floor striping and so on, but not an ounce of evidence for dropping sea floors.
  ​
• There is no evidence of any obstacles on the Kaibab Plateau, the ones you have somehow impeding the flow of water while enhancing its force.
  ​
• How do unconsolidated sediments and wet and malleable rock fracture?
  ​
• How is it that strata broke up into small enough pieces to be carried away by four inches of water that flowed for only a few minutes?
  ​
• How are floods and lakes from before you think the world existed evidence for a global flood only 4500 years ago.

This morning I was 50 messages behind. Now late in the afternoon I am 72 messages behind. You could help me catch up by taking the time to reply to what is posted to you.--Percy