Summations Only

Do you realize that the sediments were laid down before the river cut through them ...That the land rose as the river cut through them ...That the land is still rising ... and the measured result today is consistent with the rise in the past ...That where the canyon cuts through the highest elevation is up a slope and not a low point of the ridge ... where an overflow would have cut through (unless water runs uphill) ...That there are speleothems in caves up the sides that document the ages ...That the formations in the canyon are not consistent with flood overflow but slow erosion ...And so much more

Yes I realize all that, RAZD. I have a different theory about it all.But since you mention that the river cut through after they were all in place to a mile deep or some billion years according to OE theory, how do YOU explain the appearance of the exposed strata as so nicely unruffled by the buffetings of time during which they would have periodically been at the surface of this very blustery unstable earth? -- such a LONG time? There is clear evidence of volcanic activity in the canyon, earthquakes have been reported there, your river isn't enough to cut through all that of course but water DID cut through it, so how did all those once-surface layers of sediment remain so unruffled? And how do YOU explain the neatly demarcated different sediments while we're at it?I also have a different theory about how the land rose and when.Yes, I'm aware of all that theory.

It did. Hence the uplift of the Grand Canyon Supergroup in the Grand Canyon Orogeny, the production of the Great Unconformity, the dike swarms, the unconformity at the bottom of the Redwall Limestone, the unconformity at the top of the Redwall Limestone, the unconformity at the top of the Coconino Sandstone (link provided because I haven't showed you any pictures of that yet), the erosion of everything in the Grand Canyon region above the Kaibab Limestone, the volcanic activity in the Uinkaret volcanic field, the uplift (by two miles) of the Colorado Plateau in the Laramide Orogeny, and that great big canyon you must have heard of. Yeah, she's got us there. I can't find a single example of strata being disturbed before they were laid down. This can't just be a coincidence, it must be a miracle from God.

Sorry Faith, I'm not familiar with the geological term "unruffled" -- can you explain it?I have been to the canyon ... have you?Enjoy

Well, believe it or not two participants on this forum specifically contradicted my statement to that effect a few years ago and then I was kicked out of the forum so I couldn't answer. I assume they misunderstood what I was saying but boy was it a shock. I don't know if I could find those posts, maybe I'll try later.

It's an ENGLISH term, RAZD. Undisturbed is probably the best synonym.

You mean layers were undisturbed ... by what? I am not aware of any undisturbed strata anywhere ... so I don't follow what you are trying to say.Some layers are due to sedimentary deposition when they were below sea level, and are disturbed by marine animals and plants, some were eroded by wind when they were exposed, others were tilted by tectonic forces, earthquakes, or volcanic forces (you don't lift a mound of rock up without tilting it around the sides of the mound. There are records of animal tunnels and burrows, plants growing, roots penetrating.What do you mean Faith?Enjoy

Well, we are talking about 2 billion years and plate tectonics being what they are ...Plus the fact that the entire area was inundated by sea then dried then sea again for many multiples of iterations each lasting eons and, well, ...

So first it was "I do short posts because they're easy". Now you've done a long post that boils down to nothing more than you've already said, i.e. I don't have to answer you because it's irrelevant". Oh, my apologies. You've also added"And I don't even care what you think!" to the list. Solid stuff. Not surprising, considering that you refuse to discuss any evidence that proves your Flood never happened. So you believe thinking about the physical structure of the strata is a good way to make inferences about what deposited them. It is therefore blatant hypocrisy to refuse so stubbornly to discuss the physical structure of the strata I have highlighted and why they present a problem for your theory. This is a weak rhetorical trick, Faith. Individual grains of sand are indeed of less importance (though as I point out they do record evidence of aeolian weathering), but I am arguing about the structures they form. You know, strata, the same thing you're talking about. You can't simultaneously promote the importance and completely dismiss the physical structure of the strata. I see others have pointed out the folly of this approach, so I'll highlight the fact that you have labelled my points "minutiae" without justification and for the purpose of giving yourself permission to ignore them. I say with confidence, and I feel every single physicist on the planet will back me up on this, that defying the laws of physics constitutes a very major point of interest and an insurmountable and distinctly not minute problem for any theory that requires that it occur. Again, what you fool only yourself by calling minutiae are the laws of physics. The Flood, even if it had happened, would not have altered them and thus the fact that they contradict your belief is a major problem for your belief whether you have the ability to admit it or not. I'm not expecting you to regard my arguments as something special. I'm asking you to address them because, just like the posts from others here, they present a clear problem for your beliefs about the reality of the Flood. It's really quite simple, at least as simple as your exhortations to just look at the strata from far away. The laws of physics dictate that dry sand has an angle of repose of 34 degrees therefore the existence of strata with such an angle proves that these strata were deposited in an aeolian setting. I could have joined the site yesterday or ten years ago; this makes absolutely no difference to the validity of my points. The only difference it makes is that you have decided it is (yet another) excuse to avoid thinking about a glaring issue with your position. If this in situ dinosaur nest is such an old argument, surely you have an explanation by now. If you are so familiar with this argument then it should take no time at all to rebut it (note that calling it insignificant is an evasion, not a rebuttal). Here you express your lack of desire to discuss the points you have been discussing and yet you still avoid the points I have raised. You seem to think that defying the laws of physics is a small matter, but to the rest of us it is a pretty big deal, so maybe you could turn your attention to that. A change is as good as a rest, they say.

Scientists know quite well what evidence for a worldwide event looks like when they see it. In the past, (65 million years ago for those who aren't blinkered zealots) an asteroid hit the earth, leaving behind a very distinctive iridium rich band. This band is found throughout the world, in land and marine rock formations.If there ever were a world wide flood, there would be a similar unmistakable band. There isn't. Therefore, there never was a world wide flood.

All that depends on your already-accepted assumptions but is not true on my assumptions. If the Flood created ALL the strata, the entire stack from bottom to top, then that band that occurs at a particular level of those strata (not a time period but a spatial level of sediment) would have occurred at a certain point during the Flood when the strata were being laid down.The explanation then is that the iridium was dispersed on the water at that point in the Flood and ended up in that level of the strata everywhere.The Flood theory I pursue has each of the layers of sediment laid down in its turn by currents or waves of ocean water, between which would be some gaps in time, even very long gaps between very long waves that washed over thousands of miles of the land mass. The different sediments were carried on the water and deposited this way and so would a thin layer of iridium be carried on the water and deposited that way.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Since your time period is wrong everything else you say about it is wrong too.

I'm talking about long sections of the strata you can see in many views of the canyon from a distance where the horizontality of the layers is all intact, which I claim show the original condition of the layers when they were laid down; the interfaces between the layers are all straight and level, they are all identical as to form, all of this showing they were laid down by the same processes and not over millions of years of varied processes.I'm talking about disturbances that would occur on the surface of the earth where a layer was supposedly exposed over a very long period of time. There would be erosion visible from across the canyon, not erosion you have to get up close to see. Tectonic disturbances would not have left a layer or stack of layers like that intact, you would see a layer buckled between other layers all over the canyon, and any layer that was laid down on top of it would not be neatly flat and straight at the connection with the buckled layer but would conform to its; and in fact tectonic upheavals only occurred after all the strata were in place. Animal burrows don't affect the structure of the layers which is what I'm talking about.The disturbances that occurred to the canyon did distort and tilt the layers in the immediate area but AFTER they were all in place, not at different periods in time. I've argued that the uplift of the entire canyon was caused by the volcanic disturbance beneath the canyon, which tilted the lowest strata beneath a mile deep stack of sediments already in place above, causing the wide band of erosion just above the Great Conformity, between it and the horizontal layer above. It was no doubt tectonic movement that brought about the underground volcano and contributed to the whole picture here. That upheaval uplifted the stack, and you can see the strata in cross sections follow the contour of that uplift, showing they were all already in place. Some of the stack remained intact, all lifted up at once. At the very top, however, the strata would have cracked from the strain of the uplift stretching them over the mound. The cracks were then scoured out by inrushing Flood water carrying chunks of the uppermost strata (to the height of the current Grand Staircase at least) into the widening gap, eventually carving out the canyon. Not your little river but a huge cataract of water.I've explained this so many times I'm tired and may not be getting all of it said.I also keep trying to gracefully leave this thread and even EvC for a long break but as usual it's hard to do when people keep raising questions and you so clearly know absolutely nothing about what I've been arguing I figured I'd better try to say some of it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Really, I'd just like to exit this thread but I feel I have to stay and deal with some things as they come up. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Three questions Faith.
1. How does a layer of sediment turn to rock?
2. How long does it take?
3. Why does a huge cataract of water in cracked rock produce such marked meanders in the GC?
Hint : Wonderly's book may help you with 1 and 2.