Summations Only

Well it pretty much was eroded away only "away" into the basement area as rubble that became schist. Something like that. But it's just all that stuff everybody's been complaining I didn't take into account so what's the problem? I'm now taking it into account by hypothesizing that it became the Vishnu schist, rubbed to rubble by the contact with the Tapeats and scattered hither and thither beneath the Tapeats. Lots and lots of rubble. Lots and lots of Vishnu schist that's sort of a hardened rubble. Works for me. The only certainty I have is about God, certainly not science. But I did become convinced because it fits so well with the whole scenario. The quartzite wouldn't have sheared the Tapeats because it went THROUGH it, so maybe it would have dug a trough in it as the Supergroup moved along under it. A trough I figure would have closed up when the movement stopped because it's still all soaking wet. (After considering various possibilities on the timing I've pretty much decided the whole upheaval starting with the splitting of the continents was the point at which the Flood began receding. Volcanism certainly got started then, and the sea floor must have been affected in some way that made room for the Flood waters.

The pressure would have come from the weight of the strata above as the Supergroup pushed up into the Tapeats and the heat was caused by that action, so when the movement stopped that also stopped. That's my guess.

I'm convinced but that doesn't mean I couldn't become unconvinced if I had really good reason too, and that's not the kind of certainty I have about God.The schist also occurs directly under the Tapeats so it could have been moved horizontally from the Supergroup.Depends on where you see the bedding.Wouldn't brittle deformation be a later event?

Most strata elsewhere didn't survive the tectonic forces but for some reason the canyon area did to a great extent, at least up to the Permian: the Mesozoic and Cenozoic rocks of the Grand Staircase were tilted in such a way that the receding water removed a lot of it and left cliffs; and it broke up miles of strata above the canyon before actually cutting the canyon itself from the Kaibab down while leaving most ol the walls intact. Even wet it would have been highly compacted. However, the canyon was certainly affected as you can see all the exposed remains of the walls everywhere, and the odd bits of intrusion between lower strata in the Tonto group I recently commented on I figure were also caused by that upheaval so it isn't as if NOTHING happened.

Nope. I know you like the establishment interpretation but the evidence shows that the tectonic disturbance occurred after the strata were all laid down and that they were laid down rapidly and not millions of years apart. The tilting was not there first because the strata are pushed up by the Supergroup and would not deposit evenly over that curve, as I already said.If you're just going to repeat the standard interpretation I'm done here.

The tilting can't have come before the curve, as I've explained. You need another eplanation for the supposed problem you find.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes I got your reasoning. My guess would be that the even curve has more to do with the distribution of the weight above than the shape of the Supergroup.Sorry, it violates Steno's principle of original horizontality to have the tilt come before the Paleozoic strata. Some here are willing to violate that principle but I'm not. The strata would not lie down evenly over the rise.This curve is the main piece of evidence I point to for the order of events that puts the tectonic disturbance after the strata were all laid down. an order which can be seen in many places, not just the Grand Canyon area. In the GC area, however, this is most obviously the case for all the deformed strata above the Permian, including the Grand Canyon itself, but since the strata wouldn't climb that rise it's also true for the basement rocks. Order is: quiet laying down of horizontal strata up to three miles deep, after which the tectonic shaking starts and the Flood begins to recede, pushing up the northern end of the Grand Staircase, tilting that whole area downward toward the Grand Canyon, which causes the formation of the cliffs of the "stairs" as well as breaking up the strata above the Permian in the GC area. The Supergroup is tilted and pushed up at the same time, causing the rise in the strata. That in turn causes cracking in the uppermost layers and the layers start to break up. Chunks of strata widen the crack and along with the receding water carve out the Grand Canyon.And besides, how do you get that rise over the Supergroup on the establishment interpretation that the Supergroup was the remains of a mountain range that eroded down to its current level? It's been argued here many times that erosion would produce a flat surface, not a curved hill. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes it can if that upthrust corner was getting filed down as it were during the pushing up, and the weight above resisted it. Oh right, we don't need a reason for the rise, it just decided to rise there without anything to rise over. Come on!Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sorry, no matter what problems you can find, the fact remains that the rise or hill over the Supergroup occurred after all the strata were in place and pushed up the entire stack.Yes I didn't answer you very clearly but you need to be asked where the tilted Supergroup went if it wasn't the reason for the rise over it. If there was only, say, schist there, how did the Supergroup get there?:Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm not sure what "cross cutting features" are, but I know from the cross section that the strata had to be laid down before any of the tectonic disturbances occurred including the rise over the Supergroup, which was caused by the pushing up and tilting of the Supregroup..Don't follow you about the Kaibab uplift. I suppose it's the whole pushing up of the stack that I attribute to the tectonic movements below the Tapeats? Yes, but younger by a very short period of time. Pressure occurs, pushing the Supergroup, splitting it into two blocks and sliding it up against and under the Tapeats. Probably all happened within a very short period of time, the faulting occurring just before the impact with the Tapeats.. No, that is not true: not younger than their deposition, they were already formed as strata, but then they split into two blocks in the tectonic event. Don't picture "below the Supergroup" but wherever the unconformity directly cuts the granite, or the schist, it IS younger but not necessarily by much. Neither of those rocks occurs above the unconformity. Yes of course Not at all. Even in the one overall tectonic upheaval things would have happened one after another in a brief time frame. But nothing you've said disagrees with me.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There is no evidence for that. Surface of the eroded Supergroup? How did it curve it? So it also curved the Tapeats and all the other strata followed that curve? But there is no reason for it to have caused the curve. And I reject the idea that the strata deposited on the curve.

If it was limestone rather than quartzite I might have to take it seriously, but quartzite no. Not if the Flood caused it all. The boulder is evidence of the horizontal movement pf the Supergroup beneath the Tapeats. What force? What was there to push it up?: I certainly have not. I've said strata will not deposit on a rise. I've said they were already laid down and THEN the whole stack was curved as a block. It would take tectonic force to curve a layer or layers, and that's what I think did it, AFTER all the strata were in place. You haven't given any cause for the uplift to have occurred. How is the uplift a "force?" You need a force to CAUSE the uplift but you haven't given one. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That anybody could get things this wrong is pretty depressing but I guess all it really means is I'm stupid to post at EvC at all because nobody gets it right. For this particular argument yes that cross section is, not my "objections" but the basis for my own hypothesis that contradicts the establishment view. The evidence is there that the strata were laid down before anything else happened and that is evidence for a young earth. I do wonder what sort of mental aberration makes it so difficult for you just to follow the logic. Well, that's just wrong. I know the standard interpretation and I'm trying to get across my alternative, so I have no reason to keep slogging through the same old same old. You really are obliged, if you have even an ounce of fairness in you, to point out where I supposedly committed this folly. I've shown over and over that evolution is limited to microevolution, and has to come to an end because of the way population genetics operates.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I've described the evidence many times and I've made the case that it shows one tectonic event. End of discussion.

I'm sorry, you are wrong, the drawing does indeed show evidence that proves the earth is young. It would have to be grossly in error on a few simple points for this conclusion to be wrong, and it's not.I've read a lot of Geology, I have five Geology books I consult. You just can't stand the idea that anyone would find them at fault.No idea what your example means. I don't remember it and you don't give enough information to figure it out.