Summations Only

You haven't yet provided evidence of the massive erosional or other activity you say occurred elsewhere during those hundreds of millions of years of quiescence that you consider to be quite normal in the GC/GS area.

And to answer my own post, that's a lot of what I post, observations, the implications of which I think others should recognize too, which I do explain, so that you all can see the point I'm trying to make. It's usually all in the phenomenon itself, further evidence isn't required.ABE: Again, I really like my Message 328 because it shows the massive activity and erosion that occurred only in (imaginary) "recent" time, and the absence of any such activity for the hundreds of millions of years preceding it.Was there any such erosion in those years? I think all that also occurred after all the layers were in place, the "streambed" and all the rest of it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well you are a diehard Old Earther, that's for sure. That's why I like that diagram so much, because it does contain a record of all that. I think there may have been layers above the Claron originally too but we can't know that, can we?I know about the supposed buried "canyon" according to Morton anyway. Just a huge hole in a buried layer that got filled in by sand, which I figure occurred after it was buried. Find me a buried butte though, that should be interesting.

I haven't read a lot of your posts so don't recall whatever you might have said about this Uncompahgre uplift. I looked it up but don't see anything there that tells me what you have in mind. I would actually like to see some clear information, preferably cross sections, from that period of hundreds of millions of years, the more the better, and from everywhere in the world. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Not if they were formed by the receding Flood waters there won't.

Yes, I do see the planet as in a final and complete form.* I used to believe in the billions of years but got over it. Now I see the effects of the Flood everywhere I look.ABE: *Although I wouldn't call it "final and complete," as it was perfect at the Creation and has been deteriorating since the Fall, and was very dramatically roughed up by the Flood. This planet is nothing like the original Creation, it's a sad wreck of what was originally created.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's the sort of thing that would have formed after the Flood, not during. And it wasn't "then" buried, it was already buried in the strata laid down by the Flood, so however this drainage system developed, it developed within the stack of strata after the Flood.

I did describe how the receding Flood water did it, also how it formed the GS and the GC.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Oh yes, THAT formation. As I recall I answered that it doesn't demonstrate anything about the time period that happens to be represented by the rocks themselves (Pennsylvanian and Mississippian), just as the exposed Kaibab plateau doesn't demonstrate anything that happened during the Permian period either but was scoured down to a plateau in so-called "recent" time, meaning at the very end of the Flood. So I would expect that those rocks were also exposed after the Flood by the same means. And all that sagging and dipping of course must have to do with the way all that salt behaves, and the carbonates etc. Don't know what all the far right area represents, the part you say has to do with sediments off the uplift or something like that. Perhaps if I live long enough to study it some more I'll be able to figure it out. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

jar, if you've missed all that I'm sorry, but frankly I wouldn't give you a link to anything or even the time of day if I could avoid it.

The reason is long long familiarity with jar.

The OE explanation works of course because of all the time you allot, although I don't really think it works, it's just an excuse. However, I already wrote an answer farther down. I did say that the Missoula flood was a limited flood and not THE Flood of Noah itself, and that I figure Lake Missoula was one of the bodies of water left standing after the Flood. I also think that the tectonic activity after the Flood is probably the cause of their emptying but I'd have to spend some time on each one specifically for that.I did give my scenario for how the receding Flood waters made the formations of the Southwest, though, more than once I think, but I guess I can give it again. Already did so, below. Think ocean, not just any old "flood." This is the ocean having transgressed the land to quite a depth, and it's now receding. That's a LOT of water, we're talking water that would break up the strata it had just laid down, even break it up to a depth of a mile or so, break it into huge chunks and carry it off, even into cracks that widen into a Grand Canyon.Percy's diagram has the surface of Monument Valley arched so that cracks develop here and there, which makes the Flood scenario even easier to explain. Water running across a fairly flat surface will nevertheless develop tracks and if it cuts at all into the surface will follow that cut. I figure that's how it cut around areas of strata to some depth, which then of course remained as the buttes, which became the monuments after the whole area had dried out. If the land was arched and cracks developed as a result, so much easier to account for the tracking of the water around areas of strata.Again, I think the best evidence that water was the agent of the erosion is the flat plain around the monuments. I know you think that over hundreds of millions of years somehow or other that flat plain would have formed just by the processes of normal wind and weathering erosion. Seems to me what that would have left is a very chunky landscape, not a plain. But of course I'm just an idiot who has been told many times I don't understand physics. Good thing I know better, but convincing anyone with a vested interest in the Old Earth is of course not happening. Well, I do think if you thought carefully about it you'd have to stop your incessant party line long enough to consider that it really IS odd that so much happened in "recent" time, since the last of the strata, the Tertiary, Claron etc., was laid down, while all those strata just lay there for hundreds of millions of years, under water most of the time according to Percy, but that's odd too. Hundreds of millions of years quietly accumulating underwater and then they surface for all this massive erosion to a mile deep or so. Yes I do think that is quite odd and not to be casually explained away. But that's what you're doing and I guess you'll go on doing it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Soon as you once grant that anything I've said makes sense and is a new way of looking at something, I may consider doing what you suggest. Unless it's too timeconsuming, which that looks like it might be.

Yes, Old Earth dating does NOT compute. Once the Flood is recognized it will have to be rethought.

I stopped reading some of the posts that don't treat me with "simple consideration and politeness" some time ago. Just once it would be nice if someone acknowledged that I said something that makes sense. As long as that isn't happening I reserve the right to read whatever I want to read.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.