Summations Only

It is your flood that should create disturbances visible in the stratographic layers from miles away. The evidence tells a different story of gradual deposition over millions of years. The patterns we see at the interfaces between layers are precisely what gradual processes produce. Again, there is no such thing as "OE theory", and so also no such thing as "OE blinders". There's only evidence and interpretational frameworks of understanding built around the evidence.--Percy

Yes, obviously. Now how about you answer my question.

Another thing to emphasize is that no sedimentary layer (AFAIK) covers the entire earth -- they all have bare spots, and this also flies in the face of her flood layering concept. (in addition to the sorting problem which no creationist will tackle).Enjoy.

I understand the point you're trying to make, but first understand that an eroded structure like this couldn't survive gradual subsidence under the sea for deposit of the next level of strata. It's only soil, not rock, and so as the area subsided to sea level it would be subjected to millennia of wave action before sinking completely under the waves. This eroded soil ditch would be long gone by that time.But erosion channels *are* found at disconformity surfaces in strata of all eras all across the globe. The Internet is sparse on good pictures of a disconformity with channels, but here's a page of photos from The Supai Group of Grand Canyon: I found this neat little animation of the formation of sedimentary layers followed by erosion, tilting and the formation of an unconformity: --Percy

Anything you want to claim you said or meant will be fine. Since the diagram is a cross section you cannot conclude anything about the shape of the uplift on regions not represented on the diagram. But if you look once again at the topographical map of Arizona that I provided twice earlier you'll see that there is a very large region of uplift stretching from near the northern Arizona border and down through Flagstaff and then southeast toward New Mexico. This very large region of uplift includes the Grand Canyon. It's all part of a single uplift. The mounded uplift in the diagram is just one cross section of a mounded uplift that stretches for hundreds of miles. The underlying supergroup is exposed at the Grand Canyon, but many other pieces of it still exist deeply buried beneath the western landscape, and they're exposed to the surface at a few other areas. There's nothing special about the fact that some remnants of the supergroup happen to reside under the Grand Canyon, and certainly nothing about them that caused any unique uplift of the canyon. Again, you are gleaning information from the diagram that isn't there. Clearly it says the region to the northeast and to the southwest immediately around the Canyon was uplifted, but the diagram can tell you nothing about uplift to the northwest and southeast. That's why I provided the topographical map of Arizona so that you could see that the uplift around the Grand Canyon was just part of a much larger uplift.--Percy

Your rebuttal amounts to, "Is to!" You need to fill in a few details. This is your own scenario, let me describe it for you again. The flood deposits all the layers of the Grand Canyon that are there today, and it deposits a number of additional layers above that so that there is a great weight upon the layers below that begins turning them to rock, a process known as lithification. Some event subsequent to the flood causes waters to rush through the region, sweeping away the layers above the Kaibab, the topmost layer at the Grand Canyon.The layers from the Kaibab down are not yet completely lithified. They are damp and haven't completely dried out yet, so they are still soft enough to be eroded away to form the Grand Canyon. Once the Grand Canyon has formed the layers continue drying out in order to become the hard rock we see today.But rock is not mud. It does not form by drying out. It forms from great pressure. Once the layers above the Kaibab were removed there was no longer sufficient pressure on it to complete the lithification into rock. Yet the Kaibab is just as tightly compressed into rock as the layers below it. The Kaibab on the surface at the Grand Canyon is just as hard as the Kaibab beneath Brian Head where it is buried under many more layers. What's more, deeply buried layers at the canyon wall are just as hard at the edge as they are miles away when extracted by drilling a core.Your scenario is consistent with none of these facts. You're trying to convey something you made up about a subject you don't understand and about which you know very little.--Percy

RAZD answered this already, but there's also help for all the dBCodes at dBCode Help. This same link appears to the left of the box where you enter the text of your messages.--Percy

You may not say it, but that's what your model requires. You have said that you think this cascade carved out the canyon and then a river carved the meanders. But the whole canyon meanders, from river level to the top of the cliff. Do you see the issue? The cascade you propose cannot have created the canyon because the whole canyon meanders. What about this are you not getting? It is not a challenging concept so the only explanation I can think of is that you are shamelessly refusing to think about it. Funny. As others have pointed out, declaring something that cannot be explained by your fantasy to be supporting evidence for your fantasy is absurd. The meandering path of the GC is not explicable by your model, for instance, something you have yet to summon the courage to address. And the fossil record supports the Flood? Give me a break. I'm sure you will, as usual, refuse to address anything I post (very mature by the way) but the organization of the fossil record is utterly incompatible with your imaginary Flood. Are you clinging to the hydrodymaic sorting nonsense? Or is it the even more laughable differential escape absurdity? I'm sure you won't have the courage to address this post, but at least I will have highlighted your intellectual dishonesty yet again.

I know about IMG, but I can never figure out what the URL is for a picture. I've tried various ones, from the original source, from my Paint program, from my blog, the one under "Properties" for the image. Nothing works. Maybe I'll go back and look at what RAZD saidEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

Funny, I only see rather tight contact lines in all those pictures, with of course plenty of disturbances that happened to the whole stack later.

Oh there was enough pressure already, on the Kaibab too.

Er ... Faith? That's between one and two feet deep. The Grand Canyon is between four and eighteen miles across. Could you really see that if the Grand Canyon was between you and it?A little math shows that a two-foot feature at a distance of four miles subtends the same visual angle as a 5/12 inch feature at the far end of a football field. At eighteen miles, it's like trying to see something 1/12 of an inch at the far end of a football field. Just how good is your eyesight?

This sentence appears to have been composed by a monkey chewing a dictionary and spitting out words at random. Would you like to try again?

So there *was* enough pressure to turn the Kaibab and the layers below into the hard sedimentary rock that it is today? What became of your period of "damp sedimentary layers" that was necessary for the canyon to be eroded?--Percy