Summations Only

All this is nitpicking obfuscation. I KNOW they aren't mathematically perfectly parallel OR continuous in all cases either. That is not relevant to the point I am making. The word "parallel" is the only one that fits the situation. Perhaps I could find a ten-word phrase for it but there is nothing wrong with "parallel" for the situation I am trying to describe. Can you think of another? Nothing anyone has said has changed the point I am trying to make so I still need words to make it with.The first drawing I made showed what it would look like if uplift had occurred before the whole stack was laid down. The post-uplift strata would be decidedly NOT parallel with the pre-uplift strata. THEREFORE the uplift did NOT occur before all the strata were in place. I could try to draw uplift in tiny tiny increments during their laying down I suppose, and boy would THAT be a mess. That would show non-parallel strata at many levels, confirming again that NON-parallel strata did NOT occur in that stack. What you are all describing is variations in the amount of sediment that made up sections of any particular layer. That does NOT affect the parallel orientation of the layer in alignment with the other layers. Unless you are being nitpickingly pedantically mathematically obsessive, as of course you go right on to insist on being: Which I answered above. Could we please stop this idiotic semantic quibble. What I mean about "parallel" I STILL mean. If you don't like the word and can get over your pedantic nitpickery and see what I'm TRYING to say, then find me another word. Sheesh.Yes, it DOES support the Flood, HBD, it truly does. Is that why you refuse to recognize what I mean by the word "parallel?"ABE: There is nothing in the natural world that is mathematically precisely parallel that I know of, except perhaps at the atomic level, certainly not at the level of messy Geology. And yet the word does have common application to natural phenomena. We CAN speak of a fallen tree as perpendicular to standing trees which are parallel to one another and that sort of thing. All this quibbling with this common usage is NUTS.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes it would be possible to miss it by having a strong commitment to the interpretation that there had to be millions of years separating the events.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Things that are made up are sometimes called theories.I don't see much in that article about the source of the various kinds of rocks and minerals in the GC basement rocks. A lot of it is igneous which is to be expected, but there are rocks with a sedimentary origin too. I wouldn't give up on the idea too soon myself.

erosional unconformity?
rounded fragments of the Vishnu?
Unkar conglomeratic layer?Do you have any interest whatever in communicating with me or is your enjoyment of mystification just too irresistible? I WOULD really like to know what you are talking about. 90% of what you have written on this thread is incomprehensible, or it's insinuations, ridicule and insults.I am never going to accept Old Earth interpretations but I do expect you to have knowledge of facts that could be very interesting if you would only speak plain English, expand on your remarks, anything that could actually communicate information.I can only conclude that that is not your objective here, that your aim is to avoid communication, probably because that serves your REAL goal of putting down the creationist -- by whatever devious means. Which is why I don't read much of what you post. There is no point. Big waste of time for me, and I would think for you too unless you just enjoy this game of one-upmanship that much.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Right. There it is. Exactly what I concluded. No reason to read anything you write for that reason. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I meant origin in the sense of original deposition or location. They mention that the Vishnu was uplifted about ten miles for instance.You highlighted the interpretive part. I would highlight the kinds of rocks found there: The Vishnu Schist consists of quartz-mica schist, pelitic schist, and meta-arenites. They exhibit relict sedimentary structures and textures that demonstrate that they are metamorphosed submarine sedimentary rocks.

All edge does is obfuscate and pull rank, he does nothing else. He's a bully and a shyster.

I just spent more than an hour earlier reading up on the Vishnu schist and related linked topics. I've spent hours and hours and hours reading up on geology over the years.I have NO interest in talking to someone whose only interest is in pulling rank and oneupsmanship. This is not a debate, this is just an arena for bullying.

It's really kind of amusing when I make an assertion based on what I've learned from a Geology source that some EvCer will come along and contradict it thinking I made it up.Here's a video about the Great Unconformity where the erosion is pointed out about halfway through, starting about 2:40:Perhaps I should go find that video of Paul Garner the UK creationist that has lots of good footage of the Grand Canyon and clearly shows the band of erosion between the Great Unconformity and the Tapeats.

You seem to be changing the subject. I clearly said after ALL the strata were in place and you are merely saying after rocks are in place. The entire stack is what I'm referring to. Is your statement then an inadvertent confusion or an intentional one?

The fact that there is chunky erosional material there at all is the point, which is what you were denying. His interpretation is just his interpretation.

All I said was that it is commonly understood by establishment GEOLOGY that there is a band of erosion between the different levels of an angular unconformity. That remains true.

First of all here's a reasonable definition of the termParallel from an online dictionary: The strata are in fact in contact with each other and therefore even more strictly parallel than the above illustration. They are indeed parallel and I hope the ridiculous insistence on a perfect mathematical sort of parallel will be dropped.The strata all follow the same course. Close up they may show eroded surfaces and differences in thickness, but they are parallel to each other in the only sense I've ever meant it.They show that they were laid down by the same basic method or means, each on a surface that was horizontal at the time, without any sign of change in their level during the laying-down all the way from the bottom to the top of the stack, no rise in the land before all were laid down...Here again is what would have happened had the latter been the case: NO RISE IN LAND UNTIL STRATA IN PLACE
The strata in this scenario would not have been parallel. Therefore there was no change in the level of the land during their laying-down.There was also no tectonic buckling or tilting during the laying-down phase, no sign of magma intrusions during the laying-down phase, no sign of faulting that occurred during the laying-down phase.All these events occurred after all the strata were in place, which is evidenced by the features I've circled on the cross section: NO TECTONIC OR VOLCANIC DISTURBANCE UNTIL ALL STRATA IN PLACE
Here you see that the fault lines and the magma dike go up through all the strata to the very top of the entire stack that represents in conventional geological time hundreds of millions of years called the Phanerozoic Eon, from the Tapeats sandstone at the bottom of the Grand Canyon to the top of the Claron formation at the top of the Grand Staircase.I've also circled the rise up and over the Grand Canyon because that shows that the strata all remained parallel to each other over that rise, not butting into the rise which would have happened if the rise had occurred before they were all laid down. So this is another piece of evidence that the strata were all in place before any serious disturbances occurred to them,But of course you all object that each layer shows erosion and other evidences of disturbance. NO SERIOUS EROSION UNTIL ALL STRATA IN PLACESo first of all here's what REAL erosion looks like, the real erosion that did occur in that area: Broken-off strata, canyons and cliffs. Now THAT is erosion.As for the erosion at separate layers you all keep trying to turn into some kind of big deal, none of that can compare, and there is good reason to think most of it occurred after the stack was all in place too. Disturbances between layers don't need any more explanation than the effect of water runoff between the layers, and I would have to expect that the Temple Butte intrusion into the Muav occurred after the layers were in place also. In any case the overall picture I'm presenting here is overwhelming by comparison with all these small exceptions. MAINTENANCE OF PARALLEL SHOWS MALLEABILITY AND NO UPLIFTS UNTIL ALL STRATA IN PLACE This last version of the diagram is meant to emphasize just how parallel all the strata are through the entire stack from bottom to top and how consistently parallel they remain where the land curves, which it does up and over the Grand Canyon and also quite sharply at the far north end of the Grand Staircase. This emphasizes my claim that tectonic disturbances happened only after they were all completely in place, but also suggests that the strata were still malleable and not lithified when the land rose, which of course also suggests that they were all laid down in a fairly short time period and certainly not over millions of years. I'd say this all adds up at least to strong evidence against the conventional interpretation of millions of years for the formation from the Tapeats on up. We can argue the rest at some other time.P.S., I still suppose that Walther's Law can explain the laying down of the strata,.

Ah well, the rest of it is there somewhere. We'll find it.

They indicate that within your theory, but there is no reason whatever that such things would not have occurred in the laying down of sediments by one huge water event. In fact such things should be expected. Except that there are NO visible unconformities so you have to be talking about the invisible kind which simply don't exist. The erosion is easily explained as caused by runoff between the layers after they were in place. Variation of thickness would be expected in the Flood and so would layers that reduce to nothing and terminate in other layers. That ought to be obvious HBD. Your interpretation is just the usual Rube Goldbergish nonsense.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.