Summations Only

You want me to support my claim that the erosion in the GC is very little and very ambiguous compared to what it should be if the Time Scale were correct, and I think that is a fair request but I'm not up to it at the moment, sorry. I do think this has been covered enough times over the years to be familiar to anyone who has been following this discussion, however. But that's not my argument, I'm just not up to the research right now, sorry.

There you go spouting the Dogma of your Cult again Faith. Are you ever going to honestly address any of the issues your utter nonsense faces?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?

I didn't say any such thing. What I said was that I think the Kaibab Uplift was caused by the tilting of the Supergroup, period, which seems to me to be consistent with the idea that it was caused by folded rocks. That's it, that's all I said. I know you all delight in misrepresenting me so you can call me crazy and dismiss me. It does get hard to take. Perhaps that's your aim.

That is not what Dickinson said. And actually, the tilting may not have anything to do with folding. I'm sorry, but comparing your story, saying that it's 'very similar' with Dickinson's explanation is crazy in my book.

How do you get fractures in dough or clay? How would strains created by uplift create a meandering fracture pattern, which is never observed anyway, instead of the relatively straight and parallel fracture patterns that we do observe. For example, note how the Hurricane Fault and the Toroweap fault are relatively straight and parallel, appearing on opposite sides of the Kaibab uplift. Other faults follow the contour of the uplift and don't meander randomly: Why would you think I'm talking about the whole river anyway? Read my words above, words that you actually bothered to quote this time and have in front of you. I was talking about the Grand Canyon, and there are two issues that render your explanation impossible. Fractures don't meander, and wet and malleable rock (of which there's no such thing) do not fracture. Plus your current position, if you haven't changed your mind again, is that the top layers were still loose sediment.By the way, if rocks form by drying, why are the rocks beneath the Colorado River just as hard as all the other rocks? But you have no evidence. It's just stuff you're making up. Fractures tend to be linear and perpendicular to the direction of strain. You can say stuff like, "Maybe the strata cracked in ways never observed and that don't make sense," but its meaningless. You've asked this question many times and it's been answered many times. The Colorado or its ancestor had already crossed the Colorado Plateau when the uplift of the Kaibab began. The river downcut into the rising Kaibab Plateau. I just explained it, for the nth time. Are you only capable of repeating the same questions? For you it seems to be a case of, "I didn't believe the answer last time, even though I had no response, so I think I shall ask it again." Much about your scenario is impossible, and none of it has any evidence. More accurately, we're reconstructing the geologic history of the Grand Canyon history based upon evidence while you make stuff up out of whole cloth. From your Message 346: Back to your current message: Keeping in mind that we're talking about sedimentary rock like sandstone, siltstone, limestone, etc., have you ever seen wet and malleable rock? The answer is no, right? Has anyone ever reported seeing wet and malleable rock? The answer is no, right? Given that once sediments are buried deeply enough for lithification to begin most of the water has been forced out leaving you with dry and crumbly loosely consolidated rock, is describing this rock as wet and malleable accurate? The answer is no, right?So why do you think there is any such thing as this figment you invented called wet and malleable rock?--Percy

The comparison is loose but both are rocks deformed by tectonic pressure.So if the article got it wrong, what DID Dickinson say anyway and why are you keeping it a secret? Comparing it to what, the article which you say got Dickinson's view wrong, or Dickinson's view itself, which you haven't yet disclosed? Unless I missed it.

Has anybody ever reported seeing this dry and crumbly rock that you are talking about? Odd that you are so certain of your own wild guess against my far ore reasonable guess.And you are also forgetting that I've clearly said that the sediments would be softer and more malleable at the top, and increasingly harderhe farther down you go in the stack. AND compaction, which happens to the sediments under pressure, does not make wet sediments dry and crumbly, it causes them to stick together. You can go read about the processes that make rock to see this written by somebody you would take more seriously than you take me.'You've never folded and pulled apart a ball of dough or clay?: I get cracks when I do that.And I've never said anything about a meandering pattern, where are you getting that? It looks to me like the canyon/river cut through the uplift below the apex of the uplift but not around the bottom on the south where you would expect it to cut since it can't climb the uplift. A fracture in the rise would provide that channel which wouldn't otherwise occur on any scenario that I can see.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Now.It is steep now because it has been pushed up over land to the east, lifting the whole plateau over time with the eastern edge being lifted the most, tilting the whole plateau to a steeper slope. The meanders formed when it was flatter. EXACTLY.That's why your cracked idea is not supported by the evidence (aside from it not being straight). Except that the uplift occurred after the river had started meandering over the plan and made a channel. The uplift was gradual (as it continues to be today) and the river eroded through it as it lifted, getting steeper sloped (with more erosive power) as the plateau tilted with more uplift at the east end than the west end.The deep canyon formed by erosion from the west end, where reaching the west edge of the uplift created a waterfall that worked it's way upstream following the path of the river channel. I'm sure you'll find someway to make a mash-up of the evidence to fit your delusion.Here's more on meanders: Incised meanders cut through the rocks as the land rises (uplifts) and the river stays at the same elevation.Enjoy

Please explain this tectonic pressure for us. What he said is in quotes. And it's not secret.Do you have some specific question? You missed it because it's not there. But you tried to create credibility for your position by making a comparison.

Then where are these fractures in the Kaibab Plateau? The amount of bending in the Kaibab statum caused by the Kaibab Uplift would have been the same as the layers two miles above, and the Kaibab was harder (more consolidated or lithified) and more brittle than the above wet and malleable layers, so where are the fractures in the Kaibab?The reason the Hurricane and Toroweap faults are on the perimeter of the Kaibab Plateau is because that's where the bending is. The Kaibab Plateau itself didn't experience any bending. It's level. That's why it's called a plateau. Why would there be any fracturing where there is no bending and therefore no strain? Rain, once it hits the ground, seeks the lowest point, forming puddles or running into rivers and streams. Rivers and streams seek the lowest point, flowing into ponds, lakes and seas. Ponds, lakes and seas do not seek the lowest point because they are already the lowest point.In your scenario the Kaibab Plateau is submerged beneath a body a water. It isn't possible for this water to seek a lower point. I think what you're imagining is a crack that opens, then the water fills the crack, but the water will not flow along this crack because there is already water everywhere in a submerged environment. There can be water currents in submerged environments, but water does not flow downhill on a lake or sea bottom.In addition, not only is there no downhill current possible in your crack, and not only is a flow resulting from a drop of 1.5 inches/minute insufficient to erode much of anything, but when the water level finally did fall far enough to begin to expose the Kaibab Plateau then the water would flow off the plateau in all directions, cutting channels on all sides. And the channels are there (check the Kaibab Plateau in Google Maps in Satellite mode). So if the water flowed off the plateau in all directions then where did that extra volume of water necessary to carve the canyon deep into the Kaibab Plateau come from?Since you imagine that the Grand Canyon was originally created in layers high above the Kaibab and then was carved downward as the waters receded and the water level dropped, this same question must be asked about the layers that overlay the Kaibab. Let's look at the highest strata 2 miles above the Kaibab. A thin sheet of 4 inch deep water is running off the plateau in all directions. Where is the extra water to carve the canyon coming from? There you go with the pronouns again. What does "it" refer to? Do even you know? Yes, it did happen. Explaining yet again, the river was already there when the Kaibab Uplift began, and the river downcut as the plateau rose.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Improve section on water flowing off the Kaibab Plateau.

Um, the curve of the canyon/river does not look like a meander, RAZD, meanders are quite smooth and rounded or horseshoe shaped, the river here is very irregular and not at all nicely horseshoe shaped. There is some question it seems to me who has the cracked idea if you are trying to turn that wobbly river path into a meander.I'm not sure that a fault is the best model for what i'm trying to talk about anyway. That's all very clever except that the course of the river there is not shaped at all like a meander, and it appears to be coming at the uplift from the east only to veer abruptly south right at its edge as if it's encountered a barrier there, then flows south following lower levels. Only it doesn't go all the way south for some reason where presumably it would find the best path around the uplift, it cuts through it where it would still have to climb it if there weren't some kind of channel there to direct its course -- such as perhaps some handy cracks that had formed as a result of its rising. How it turns back north again to follow its original east-west oath is a bit of a puzzle, but it's probably just the usual seeking of the lower level directing it. You lose me here. Seems to me a lot of people here are good at making up stuff to serve their particular scenario. We're just battling imaginations basically.

You seem to be doing your best to make sure it becomes a secret if it wasn't already. I had the impression you thought the article completely misrepresented Dickinson and now you are saying there's a quote that got it right but you can't be bothered to quote it here for some reason. Well, I'm not going to make the uphill slog to go find it myself so you can keep it a secret since you seem to prefer that.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You mean from two days ago? Do you think it possible that someone who replies to all points of all replies and researches their answers could post at the same rate as someone who replies to less than half the messages posted to her, frequently only replies to small portions of long messages, and does no research but just makes things up? Just asking. I think your errors deserve to be corrected as often as you make them. If you don't like your mistakes corrected then try verifying what you say is true before you say it. I appreciate your concern, but disproving simple errors like that takes little time. I'm glad to hear you've taken this one tentative step closer to reality. The reality is that you said the opposite. Here are your words from your Message 346 saying that thin sheets of water cause meanders: You're going to have to raise your level of dishonesty by going back and editing your old posts if you're going to make false claims that you didn't say something. 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. And at 1250 miles/century. Wow!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. 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. 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. No. Water at the drain drains from the bottom. The further you get from the drain the more the water just generally flows toward the drain. No. Since your premise is false your conclusion is also false. It also 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. Again, no. Inexplicable, even. As described earlier, your flow rate will not increase at elevations like the Colorado Plateau. The words "washes over" don't really describe receding waters. You said this before. Your water is only a few inches deep. It isn't a lot of water. Four inches deep on a square foot is 2.5 gallons. It doesn't matter how many square feet of land are involved because that few inches of water that can't be replenished will be gone in only a few minutes. And yet today these obstacles are nowhere to be found. Where'd they go? According to you they weren't just soft at the top, they were unconsolidated sediments, which can't fracture. And how, exactly, does your imaginary wet and malleable rock fracture instead of the stretching and bending. Again, you describe unconsolidated sediments and wet and malleable rock. How, exactly, do you break them? You figure out how to break up sand and Play-Doh and then you'll have an answer. Does this rock break up, too? Into fragments small enough to be carried away by water four inches deep? And the evidence that these events left behind? The Missoula floods occurred over 10,000 years ago, and Lake Lahontan had mostly disappeared by around 9,000 years ago. And your evidence?Your story continues to be contradictory, contrary to the way water, sediments and rock behave, and completely lacking in evidence.--Percy

So, the meandering pattern is not perfect enough for Faith. Why did we not predict that?However, the basic pattern of the main channel of the Colorado River in the GC is meandering, inherited from a pattern set millions of years ago when the river flowed across a flat surface (oh, wait, those don't exist!), and has subsequently downcut into more competent rocks as the region has been uplifted multiple times. The stream has been rejuvenated.

Actually, he didn't say anything about the origin of the Kaibab uplift. He was only refuting the catastrophic lake drainage hypothesis for the origin of the canyon. The "underground folding" was invention by the journalist. Consequently, you cannot compare your explanation of the uplift to any geologist's explanation.AFAIK, Dickinson's explanation of the Kaibab uplift is no different from the mainstream and it probably isn't 'folding'; and particularly not folding of the GC Supergroup.