Summations Only

Excellent point.That is something that most of us would call 'evidence'.

Good. That is something that is testable and possibly provides observable evidence. What have you got? A scenario is not evidence. Okay so the ocean needs to regress catastrophically. What is the mechanism and what would be the evidence to support that hypothesis? Just saying that the ocean receded is not evidence. OKay, now, what is the diagnostic evidence for your scenario? That's what we want from you. Otherwise, you are doing nothing but making things up. No one debates the effectiveness of erosion by water. We want to know what is different about your water, how it got there and what evidence do you have for your scenario. And I have snipped your little complaint.Why would millions of years of flash flooding and wind erosion leave a 'chunky appearance'? You have not made an argument as to why this is so. You only confirm my statement that you speak only from personal incredulity, saying we have to 'think about it more'.That is not evidence, nor is it an argument. So, your evidence is that you think it is 'quite odd'.Your threshold for oddness sets quite a low standard.I have a feeling that we are not getting through to you on this notion of 'evidence'. What can we do to help you?

Such tectonic activity should lend even more potential evidence for Faith's scenario especially if they could be tied together in time.Think we'll see anything like that?

This site shows what catastrophic runoff leaves behind.Ice Age Floods-Discover Glacial Lake Missoula and Lake BonnevilleThis image shows megadunes related to the Lake Missoula flooding: And this one shows that Lake Missoula actually existed: These things are known as 'evidence'.In your case, I neither see the assymetric features of a catastrophic runoff, nor even that fact that some impoundment existed to create such a flood. When I look at a google-earth image, I do not see any regional flow directions in Monument Valley, just a normal dendritic pattern that we see with normal stream flow on flat-lying strata.I will track down more images if I don't get a call to work.

You referred to actual data?I missed that. Please re-post.

Who said that we deny the effectiveness of erosion by water? You misrepresent our arguments.And why would water not run in a down-slope direction?

This image shows a space-view of a part of Monument Valley. It shows no unidirectional flow patterns that occur in other catastrophic flood locations such as in the case of Lake Missoula flooding. The pattern is pretty much dendritic, though there may be some structural controls. If, as Faith suggests (getting deeper and deeper) that water flowed in multiple directions (northeast and northwest alignments), I would like to know why that would happen. In all erosive floods that we know about the flows are in one direction, which is down-gradient.

You mean after1.) the Paleozoic strate were in-place,2.) and at the location of the Grand Canyon, and3.( with lesser erosional unconformities included.But your point is what? No one debates this. Please explain. I have no idea what you are talking about here. You have not shown that there was a 'shake-up'. Yes, you said that already. If so, it is also good evidence for mainstream geological interpretation. Please find us some diagnostic evidence for why your particular scenario occurred. So, you admit that you have to have a young-earth presupposition before interpreting the data? If YEC prevails, I'm afraid we will need to assume the bend-over position and refrain from thinking.

More water than the Lake Missoula flooding?If so, shouldn't there be just as good evidence as for Lake Missoula?Where are the scablands, the potholes, the megadunes? You are the one who said Monument Valley was a plain.Besides, we see directional flows from Lake Missoula. Why don't we see them in Monument Valley? Does that mean that this was a smaller flood?And I haven't really asked you why your flood was so catastrophic. Where did the water go so suddenly?

Okay, so I should have said Phanerozoic, or most of it anyway.And by the way, IIRC, the Claron is partly lacustrine. But you ignore the Ancestral Rockies rising to the east of there, right?. You also ignore the Permian and Triassic island arcs offshore of the west coast at the time. Why constrain yourself to such a small corner of the world?And no, not bottom to top. You ignore the entire Precambrian which is actually a lot more time than the Phanerozoic.

And your bias? Would you set that aside?

Well, that's weird since the rocks shed from the Ancestral Rockies correlate with the middle of your Phanerozoic sequence. How do you get an erosional unconformity during a flood? Particularly an angular unconformity?

Never mind that fact that you would have to explain, then, where and when the Appalachians came from.YECs just keep on digging.I'm really curious about how Faith is going to explain this tectonic event that causes the flood, causes the flood to recede, causes post-flood erosion and causes tectonism in the basement rocks all at the same time. Bring popcorn...

While I can imagine some scenarios for intraformational disruption, all of them leave behind obvious and diagnostic evidence which is absent in the Grand Canyon section. In fact, the evidence leads to the contrary. You may think what you want, but I hope you will understand why we oppose wishful science in the classroom. Except that some of them are not intrusions... All we are asking is for evidence. Not the Cardenas Basalt. The younger faults, yes. So what? We know that the region was uplifted sometime in the Tertiary Period. This is a cross-cutting relationship establishing relative age. If you want to prove otherwise, please do so. Your assertion is not evidence. Do you think that faults only move once? Sorry, but the Hurricane Fault system is long lived. The Claron is deformed, but the underlying rocks are deformed even more. We call that a 'growth fault' (although the term is usually applied to faults that do not crop out).So, no, you still have not provided any diagnostic evidence for your scenario.

So, where did this tectonism occur and why? How did it cause catastrophic runoff of the flood waters? How does that relate to the tectonism that disrupted the Vishnu rocks and the GC Supergroup rocks? The faults you see are mostly normal faults that formed in tension, including the Hurricane Fault. On the other hand, the kind of disruption you (claim to) see in the GC Supergroup would be related to lateral shear or compression. How do you rationalize these disparate strain regimes?