Summations Only

Faulting would have occurred during the tectonic activity at the end of the Flood (ABE: or I should say during the end phase of the Flood) and volcanic activity roughly in the same period of time. Of course it's complex, but I don't address issues I can't follow, I stick to those that I can. That's why it took me so long to appreciate the implications of this model of sea transgressions and regressions, which had been posted before.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It so clearly occurred after the strata were ALL laid down. I realize there are places where this is ambiguous but it's not ambiguous in the Grand Canyon which is a main reason I like it so much. Yep. Don't confuse disagreeing with you with not following your claims. Not yet, this is new to me as I said, I'm only at the point of appreciating the implications as likely very useful to the Flood explanation. ABE I haven't yet tried to apply the model to the GC, haven't even fully digested it, I'll let you know when I have. /ABEEdited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Everything that could be dissolved or turned into mud came off the land, I assume there was foundational rock that wouldn't. You are quite the nitpicker.

No, it was all under water. See above. Fine, I'll take that into account.

Beg to differ, Honorable Geologist Sir. I'm not a scientist, but my English should be pretty good. Probably not but sometimes the simplest version of things is the most useful whereas knowing too much can get you missing the forest for the trees. I went back and reworded that because at first I thought you were mocking something you thought I believed, but then I saw you were describing the facts as you see them. No, I suppose you wouldn't. As you like.

You mean the beaches in the model or what? You mean the depositions of sand? I don't know yet, but it wasn't underwater the entire time, there was a transgression phase and a regression phase, which might have included mega-tsunami-sized waves, very high tides or that sort of thing. It may be useful information.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's what I said, the idea is new to me. I've worked through all the ideas I've spent time arguing here. This one, however, as I said, is new to me. And it may have escaped your notice but I didn't initiate this conversation, it was just another of the usual situations where someone lobs a question or an accusation at me so I answer. If I'm wasting anyone's time they've chosen for it to be wasted. Um, Percy, you are completely missing this conversation. "Bedrock" was my answer to explain that some of the land mass was NOT eroded, but is why there was land mass left after everything that could be eroded was eroded. However, farther down edge says that in fact bedrock DOES get eroded. So go chide him for being wrong. In this case I'm not. No eroded bedrock in the geologic column in MY statement. Weird. No, you really should read the whole discussion through before you get into it. Edge is asking how sand could have been deposited if there was no land to deposit it on. My answer says the entire land wasn't obliterated by the previously mentioned "scouring" so there was indeed a land mass where sand could have been deposited. Well, as usual lately you ARE misrepresenting me, only in this case you're misrepresenting the whole conversation with edge as well. I said, by the way, "coughed up by the sea" not "scoured off the seafloor" though perhaps it amounts to the same thing. Just don't impute statements to me I didn't say in those words.HOW the situation you describe came about, you ask? Well, others have explained how this happens on this model along with other influences. I'll take all that into account when I get to it. Seems to me, as I also suggest in that conversation you are mangling, that high tides and mega tsunamis during the transgression or regression phases might explain it. Such phenomena could cover great distances depositing sediments and wouldn't require mega time. Uh huh. Well, that's what I want to do with this transgression-regression model some time. It's a very interesting model and I need to sit and contemplate it a while. It does look like it may be the very natural processes needed to explain what I want to explain. Ah well, Percy, you are so wrong about so many things, including your very odd misreading of this conversation I was having with edge, it's no surprise you keep being wrong about my sense of the physically possible too. You are of course also wrong to say I'm "neglecting to inform" myself of essential information when I started out saying I haven't yet fully digested how this very interesting model works, with all its very interesting implications for the Flood, and when I get to it I'll let you know. Meanwhile if people just stopped accusing me and nagging me and asking me questions maybe I'd get there sooner. For what, examples of how wrong Percy can be about half a dozen things at once?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, I gave him the short-short answer. This has already been discussed many times. The cross section of the GC-GS area that shows NO tectonic activity between the Great Unconformity and the cutting of the canyon but even beyond that the whole Grand Staircase stack. I explain the Great Unconformity as occurring at the same time as the rest. I can go into detail about any of this but it's been argued to death already so let's not.As for your scenario I'd only suggest that the "many" sea transgressions and regressions most likely reflect mega-tsunami depositions in the transgressing and regressing phases of the Flood, but remember I haven't had a chance to think this through. But since I've already thought along these lines with respect to how the layers were deposited I just have to get it coordinated with the model. So the "many" events of your scenario come down to one extended event with the oscillations of tidal waves and high and low tides in my scenario, and the associated tectonic activity also gets collapsed into a shorter time frame. I couldn't possibly stick with this with such tenacity if I weren't convinced of the basic argument. Well, I'm quite sure they won't be as crazy as your misreadings of them are sure to be. It would have a moving coastline as it transgresses and again as it regresses. Maybe over as long as five months each way.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You already corrected me about this which is what I was pointing out to Percy. Percy wasn't following the conversation and thought I was the one who said bedrock could be eroded, to which he objected, so it was your point he was objecting to, not mine.However, just curious, would you say that the amount of talus tends to be rather similar from mountain to mountain, you know, Rockies to Alps to Himalayas? Are there some mountians you can point to where the talus is really enormous, almost having eroded the whole mountain away? I'm just curious, it could be, though pictures do tend to show rather similar amounts it seems to me. And in that case it suggests they've all been eroding for about the same period of time. Of course different kinds of mountains would probably erode at different rates. Still, there don't seem to be huge differences from mountain range to mountain range. Of course the question then arises just how long would you suppose erosion had been going on and forming the talus here or there? Again, you already corrected me about this, it's Percy who is now insisting that bedrock doesn't get eroded. Perhaps he can tell you where cobbles and boulders come from.However, I think there probably is a problem here about what exactly bedrock is. Perhaps you can enlighten us about that too.You go on to ask what I was really trying to say when all I was doing was pointing out the miscommunication to Percy and not saying anything at all about bedrock. As I think I've already said here, there would have been a long period during which the water was transgressing and another long period where it was regressing, five months regression, the transgression is a little harder to calculate. There would have been high and low tides, as well as huge tsunami type waves that could account for depositions that span great distances, even across continents, during transgression and regression, when the land was exposed.Long waves have seemed to me to be the explanation for such enormous deposits, but it took the posting of this model of the effect of rising and falling sea to show how that might have occurred.Evidence of such tsunamis? Enormous lengths of sediment deposition seems to require something like that.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Of course, but not in any way that affects the point I'm making. The REGION is one thing, the separate layers is another. I'm talking about the separate layers between the Tapeats and the Claron, which certainly cover the Paleozoic and Tertiary, remain so neatly parallel if the region really did undergo several risings. Clearly the rising of the land created higher and lower areas, yet the individual layers remain parallel to each other. This is the evidence I've been using that the tectonic activity had to have occurred after the layers were all in place. You are talking about uplifts occurring during periods when the layers were still being laid down, which at least would have distorted the block that was already in place if only as gently as is seen in the diagram, so you have to account for the fact that layers that were deposited after that tectonic activity are parallel with the layers that were already there. Had there already been some distortion of the region, some parts higher, some parts lower, new layers should have been deposited more deeply in the lower areas and more thinly where the block rises, or in fact it would have butted up against any rises. And if this went on a number of times you have to explain this for all those different periods of tectonic activity followed by deposition. But all those layers are depicted as very neatly parallel, and no geological draftsman is going to draw them parallel if they weren't. You will have to show me this as I don't know which one is the Bright Angel on the diagram. The one at the base of the GC perhaps? The two major fault lines I see illustrated on that diagram clearly cut through all the layers after they were all in place and if the one you are referring to is at the base of the GC that surely cut through all of them as well and probably through the mile of strata that was originally above the canyon as well. Don't see evidence for its occurring after the Great Unconformity, but perhaps this isn't what you are referring to anyway. All the other evidences of tectonic activity, AND volcanic activity, which I'm saying came after all the strata were laid down. People have failed to understand it, though I understand it just fine myself. And why don't you just accept something I say once in a while? I really just didn't want to get into something that has already been argued to death on other threads, which would only pull this one off topic. But as I said, there would have been coastlines, a rather continuously rising coastline and then as the waters receded a rather continuously falling coastline, probably not absolutely continuous but in phases. No lack of coastlines however. Franklly, considering that I was forced into it I think I did a decent job of visualizing what probably happened. Perhaps it will provide some new perspectives at least. IN MY FLOOD SCENARIO, if that wasn't clear. Yes, you have many many events, but the Flood scenario collapses it all into one major event with many parts or oscillations or smaller events or phases, or however that should be put. So you are sure they resulted from "long regressive phases?" IN that case, on the Flood model perhaps the besty explanation would be that they resulted from the regressive period of the Flood and whatever phases occurred during that period, including tides and huge tsunami type waves. Coal deposits were the result of buried plants weren't they? So the most likely Flood scenario would involve whatever movements of water carried huge loads of plants and laid them down. Sure, maybe low or high tides, maybe a very long wave like a tsunami. Depends on how far that layer extends I suppose. Why would there be a problem for the Flood with that sort of phenomena? Perhaps it suggests that the land wasn't completely scoured but rooted trees stayed in place? No big deal if so.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.

I'm talking about tsunami sized waves that covered huge distances, even in some cases whole continents. There is no other word for that than tsunami, although I don't assume those waves would be much like the tsunamis we see today, which for one thing would be much smaller.Waves deposit sand on beaches, I'm thinking of huge waves that also deposit sand.However, the transgressing and regressing water would be depositing sediments as that model reflects anyway, so I'm guessing the waves would be phases in these longer risings and fallings of the sea, that could account for the more mixed strata.Thanks to that model I am now thinking in terms of transgressing and regressing sea water, but there have to be phases during that as well. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Percy you are the one who is confused, and desperately confused and I don't have the interest in trying to sort it all out. You referred to a Message 112 which is my message when you ap;parently meant your 114 where you make the statement about edge saying bedrock can be eroded. But you also accused me of assuming we'd find eroded bedrock in sedimentary layers, and that you haven't corrected, and that's totally wrong because I'm the one who assumed it couldn't be eroded, which edge corrected.I do not want to discuss things with you, you get everything wrong and blame it on me. Please go away.

Then you give me a word for a wave that covers most of a continent if you don't like the term tsunami for that.Or give me a scenario for transgressing or regressing sea water covering a whole continent within five months, what it would deposit etc.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm trying to explain how rising (or falling) sea water could have deposited layers across most of a continent in a period of about five months, and these are pretty good guesses for that scenario. Perhaps you can come up with better ones, I'm all ears.

Surely someone who appreciates *Science* can be neutral enough to be willing to think about an opposing idea. No? There's nothing wrong with the physics of anything I've said, but boy do you love slinging any old accusation you can think up.