No idea why the Vishnu is a problem.
It is a huge problem because it represents a time of volcanism and sedimentation that was metamorphosed and deformed prior to intrusion by the Zoroaster Granite. That granite is dated at about 1.7 ga, and had to cool and be partially eroded along with the Vishnu before the Unkar Group could even be deposited. When you consider all of the post Vishnu events, it is impossible to even imagine them all being fit into a 6ky timeframe.
The unconformities are of course "missing" depositions, for which there is no evidence except belief based on the theory that they're supposed to be there. So that is hardly a problem for the Flood as we don't expect them to be there anyway.
They represent time. Time for which there is no record and time which only adds to the time represented by deposition and deformation.
As for the cutting of the canyon, it fits fine with the cutting of all the other phenomena at the same time in the Grand Staircase area after all the strata were laid down.
The problem is that there is evidence for at least two periods of stream erosion. Again, you don't have time for that.
Entrenched meanders would have occurred after the Flood waters had died down to river size, but especially in the eastern parts where the land was more flat, scoured down to a flat layer.
But the implication is two periods of different erosional style.
Limestone would have been laid down as per Walther's Law. It's laid down in rising sea water so certainly should have been laid down in the rising Flood water.
I have found no evidence of limestone being deposited by a flood and that doesn't even begin to address the time it would take. Walther's Law, or not, there simply isn't time or the depositional environment.
The idea that any of this is a problem for the Flood makes no sense.
This is what you have said repeatedly, but you have not provided any evidence to support your statement.
Isn't this called the Argument from Incredulity? Of course what one believes is really scientific, isn't it? So if that's the scientific criterion here I find it much easier to believe that there were numerable breaks in the rising of the Flood waters, waves coming in and going out the way waves do, only bigger waves across more land area.
I'm sure you find it much easier to believe, but you have not gone any further than just making this assertion. Your waves are exactly what would destroy the footprints.
Banks of the canyon? I figure the water was standing a mile above the canyon before it was cut, right over the uppermost strata that had been laid down to that height, and that while it was probably the tectonic shaking and faulting in that uppermost strata that opened the crack that eventually became the GC, it was the water rushing into that crack as well as all over the GS area at the same time that cut the GC along with all the GS cliffs and canyons, washing away humongous amounts of broken up strata. The "lack of evidence" is due to looking in the wrong place with the wrong theory.
I'm still looking for your evidence. Telling us what you 'figure', is not evidence.
Don't see why this is a problem.
I'm not saying it's a problem in the sense of refuting anything, just that I'd like to see some nice definitive evidence.
Nor should the Flood violate any principles of Geology really. The fact that there are so many diastems and unconformities IS a problem for the OE theory, not at all a problem for the Flood, in fact it's evidence for the Floodl
Did I say that a flood would violate any principles? The evidence, however refutes a flood.
Not that Geology can't rationalize away anything that supports the Flood of course.
I thought you wanted a technical discussion...
If they knew where to look and what sort of evidence matters they might see something suspicious, but we don't have to worry because they aren't going to.
So, anyway. Enjoy your Mutual Admiration Society.
Thank you for proving my suspicion that you are not being serious about having a straightforward technical discussion.
ABE: Oops, forgot I wanted to add this link to a site about students investigating Walther's Law on a marshy beach. Wanted to find something that shows it as a normally occurring way sediments are layered, in this case probably merely by rising tides. Still seems to me that the rising water of the Flood had to have acted in exactly the same way, making all those huge extensive layers of sediments everywhere they are found.
Page not found | Rodriguez Lab
It would have. That's the point.
™ Version 4.2
(1)