Summations Only

The deceit of this comparison is staggering. No local flood makes any kind of model for the worldwide Flood of Noah and this pretense of a comparison is underhanded. "Floods" may deposit "undifferentiated mud" but an ocean standing over land would deposit layers of sediments.

AFAICT, that's what Percy just told you. You didn't read my post, did you?How do you keep all of that sediment suspended in water such that it can travel across half a continent and yet settle out into nice, well-defined, uncontaminated, beds with sharp contacts?I mean, other than you just saying so. Please show us where this happens.

Actually, your flood should be worse at depositing clean, even, thick, bedded deposits because it is transporting trillions of tons of material a thousand miles.

Yeah I'm sure you can make up all kinds of objections to anything I say, as you always do. You have no idea how long sediment could be carried in the Flood water. If sediments can stay suspended in a lake for many months as I showed some posts back, I see no reason why they couldn't stay suspended in the Flood water. And neither do you really.

Yes, that was the Kaibab uplift.On the face it, having a young uplift does not simply preclude earlier tectonic events.The only reason for thinking so is to support a religious myth. Nothing else.

Nonsense. I just agreed with you that a young event uplifted the Kaibab Plateau. In fact, I'm glad that I can't. My ideas are constrained by facts.Your viewpoint seems to be that since we can't really imagine your flood setting that you can just make stuff up and we have to agree. We are not talking about a lake with some suspended sediments.

The uplift doesn't preclude earlier tectonic events, but the evidence seems to show that all the disturbance top and bottom occurred in the one event beneath the canyon area. The absence of any disturbance to the Paleozoic strata during their laying down, the fact that the north staircase fault and magma dike occurred after all the strata were laid down, shows activity in the basement rocks at that time. Tectonic force would cause a lot of disruption in the basement rocks so one would be quite enough. Besides I've been suggesting that this was THE tectonic event, the very first one, the one that split the continents and started them drifting apart, not one of the many events when the continents hit a snag and caused an earthquake or opened up a volcano. The worldwide extent of the Great Unconformity reflects that idea, and it also started the Flood waters draining, probably by something that happened on the ocean floor at that same time. The shaking should have been quite dramatic, good thing the only human beings left were safely floating on the surface of the water about to touch down on land.And if you agree with me that the uplift is younger then you really should have to agree with me that along with the evidence mentioned above the whole canyon area is evidence for a young earth.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, I'm not making stuff up, I've been giving evidence all along.You may think you like not knowing how long and how far the sediment could be carried in the Flood, but it was you who said it couldn't carry it as far as the Flood would require.I know we're not talking about a lake but we are talking about how long sediments can stay suspended in a body of water. Seems relevant to me.

Not at all.There is plenty of evidence for earlier deformation, first of the Vishnu Schist and later, the tilting of the GC Supergroup.As far as igneous activity, we have the intrusion of the Zoroaster Granite and the Cardenas basalt at different times and long before regional uplift started.On top of that we have evidence of erosion with several disconformities within the Paleozoic section.In the meantime we have all manner of evidence for tectonism occurring elsewhere in the world while the Colorado Plateau area was relatively quiet. The Appalacians started forming as early as the Ordovician time, for instance, and there is evidence of multiple deformations over a billion years ago on the Canadian shield.To any reasonable person this makes your scenario untenable.

The only evidence you have provided is not diagnostic of your scenario. Several of your points make no sense. There is no evidence of detachment along the Great Unconformity, for instance. You cannot support such a notion. All I can say is that there is no evidence of a flood of the type you suggest. And saying that we really don't know, is just an argument from ignorance. Okay, how long will gravel stay suspended in a lake?

The reef in the middle of the "flood" deposits is a puzzler that can only be explained by geological science.It seems to me that the Navajo Sandstone, also in the middle of the "flood" deposits, is even more unexplained and impossible to explain using flood fantasies.First off, it's sand in the form of dunes with internal cross-bedding intact sitting on top of the Kayenta Formation with conformable and interfingering contact according to Wikipedia. It is below the Carmel Formation and Page and Temple Cap sandstones, separated by J-1 and J-2 unconformities, also from Wikipedia.

quote:

---

Extent: 102,300 sq mi (264,955.8 km2) - original extent of the Navajo Sand Sea may have been 2.5 times larger than this remaining outcrop that is up to 2,300 ft (700 m) thick. Wikipedia

---

Second, if a flood came along and washed over sand dunes all it would be is loose sand. Sand dunes are not rock or solid. Stuck between layers that were supposedly deposited in a single flood is a major fly in the flood ointment.Third, the Navajo Sandstone is not flat or level anywhere and it never was since it was deposited.

Oh nonsense and denial. Strata and bazillions of dead things.

Yes the reef is a puzzler. I was thinking coral reef but even that is a puzzler. Well, we can't answer ALL the questions. Nor were any of the sediments rock or solid at the time of their deposition. But sand dunes on top of a flat shale is just nonsense. Even the supposedly aerial crossbedding has to give somehow. And the appearance of the entire geological column with its remarkably identical strata (in form of course, not substance or size), whether of marine content or land content, is strong evidence that they all were laid down in some identical fashion, which the Flood happens to provide. My impression of the Navajo sandstone has been that it just ran out of sand and got deposited in odd lumps here and there on the previous layer. It does not occur near the "middle" of the Flood as you say, but fairly near the top of the geologic column, and there's no reason to expect the Flood to make a whole layer if it doesn't have the material for it.

In any paradigm some of its elements must be inferred from the basic model rather than direct evidence.

I just gave you evidence in multiple deformation events, multiple igneous events, multiple erosional events and various ages of mountain building events ... and this is all you can say?I also asked you how long gravel would be suspended in a lake. You have ignored my question.