Summations Only

That's a very interesting thought. I will ponder it.What DO they look like from above?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Is it possible to find a picture?

The page about Monument Valley DESCRIBES the area as a plain.

Your eyes seem to be at odds with people who spend a lot of time there.Here's a page that says it's a plain, not the one I remember, a different page, but it says the same thing.
MonumentValley.org » Geology Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It doesn't have to be tabletop flat for pete's sake, why does everybody get nitpicky as if I'm talking about an unnatural perfection anyway. But it is a plain, and probably more or less the surface of a rock layer.

Good grief, once in a GREAT while I give the Biblical background and you try to pretend everything I've said is derived from it. No, I've been referring to actual physical information and never refer to the Biblical source. I did so in this case to correct the statement that a YEC sees the planet as "final and complete" which does not describe how we see it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

"Beneath a flood" is a very very weird misrepresentation of what I said. I said whatever that formation underground is, it would have formed there, underground, AFTER the Flood was long gone that laid down the strata. And the reason to say it is simply to keep the different model in view, not to argue the case. Water does run underground does it not? There are underground rivers are there not? They run in many places quite continually. Seems quite possible that water running between layers could erode away material and bring other material to fill it. In any case a "river drainage system" could have formed underground the same way underground rivers run underground.

It IS evidence, as I acknowledged. But it doesn't kill the idea of water doing the erosion, it just suggests it didn't all run in one direction. Many different sources perhaps.

Well I still like my post 328 with all the diagrams of the GC-GS area because that massive erosion did all occur after all the strata were in place, which I would attribute partly to tectonic activity. Also the magma dike and the faulting illustrated there, not to mention the cliffs and the canyons which were no doubt facilitated by same tectonic shakeup. All after all the strata were in place, which can be seen on the diagram. That post is great evidence for the Flood, yes, actual evidence. Takes a bit of divesting of Old Earth bias though in order to consider it properly. Take it to a high mountain, assume lotus position, think.

I'm talking about a lot more water than you are talking about, all at one time too. It would if there is a clear downslope direction for the whole plain, which there may not have been. Had to cut through layers first too, which would have had some effect on redirecting the water from level to level -- so I'd guess.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, I do not mean only Paleozoic, I mean all the way from Tapeats to Claron and the location is the entire GC GS area from bottom to top. Which is what I SAID.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, it means being willing to set bias aside. No wonder you're so frantic about all this.

I'm interested in what's on the diagram, not what's off the diagram, because what's on the diagram makes the point.I think of the Rockies as being tectonically raised after the Flood. I don't want to fight about my view of the angular unconformity, otherwise I'd include it because I believe all that too was laid down in the Flood. At least the strata were.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The angular unconformity occurred, in my humble opinion. as a result of the tectonic activity AFTER the Flood. I know it's hard to keep the thoughts of a silly creationist in mind but I HAVE said this many times by now.That disturbance raised the whole stack, and it was also associated with the release of the volcano or volcanoes beneath the canyon area which issued in lava flows here and there and intrusions into the Precambrian rocks and the magma dike to the north of the GS which issued in lava at the top of the strata there.You can tell all the strata were already in place because the dike just goes straight from bottom to top. It didn't occur during the laying-down of the strata. Same with the faults, which split the strata from bottom to top.An angular unconformity was the result to the north of the northernmost fault, with the Claron remaining horizontal over the tilted strata. There you have an example of an angular unconformity where the horizontal strata were clearly NOT laid down after the lower strata were tilted, because clearly the whole block of strata just dropped on the north side of the fault line, breaking off from the strata on the south side, all as a block. The Claron was broken also, was not deposited after the fault or it would not have deposited flat up against the fault line like that and the upper part of it would have fallen over the cliff and piled up. So there's an angular unconformithy that fits my model.And I can't prove it but the Great Unconformity was formed then too. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The Appalachians were formed by tectonic activity too. All the mountains were formed about the same time when the original continent split at the Atlantic ridge. That's THE tectonic activity I'm talking about that occurred at the end of the Flood. It merely buckled the Appalachians but it thrust up the Rockies rather precipitously, having a stronger impact on this end of the continent than on the east side. It made the angular unconformities in the GC GS area among other things. It raised the Rockies. It may have been the elevation in that direction that facilitated Flood water runoff.Hope you are enjoy8ing your popcorn.