Summations Only

Thanks for clearing that up. That's what I meant about your language not being clear.But no. Bedrock can be eroded. If it couldn't then mountains would never erode away and we would not have such things as talus. Wow...Where to do you think cobbles and boulders come from?Once again, your statements are not statements of geology, but of some bizarre fantasy. What do you think of the mesas in Monument Valley and the talus at the base of those cliffs? What do you think of rock falls in the Grand Canyon?What are you really trying to say? Yes. And we would call that 'land'. Why was there land in the middle of your global fludde?Previously, you said there was no such land mass. So, which is it? And I presume you have evidence of such tsunamis?How can you just say this stuff and not admit that you are just making it up? Ummm, you do understand, don't you, that tsunamis have little effect except for where there is land, don't you?

All true, but I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that Faith does not really understand what bedrock is. I have a feeling that her understanding is something along the same lines as a 'bedrock principle', something permanent and unchanging.This only reinforces the fact of scientific illiteracy and unclear language.But in reality, erosion is the primary agent of geomorphology on the planet. Most places owe their landforms to erosion acting on some particular geological setting. The Grand Canyon is a primary example, and within it, we see erosional unconformities between formations, and on an even finer scale, we see cross-beds being truncated by currents of water or air. I think we underestimate the effects of erosion, and YECs do so even more.I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the situation is more complex than most people, including most scientists understand. Faith is hopelessly behind the curve on this.

First of all, the cross-section is grossly simplified. But in addition to that, the region underwent a series of uplifts throughout the Paleozoic and Tertiary times. The fact that the region acted as a block does not mean that it was not affected by tectonism.Note the Bright Angel Fault. It is a break in brittle rocks of all Paleozoic rocks, which has been exploited by erosion during canyon formation. This means that it preceded the canyon, but also occurred well after the Great Unconformity. This refutes your statement. The rest of what? Well, noting your past failures to explain it, I can understand why you would want to avoid the topic. The problem being developing tsunamis (for which there is no evidence of) in a sea without coastlines. Clearly you haven't thought it through. I'm sure that thinking about things will solve all of the problems you have. They do?So, the long regressive phases that resulted in the coal deposits of Utah were simple low-tides or tsunamis? Then you should explain to us how we see plant accumulations with rooted trees and stream sediments running through the coal fields with volcanic ash deposits and grass roots showing in the sediments.

Since talus is a very specific type of deposit, your question is kind of obtuse. But no, I would not expect them to be similar regardless of the type of deposit. Based on the ages of rocks deformed in any given mountain range, no, they are of very different ages even if composed identically. As usual, some geological processes are relatively fast, while others are slow. Disregarding misuse of the term 'talus', no, mountain ranges look to be of various ages.Volcanic ranges tend to erode more rapidly if they are not continually being rebuilt. Collisional ranges such as the Appalachians and the Himalayas can take a few hundred millions of years. Only to a YEC, is 5 months a long time in geological terms. Why?How do you extract this from the Bible?Sorry, but the evidence shows that your waves had a period that allowed coal swamps to form, and trees to grow, and dinosaurs to flourish. Your fludde isn't holding water... According to whom?Any documentation? Or is this just something you are making up?Where did this sediment come from in the middle of a global fludde?

Backtracking here? You wrote very specifically that there was "NO" tectonic activity between the Great Unconformity and current erosion of the GC. I'm not sure why this is a problem. Please explain. Is it just personal incredulity on your part? Once again, I'm not seeing a problem here. Uplift is an effect of tectonism and is, in structural geology, a type of deformation. That it was gentle is not material. There are still some faults and clearly some erosion, as I have shown. Still not seeing a problem. And if you look at the thicknesses of the various units, you will see that they are highly variable in some cases, so while the layers look 'perfectly parallel' on the scale of the entire canyon, there are plenty of discrepancies; and if you go outside of the GC vicinity, you will see that there is even more variability in thickness to the point that some completely disappear.In any case, the evidence indicates tectonic activity. The fact that the region acted as a block is not important in the context of your model. No. It trends northeast from the canyon proper, on the north side. I"m not saying they didn't cut through the layers. I'm saying they are older than the modern erosion of the canyon. Since the rocks are cut by the fault and the rocks are younger than the Great Unconformity, then the fault is also younger than the unconformity. This is fairly simple logic. This has been amply refuted. I'm concerned about your comprehension skills. Yes, everyone else is wrong. Give me a reason to. If you say something that makes sense and matches reality, it is completely overwhelmed by the outlandish things that you also put in the same post.I will look for something going forward, but there is only so much time to respond that I might not have the energy or time to document agreement. Yes, it has been argued to death. But you keep resurrecting the silly one-event fantasy. Frankly, it's insulting. So, you are a proponent of the wet-dry fludde, a global flood that is only global on a local scale.I think we have disposed of that notion before. No one is forcing you to make silly statements about geology. Knowing YECs as I do, I seriously doubt that. I have been searching for new YEC ideas for over a decade now and am pretty convinced that they don't really exist. As we have shown, that doesn't work. Well, they are more than five months, which you earlier described as 'long'.But actually, how do you grow trees, deposit evaporites, build termite nests and preserve raindrop impressions during a "short regression"?You have not answered this question after repeated tries. Why is that?

quote:

---

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.

---

Then why are there so many regressions, each one with swamps, dunes, rivers? So, this flood takes trees from one or more areas and gently transplants them, all in one place to form coal beds.Interesting.I take it you also believe in the gentle-turbulent flood, also. You honestly believe that a tsunami will transport pure vegetation (without sand and silt) and deposit it in a coherent, continuous bed? And yet constant radiometric half-lives are impossible for you to believe?This is worse than I thought... So, you want a fludde that will be so gentle as to leave behind thick accumulations of organic deposits and yet also transport them to distant shores and deposit them elsewhere.A little bit ago, scouring was your big mechanism for creating sediments for the fludde. Now, your saying that isn't the case and the fludde was gentle and as preserving as a gardener.

According to whom, and based on what?

Same-aged rocks are not the same as 'same formation'. If these broad deposits are tsunami-related, then you'll have to explain how they are sandstones in one place and evaporites in another and limestones in another place.And, please, feel free to tell us how tsunamis deposited limestones, particularly coral reefs. I'm pretty sure I've seen them. And I'm pretty sure they don't tell you what you seem to think. Yes it has, but you don't seem to get the point. "Liquified"? Please explain how Noah survived liquifying.But the short answer is that when sediment is deposited on the bottom of the ocean (the fludde), how do we get conglomerates forming in rivers? So after a few days the sediment was deposited and there was no land. What land mass? "Obviously"? Please explain. But when the land is gone, there is no land. So, where did the river sediments come from? And the evaporites?

Well, give us some ideas. What you've told us so far doesn't make much sense. What waves are you talking about here?Are these water waves? As far as I know they only erode, not deposit sediments.

Nonsense. You are free to believe whatever you want. But if you are going to post here, you can expect people to call you out whenever you blunder. Unfortunately, that seems to happen a lot. Actually, I'm quite sad that there are people with such closed minds that they have no desire to learn.Well, for a moment there, I thought you were going to tell me how I twisted your argument. But I guess not...

All I will say here is that there seems to be some confusion; however, it is good to see that we all agree bedrock can be eroded and that is certainly exhibited by what's happening in the Grand Canyon.Sometimes 'bedrock' can be confused for 'basement rock' which is kind of a subjective term that depends on the geological situation.Then there is the concept of 'crustal' versus 'supracrustal'. In this case, almost everything we see at the surface is supracrustal and the crustal rocks would be things like the shield rocks or ophiolites.At any rate, they can all be eroded so long as they are exposed at the surface, and most sedimentary rocks are composed of some component of bedrock.I suppose that one could say that what we actually see are eroded soils and surficial deposits, but realistically, those are just composed of weathered bedrock.If you remember the discussion about the age of the Mississippi River delta, the sedimentary grains were giving different radiometric dates depending on where the source rock was. Some of the grains came from the Appalachians to the east and others were from the west part of the Mississippi drainage. In addition, the finer grained material at each location gave the younger dates because they included more in situ growth minerals. My point here being that the mineral dates were telling us the age of the source rocks and not the delta deposit.With regard to the topic, however, 'bedrock' does not answer my question as to how sediments are derived for deposition in the fludde. If there is no land mass, you cannot derive coarse siliciclastics, particularly conglomerates, or ones that look like river deltas, or sand bars in streams.

I would be interested in knowing what my blunders are. Please go on. So then, you admit that your reasons for disagreeing are religious, not based on science at all?Can you tell us why revealed truth is better than learning? Why are we allowed to learn?How do you know, to a certainty, that you have not been deceived? I understand that Satan is a pretty clever guy. My, my, sensitive tonight, aren't we? Okay, what is fallible about my reasoning? Please show me the error of my ways.Nevertheless, maybe this way, you understand what new scientific ideas go through to gain acceptance. In fact, we've probably been taking it easy on you. Why do I 'need to' do that? You are making charges here, so I would think that you should at least give me some specific complaints. Are you saying that my failing is that my 'answers are twisted'? Why is that? What tactics are you talking about? Do you mean using my brain to reason? Is that so bad? Or is it just because I disagree with you? It is interesting to me how you know that I will, or will not, do something.You know, I have usually found that the one who 'wins' is the one best prepared. What do you think?

Once again, I'm not sure what the problem is. Why should they not be parallel at this scale? Yes, and? And your point is? Certainly. There are cracks all through the GC section. Why wouldn't there be? Yes, but I'm still not getting your point. No, I understand completely what you are saying, but I'm not getting your meaning other than that you agree with mainstream science. In fact, some of that happens. We see it in the Temple Butte Formation for instance. The problem you are having is that you look at this on a regional scale and all of the details disappear. You also miss the point, even though it has been repeated several times, that the region has been uplfted as a block.If you are talking about uplift of the Kaibab Plateau, that happened well after the Paleozoic. I'd have to check the actual age, but I'm pretty sure it's in the late Tertiary. Still not a problem. I have said that tectonism was gentle and probably occurred near sea level. Your original statement was that there was NO tectonism. No, there is no problem. I'm not sure why, if I move a stack of pancakes from one table to another why they should be visibly deformed. Of course. They were deposited and then warped by regional uplifts.Are you saying that there should be more unconformities? Have we gone through 18 pages of posts to finally figure this out?If so, I"m confused as to why you invoke this idea of flat layers overlying unconformities and yet deny it, and say that the underlying layers were independently deformed when we discuss the GC Supergroup. This is the kind of inconsistency that you come up with when using ad hoc arguments. They start to contradict.If so, then you need to look at the details of the deposition, not a regional cross section. As I have mentioned several times the Temple Butte Formation is an example of such a feature. It's base cuts the Muav Formation and the top is cut by the Redwall. Those are just two unconformities.You do realize that unconformities do not have to be accompanied by deformation, don't you? We call some of such unconformities 'diastems'. The represent a period of non-deposition or erosion of a plane that is parallel to bedding. Well, you are welcome to your opinion, but the evidence indicates changes in sea level and that would be tectonism, sensu lato. At the same time faults such as the Bright Angel Fault indicated some deformation after the Paleozoic and before carving of the canyon. Surely, it's not a great folding and metamorphic event, but it would be classified as deformation. What you are describing is day one of Geology 101. It is kind of insulting to thousands of geologists that you don't think they have already thought of this.But your error is that you use a gross regional scale diagram to see features that would be much finer and viewed on a macroscopic scale. Actually, it's a pretty common problem for beginners.

Well, natural cements are found in nature, and they can form quickly. And there are travertine deposits that are geologically rapid and "kinda' like limestone; but nothing like a limestone shelf deposit or a coral reef. (You have to be really specific with YECs. They will compare oil created by a pressure cooker on a stove with an oil field the size of Ohio heated by geothermal gradient...)

Not compared to what happened in the Precambrian...And, in fact, most of the younger activity was still confined to uplift of the Colorado Plateau and formation of the Kaibab Uplift. Well, they weren't exactly mountain building events with In the Phanerozoic, sure. As I have said several times, there was some minor block-faulting such as that along the Bright Angel Fault. Actually, I have.Several times. Sure. I'm certain that you know better than people who have actually studied the Grand Canyon and the Colorado Plateau.If we distill your convoluted argument down to its essential point that there are not enough unconformities in the Grand Canyon section, then you are clearly wrong, because we can see them in a more detailed stratigraphic analysis.

Notice a couple of things. Each of the red contacts is an unconformity and each of them basically reflect the land surface at the time when new sedimentation started, or some kind of cross-cutting event such as an intrusion.Notice also that where any line is truncated, there is an erosional event or a fault. You can see that even in the stylized foliation in the Vishnu schist that is truncated by both the granite and the lower contact of the GC Supergroup. Both of these surfaces are unconformities.In the Paleozoic, the region acted as a rigid block. There is no evidence of significant deformation, but relative uplift and slight tilting. This gives the impression of continuous sedimentation, but it is clear that the Temple Butte, for instance, does exactly what Faith says does not happen. It occurs in channels and low spots in the unconformity. In fact, it is so discontinuous that it often doesn't even show up on many diagrams, and yet, that surface is irregular in detail.I think it is self-serving of Faith to assert that scale has nothing to do with observation of geological features. It boggles the mind that someone with no eductation would have the nerve to make such a statement. I assure her that if you observe with a microscope, you will see different features than you would with satellite imagery. Edited by edge, : No reason given.