Off Topic Posts aka Rabbit Trail Thread - Mostly YEC Geology

Sorry, I'm not good with URLs and I don't understand what you mean about the full stop, but I guess I can try to remember to use the URL tags. But the other one works fine, just requires you to find the angular unconformities link at the site, is that too hard? I think it accounts for a lot more than you're willing to recognize because the area of erosion is fairly deep, but what I've also suggested is that if you were to extend the diagrams of the Grand Canyon area for a long distance to north and south you might find areas where the erosion layer was deeper or might even find large areas of just plain rubble, caused by the shearing off of the upper folds. This would be due to the movement between the upper and lower formations over some great distance.There is evidence in the Grand Canyon that there was quite a bit of movement between the Tapeats Sandstone and the Great Unconformity, as one huge boulder was displaced some great distance, at least miles if I recall correctly, from its original location. This is shown in the film I linked to on the UK Creationism thread and also at my blog in a recent post there.The Fantasy of EvolutionBut here is the film at You TubeThe whole film is about the geology of the Grand Canyon and near the end they show this band of erosion above the unconformity with this huge boulder embedded in it. They interpret this as the result of a debris flow in the early stages of the Flood, flowing over the base rocks which they accept as having already been formed according to conventional geology. Of course my effort is to explain how those rocks at the base could have formed in the Flood itself. And yes I know this is extremely presumptuous of me but I can't help that. I think it makes a lot of sense and I've been working on it off and on for years now.In that same film even further toward the end if I remember rightly, they discuss how the Coconino sandstone* seems to have sifted into crevices in the formation beneath it. I found that very useful for my explanation of the erosion belt between the Tapeats and the unconformity although I think they made use of the same principle there as well. But it also appears that the underside of the Tapeats sandstone would have been sheared off anyway along with the folded lower rock.They also show how the strata had to be damp and stretchable because they conform to the slope of the uplift, which is something I've also noted many times from diagrams of the area. This of course demonstrates that the strata were NOT laid down over millions of years but all at the same time, and were deformed by the slope of the uplift all at the same time, which is evidence for the Flood as is everything else they discuss in that film.======
*IThe UK speaker in the film, Paul Garner, according to their website, is taking time off to study the Coconino sandstone, over the next few years. If the world doesn't go up in flames or the Lord return before he gets his study finished I expect him to come up with some very interesting information and I look forward to it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Sorry, I'm not good with URLs and I don't understand what you mean about the full stop

---

I mean that the full stop is a necessary part of the link. It won't work if the full stop isn't there. But when the board software turns your text into a link it doesn't realise that, so the full stop gets left out.
(Which is sensible because links ending in a full stop are rare, while links appearing at the end of a sentence are pretty common).

quote:

---

think it accounts for a lot more than you're willing to recognize because the area of erosion is fairly deep,

---

The volume supposedly occupied by eroded material is not that great, and even that seems to be more than we'd actually see in reality.

quote:

---

but what I've also suggested is that if you were to extend the diagram for a long distance to north and south you might find areas where the erosion layer was deeper or might even find large areas of just plain rubble, caused by the shearing off of the upper folds. This would be due to the movement between the upper and lower formations over some great distance.

---

In other words you assume that such areas exist, but you left them out of the diagram completely and didn't mention them in the text either. Even the "movement over great distance" isn't mentioned. That's really not a good way to explain your ideas.Do you have any evidence for such areas at Siccar Point or the Grand Canyon ? And how is the volume of rock accommodated ? That's an important point, I'd like to know how you explain it.

quote:

---

There is evidence in the Grand Canyon that there was quite a bit of movement between the Tapeats Sandstone and the Great Unconformity, as one huge boulder was displaced some great distance, at least miles if I recall correctly, from its original location. This is shown in the film I linked to on the UK Creationism thread and also at my blog in a recent post there.

---

Can you give the time in the video where this item appears ? I really don't want to spend a lot of time watching a video just to pick up one little item. And why should this be taken as evidence for your ideas when it fits much more comfortably into the conventional view ?

quote:

---

In that same film even further toward the end if I remember rightly, they discuss how the Coconino sandstone seems to have sifted into crevices in the formation beneath it. I found that very useful for my explanation of the erosion belt betweent the Tapeats and the unconformity although I think they made use of the same principle there as well.

---

And that is something that fits better with the conventional view.

quote:

---

They also show how the strata had to be damp and stretchable because they conform to the slope of the uplift, which is something I've also noted many times from diagrams of the area. This of course demonstrates that the strata were NOT laid down over millions of years but all at the same time, and were deformed by the slope of the uplift all at the same time, which is evidence for the Flood as is everything else they discuss in that film.

---

Which is rather odd when your explanation seems to demand a hard, solid surface to grind the lower strata into rubble. Soft, stretchable surfaces deform under pressure.I'm really not sure what their point could be, but it sounds like the opposite of your idea that the underlying surfaces are too flat.

Faith exclaims: I go WTF? When did I call you that? ...{}... Good, this would be wonderful.

Yes, it's an assumption, you know, theory, which is really all anybody has for any of this, you guys too, and this one IS testable. But I have another possibility in mind that I keep forgetting to mention which is that much of that lower "supergroup" became Vishnu Schist, as the heat and pressure transformed it except where it remains clearly strata. The schist was formed from sedimentary rock; well there's the rock it was formed from. Otherwise we should see those same strata continuing to north and south of the canyon and perhaps they do if you go far enough.Also I do have to admit that the tilt of the unconformity doesn't look like it would have been formed by folded rock, as Siccar Point clearly was, as illustrated by Lyell which I show at that link to my blog on angular unconformities. I've been going by diagrams but when I see that the tilt is really a lot shallower in reality than the diagrams show then it appears that the "ends" of the strata had to have been broken off as well as sheared into the erosion layer, and now I'm thnking, yes, Vishnu Schist which does surround the strata at that depth. I was using Dr. A's diagram and was only answering the specific claim that the lower layers were first formed and then eroded and the upper laid over them which was his main point. Which volume of rock? He starts to discuss the erosion between the Tapeats and the unconformity at about 1:03:19, and the whole discussion goes to 1:08:00. From about 1:05:48 he is arguing that the erosion was caused by mechanical means rather than the chemical means of weathering and that's where the boulder comes in. He discusses the boulder more from about 1:07:10 where he says it was from the Shunimo sandstone {Sorry, SHINUMO QUARTZITE} layer and was moved about a quarter of a mile, not "miles" as I had misrememebered but still quite a distance.But here is the film at You Tube again.You don't have to take anything I say for anything, all I really hope for is that somebody might just get WHAT I'm trying to say here. So far nobody is getting any of it but you. You're the only one here who seems to have made the effort and you do seem to get the basic idea and thank you for that. This is a matter for some kind of experiment but I've consistently disagreed with you that it would have to have been completely lithified. In this case and Siccar Point the harder rock, just by nature not by greater lithification, for one thing the angle of impact would increase its abrasiveness, was the lower rock. And the upper layer was also eroded and was also uplifted which involves a degree of deformation. "Too flat" doesn't fit anything I remember saying. But the conformation to the slope refers to the strata outside the canyon, that follow the contour of the uplift into which the canyon was cut. Sorry that wasn't clear.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Yes, it's an assumption, you know, theory, which is really all anybody has for any of this, you guys too, and this one IS testable.

---

Go on and do the test then. You're relying on assumptions a lot more than we are, and your assumptions are not even looking consistent at this stage.

quote:

---

But I have another possibility in mind that I keep forgetting to mention which is that much of that lower "supergroup" became Vishnu Schist, as the heat and pressure transformed it except where it remains clearly strata. The schist was formed from sedimentary rock; well there's the rock it was formed from. Otherwise we should see those same strata continuing to north and south of the canyon and perhaps they do if you go far enough.

---

That doesn't make a lot of sense either. For a start why are the remaining rocks in the GCS and the Tapeats distinct from the Vishnu schist at all?

quote:

---

I was using Dr. A's diagram and was only answering the specific claim that the lower layers were first formed and then eroded and the upper laid over them which was his main point.

---

The diagram I am talking about is yours, though. And there is still no explanation in the text.

quote:

---

Which volume of rock?

---

The missing material I've been talking about all along.

quote:

---

This is a matter for some kind of experiment but I've consistently disagreed with you that it would have to have been completely lithified. In this case and Siccar Point the harder rock, just by nature not by greater lithification, for one thing the angle of impact would increase its abrasiveness, was the lower rock. And the upper layer was also eroded and was also uplifted which involves a degree of deformation.

---

Again, I don't see how soft material resists deformation so successfully. At Siccar point the transition is quite distinct and extreme and I can't see anything plausible to explain it given your view. The pressures should have deformed the red sandstone unless it was too hard to be deformed.

quote:

---

"Too flat" doesn't fit anything I remember saying. But the conformation to the slope refers to the strata outside the canyon,= that follow the contour of the uplift into which the canyon was cut. Sorry that wasn't clear.

---

"Too flat" is your argument against the conventional view. But I still don't get what their point is. I'd need more details to try to work it out.

quote:

---

He starts to discuss the erosion between the Tapeats and the unconformity at about 1:03:19, and the whole discussion goes to 1:08:00. From about 1:05:48 he is arguing that the erosion was caused by mechanical means rather than the chemical means of weathering and that's where the boulder comes in. He discusses the boulder more from about 1:07:10 where he says it was from the Shunimo sandstone {Sorry, SHINUMO QUARTZITE} layer and was moved about a quarter of a mile, not "miles" as I had misrememebered but still quite a distance.

---

According to what Garner says, the boulder is found in the Tapeats Sandstone, above the Hakatai shale - which is normally beneath the Shinumo Quartzite. I don't really see this as supporting your view, even considering just the placement of the boulder.But there's a bigger problem. It seems as if the boulder is metamorphosed (because it's quartzite) and the surrounding sandstone isn't. I don't see how that is possible unless the metamorphosis occurred before the boulder was eroded out of the Shinumo. And if that's the case then the Shinumo must have been hard, solid rock at the time.

Just because the heat and pressure didn't happen to get to them as they did to the surrounding rock for some reason. But you do have to have sedimentary rock from which the Vishnu Schist was formed and I don't see any other candidates in the area. Again, its purpose was limited to answering Dr. A, period. I say more about unconformities in the lower posts, that one was just a quick answer to him. All I can do is say what I've already said. It was hard ENOUGH. The force that caused the lower rock to fold was dissipated sufficiently before it reached that level so that it was expended in slippage between the two different kinds of rock, which slippage was facilitated at Siccar Point by the fact that the greywacke was folded. The underside of the upper sandstone was scraped. Again it didn't deform because it was hard ENOUGH and because the slippage factor took up the remaining force that was already largely expended anyway. Still don't recognize this. Then watch the film after the point the other subject stopped. He gives a diagram and explains it from about 1:10:40. He's talking about something called the East Kaibab Monocline, but i've observed the same phenomenon on north-south diagrams that show the uplift from that perspective. The strata all conform to the shape of the uplift instead of butting into it, which is what they would do if the uplift had occurred before all the strata were laid down which is the conventional idea. The uplift had to have occurred when ALL the strata were still malleable at the same time.AFTERTHOUGHT: I think this last point is particularly good evidence for the Flood. The strata were clearly ALL malleable so clearly ALL laid down at the same time. However, I think all the evidence presented on that film is excellent even if I happen to like to argue about the basement rocks as also having been created in the Flood. Their points are ALL telling for the Flood and against the old earth explanations.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I see the problem. I'll have to think about the quartzite.

quote:

---

Just because the heat and pressure didn't happen to get to them as they did to the surrounding rock for some reason. But you do have to have sedimentary rock from which the Vishnu Schist was formed and I don't see any other candidates in the area.

---

That doesn't make a lot of sense. There is no reason why we have to have unmetamorphosed remnants lying around, but you do need a reason why the heat and pressure would affect some rocks and not others. Do you have one ?

quote:

---

Again, its purpose was limited to answering Dr. A, period. I say more about unconformities in the lower posts, that one was just a quick answer to him.

---

But since the problem is quite evident in your diagram, I think that you should have explained it.

quote:

---

All I can do is say what I've already said. It was hard ENOUGH.

---

By my reckoning to be "hard ENOUGH" it must be pretty solid. That's the point.

quote:

---

The force that caused the lower rock to fold was dissipated sufficiently before it reached that level so that it was expended in slippage between the two different kinds of rock, which slippage was facilitated at Siccar Point by the fact that the greywacke was folded. The underside of the upper sandstone was scraped. Again it didn't deform because it was hard ENOUGH and because the slippage factor took up the remaining force that was already largely expended anyway.

---

It can't have "dissipated" much between the top of the greywacke and the bottom of the sandstone so that can't be significant - even if we assume that the force was applied as a relatively short impulse, which seems unlikely to me.So it seems that you are assuming a practically frictionless contact that nonetheless caused some serious erosion, which seems to be contradictory. Friction is resistance to slippage and you need friction to cause the erosion.

quote:

---

Still don't recognize this.

---

How about this: Recognise it now ?

quote:

---

Then watch the film after the point the other subject stopped. He gives a diagram and explains it from about 1:10:40. He's talking about something called the East Kaibab Monocline, but i've observed the same phenomenon on north-south diagrams that show the uplift from that perspective. The strata all conform to the shape of the uplift instead of butting into it, which is what they would do if the uplift had occurred before all the strata were laid down which is the conventional idea. The uplift had to have occurred when ALL the strata were still malleable at the same time.

---

That looks like a different event. The conventional view puts it well after the deposition of the Kaibab Limestone at the top - as Garner clearly says. It seems pretty clear to me that we need different events to explain an uplift that affects the GCS but no later rocks and one that affects pretty much everything.

Here's a guess: the Supergroup underlies the canyon pretty directly, so the flood waters which carved out the canyon, most likely pouring in from all sides and most certainly being heavily debris-laden so that it could have cut through in short order, perhaps cooled off that area enough to keep it from transforming. Well, I didn't. It wasn't my concern at the time. But by now I've forgotten what the problem is you think I should have addressed anyway. Oh yes, where the eroded material went. Usual answer: somewhere "off screen" or the erosion layer really did contain it. It wouldn't have been the same depth everywhere anyway. So we disagree as usual. Neither of us can prove it. We need some experiments for that. I don't think it was particularly short and I do think the sliding would have used up the force. I have most certainly NOT assumed a frictionless slippage. I HAVE described the contact as "violent" here and there in these posts, Paul, and the abrasion quite "chunky" and the friction WOULD have slowed the slippage and been part of the force-absorbing influence. Of course but I don't see how that has anything to do with however you put it. It's not anything in reality that's "too flat," it's the conventional explanation that assumes an impossible flatness, because erosion is not going to create such a flat surface from a previously lumpy wavy surface, or even from an originally flat surface for that matter. That's not what erosion does and that's one way the usual explanations make no sense. I heard him say that but I'd heard before that it occurred before the strata were laid down so I went with that. But if it occurred afterward then you'd have the supposedly oldest layers already so hard they'd break when such an uplift was applied. In any case they are clearly ALL of the exact same malleability as they ALL conform to the slope, and therefore all the same age, in his example of the East Kaibab Monocline. Of course I like my view of this because it DOES account for everything, including the conformation of the strata to the slope of the uplift and the cracking of the upper strata that allowed the flood waters to cut the canyon and all the rest of it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Your remark "How convenient for you" certainly implies you considered me to be lying when I said I would like to be able to include some diagrams but can't draw with my digital mouse. Describing me as "whining" doesn't help the picture any.But I do hope I can get some decent hand drawings done.

quote:

---

Here's a guess: the Supergroup underlies the canyon pretty directly, so the flood waters which carved out the canyon, most likely pouring in from all sides and most certainly being heavily debris-laden so that it could have cut through in short order, perhaps cooled off that area enough to keep it from transforming.

---

That seems unlikely with the Grand Canyon cutting into the Vishnu Schist.

quote:

---

Well, I didn't. It wasn't my concern at the time. But by now I've forgotten what the problem is you think I should have addressed anyway. Oh yes, where the eroded material went. Usual answer: somewhere "off screen" or the erosion layer really did contain it. It wouldn't have been the same depth everywhere anyway.

---

Given that we haven't seen an "erosion layer" large enough at any of the sites this really doesn't seem likely.

quote:

---

So we disagree as usual. Neither of us can prove it. We need some experiments for that.

---

It seems pretty obvious to me. You have a big difference to explain and saying that small differences in properties and conditions can explain it doesn't make sense.

quote:

---

I don't think it was particularly short and I do think the sliding would have used up the force.

---

Well, while it was going on it wouldn't be "used up"in the way of your your examples. And why do we get so much sliding and no or almost no deformation ?

quote:

---

I have most certainly NOT assumed a frictionless slippage. I HAVE described the contact as "violent" here and there in these posts, Paul, and the abrasion quite "chunky" and the friction WOULD have slowed the slippage and been part of the force-absorbing influence.

---

Which would mean a transmission of force to the sandstone, which ought to have deformed it...

quote:

---

Of course but I don't see how that has anything to do with however you put it. It's not anything in reality that's "too flat," it's the conventional explanation that assumes an impossible flatness, because erosion is not going to create such a flat surface from a previously lumpy wavy surface, or even from an originally flat surface for that matter. That's not what erosion does and that's one way the usual explanations make no sense.

---

Well that's confused. Are you not saying that in reality the surfaces of the underlying strata in the unconformities are flatter than could be expected if conventional geology is true ?

quote:

---

I heard him say that but I'd heard before that it occurred before the strata were laid down so I went with that. But if it occurred afterward then you'd have the supposedly oldest layers already so hard they'd break when such an uplift was applied. In any case they are clearly ALL of the exact same malleability as they ALL conform to the slope, and therefore all the same age, in his example of the East Kaibab Monocline.

---

He argues that they were all laid down, but still wet and malleable when that uplift occurred.

quote:

---

Of course I like my view of this because it DOES account for everything, including the conformation of the strata to the slope of the uplift and the cracking of the upper strata that allowed the flood waters to cut the canyon and all the rest of it.

---

Well obviously it doesn't explain that quartzite boulder embedded in the Tapeats Sandstone. And if you are trying to combine the two events then I think you need to explain why the uplift affected all the rocks in one place and didn't affect most of them in another.

Matter of timing. Cut far enough to affect the strata but not the Vishnu. It will turn up or some other explanation will. Done my best to explain that, sorry you don't like it. Don't think so. I'm saying that NORMAL SURFACE EROSION via weathering couldn't have brought about what they always describe in those diagrams. ABE: OK, if they do describe the reality then I guess I am saying the reality couldn't have occurred that way. Yes, my version of how the erosion occurred would make for more flatness than normal weathering. But the main point is that they were all equally wet and malleable because they all conform equally to the uplift, and if they were all equally wet and malleable then they were all the same age rather than millions of years apart in age.And that fact ought to be recognized as unanswerable evidence against the old earth interpretation. I'm pondering the boulder. For the rest of it, you just don't like the idea that the upper strata didn't deform according to some expectations you have but I've accounted for all of the effects including the uplift of those strata, the unconformity, the carving of the canyon itself etc etc etc.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Matter of timing. Cut far enough to affect the strata but not the Vishnu.

---

Going for a slow formation of the Canyon now ? It can't be a difference of a year or two if it's affecting the metamorphosis.

quote:

---

It will turn up or some other explanation will.

---

You have great faith in your own opinions.

quote:

---

Done my best to explain that, sorry you don't like it.

---

Seems to me more like you've done your best to explain the problem away - and failed.

quote:

---

Don't think so. I'm saying that NORMAL SURFACE EROSION via weathering couldn't have brought about what they always describe in those diagrams. ABE: OK, if they do describe the reality then I guess I am saying the reality couldn't have occurred that way. Yes, my version of how the erosion occurred would make for more flatness than normal weathering.

---

But cracks in the rock aren't a likely product of your erosion as such. And in your model the dominant erosion is of the lower strata, not the upper. Seems to me that we should find a whole lot more debris from the lower strata if that were the case.

quote:

---

But the main point is that they were all equally wet and malleable because they all conform equally to the uplift, and if they were all equally wet and malleable then they were all the same age rather than millions of years apart in age.

---

But that's only the Tapeats and above. It doesn't include the GCS at all - it isn't even present in his diagram. The Tapeats lies directly on the Vishnu Schist and he doesn't talk about the Schist.So it doesn't support your position where it diverges from his.

quote:

---

I'm pondering the boulder. For the rest of it, you just don't like the idea that the upper strata didn't deform according to some expectations you have but I've accounted for all of the effects including the uplift of those strata, the unconformity, the carving of the canyon itself etc etc etc.

---

Only if your "don't like" means "consider to be virtually impossible" . The confusion in your attempted explanations doesn't help, either.The other stuff also lies on assumptions I don't find too plausible either (even your ideas about the carving of the Canyon are getting confused now).Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

I didn't post it to support mine over his, I added it because it is good evidence for a Young Earth and the Flood, period.He explains the GCS differently but the age of the strata is what you're supposed to be responding to. Seems you'd rather sidestep it.