Summations Only

In some religions and some chapters of Club Christian.

Disclaimer - General impressions without that much specific data to back them (thus weasel words such as "seem to" and "suspect" used).I suspect that there is indeed some shape and preferred orientation, although it would be because of structural control and not "the flood".In photos the messas seem to at least sometimes have a rectangular plan view outline. In this map, the Oljeto Mesa appears to be generally rectangular with a northwest-southeast orientation of the long axis. There also seems to be some sort of northeast-southwest component there. To some degree, these orientations can also be seen in other mesas.I suspect (and closer study could confirm or deny such) that there is a strong regional orthogonal joint pattern that influences the weathering and erosion patterns (related reading on geology fractures).Moose

Generalizations? Here?No way!"Random" is kind of a subjective term, but you are correct. This is always a good default position in western North America. I think that some earlier posts referred to these directions. Even in Colorado, one of the principal structural directions is N40E.. Just say that, and 90% of the time, you will be right.Ain't life wonderful?

Anyone with a little scientific knowledge and reasoning ability is unlikely to accede to notions that have no evidence and that violate known natural processes and the natural laws of our universe, which is true of most of your ideas. If you'd like acknowledgement that you're making sense then you should develop hypotheses that don't have these fatal qualities.Most people interpret lack of acknowledgement that they're making sense as an indication that perhaps they're not making sense.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

They look like this: AbE: If you'd like to see a satellite view, type "36.94,-110.1" into Google Maps, zoom out a bit, then turn on satellite mode.--PercyEdited by Percy, : AbE.

I responded only to what you said in your message, noting that there was no evidence in support of any of it, much evidence contradicting it, and that some of your terms have no scientific meaning. It's much the same as all your other messages, mere bald assertions with no evidence. You may imagine within your own mind that there's some line of demarcation between the Bible and your own ideas, but both are completely without any evidential support, so any difference that might seem apparent to you is not apparent to anyone else.As I asked before, what evidence do you have that, interpreted by the actual laws of the universe (instead of ones you make up), leads to your conclusions?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Yes, there are rivers that run underground, but they have to have an above ground outlet (otherwise they could not flow, would have nowhere to carry sediment away, and would quickly plug up), and they do not have a host of tributaries feeding them. The image is of a complete river system with tributaries and canyons: The different colors represent different types of material. You asked for evidence of buried buttes and canyons, so here is evidence of a canyon with buttes and mesas, the same as the Grand Canyon, except that it's buried. As explained earlier, the natural processes at work on the surface of the earth can produce canyons, buttes and mesas in uplifted regions through which rivers flow, and if such a region experienced subsidence and became a region of net deposition then any canyons, buttes and mesas would be preserved in the geologic record, as has happened here.One additional note. I parenthesized the fact that an underground river cannot flow if it has no above ground outlet and that it would have nowhere to deposit sediment. Your proposal that an underground river carved the canyon is yet another idea that isn't possible given our understanding of reality. A river cannot flow unless the water has somewhere to flow to, and a canyon cannot be carved unless a river carries away cubic miles of material. Both these basic requirements are absent in a river that flows completely underground. Underground rivers of the type you propose aren't possible.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

Hi Faith,Though I'm replying to a message from Edge, this information is actually for you. It provides just a little more detail. The website again is Ice Age Floods-Discover Glacial Lake Missoula and Lake Bonneville.Here's a bigger version of the image of what Edge called megadunes but that are described at the website as giant ripples (click to expand): Geologists have worked out that ripples like this form as a result of huge amounts of fast flowing water. The ripples in this image formed as a result of Lake Missoula emptying suddenly. You can see this image on the webpage at Explore Glacial Lake Missoula and the Catastrophic Ice Age Floods.I couldn't find a larger copy of this other image: Edge will have to confirm, but I believe he presented this image as evidence of the existence of Lake Missoula because the horizontal lines across the mountain side are ancient shorelines.--PercyEdited by Percy, : I inadvertently typed "vertical" when I meant "horizontal", fixed now.

Hi Faith,Just a little dBCode suggestion first: If you enter "[msg=328]" then you'll get Message 328, which has the additional advantage of providing a hoverbox of information (hover over the link, you'll see what I mean). That should be much easier than cut-n-pasting a URL into a "[url]" dBCode. What evidence can you produce of tectonic activity? What rocks are you looking at that you think were broken off of or broken down from larger rocks and then left behind by the flood, either because they were too big or the flood waters abated before they were carried away?Also, I think you're imagining that tectonic activity could break rocks up into pieces small enough to be carried away by your flood. Tectonic strain and earthquakes can produce faults (cracks) in rocks, but they don't generally break large rocks into smaller rocks to a point that would make them more amenable to being moved by water. As tectonic forces and earthquakes relate to erosion, they provide cracks that can provide opportunities for weathering forces, but they don't break entire landscapes into rocks of a size that a huge flood could then remove.Also, we've mapped the oceans pretty well. If tectonic forces had broken down landscapes into smaller rocks that a giant flood then transported to the sea, then we should see that debris all over the ocean floor. So we'd have to point to the oceans as yet another place where evidence for your ideas is absent.--Percy

Yes, the story here is that although the dunes follow low areas across the countryside, there is no stream channel. The flows have exceeded the capacity of the existing streams by orders of magnitude.Note also that these features are not eroded away by flowing water, but are deposited by flowing water.There are a number of other features related to this 'breakout' type of flood, but I decided to focus on this one that is not as well known as some of the others. I probably should have elaborated on these images, but I was kind of curious to see if Faith would take an interest and ask about them.Yes, the (horizontal) lines are ancient shorelines. There are a large number of them on the mountainside east of Missoula. One theory is that each represents a different generation of Lake Missoula. I'm not so sure about that, but they are definitely shorelines based on wave-washed sand deposits. These are common in many of the intermountain basins of western North America. The most interesting thing about them is that, for the larger lakes, they are presently arched and not perfectly level. This is because of isostatic rebound after removal of the huge amounts of water that previously filled the basin.

And as with all your other thoughts, you think this in the near complete absence of evidence. There's no evidence of a worldwide flood a mere 4300 years ago, and plenty of evidence that the Rockies began rising around 80 million years ago. I don't think Edge is aware of your ideas about how the Grand Canyon Supergroup layers came to be tilted. He barely participated in the Why the Flood Never Happened thread.--Percy

Google maps shows Monument Valley from above. Duh.

Yes. I acknowledge that this is supported by the evidence and makes sense. No. This is contradicted by the evidence and makes no sense. The Appalachians began forming around 480 mya, the North American Plate began moving away from the Eurasian and African Plates around 200 mya, and the Rockies began forming around 80 mya. That's what the evidence tells us.By the way, one key piece of evidence that the Appalachians formed before the separation of North America from Europe is that a piece of the Appalachians is in Ireland. There is no evidence of this and it makes little sense. The only evidence here is evidence of your imagination. Assuming that "it" refers to tectonic forces, then yes, I acknowledge that this is supported by the evidence and makes sense. This is not supported by the evidence and makes no sense. While it is true that water will follow a gradient and therefore would flow away from the uplifted Rock Mountains, there's no evidence of any worldwide flood nor of any "water runoff" that resulted from a worldwide flood.--Percy

This is nevertheless still my hypothesis for now. So? Which that dike is. Which I guess occurred during that period? But you also think an exposed Mississippian / Pennsylvanian rock is evidence of whatever happened to that rock during that supposed time period, which is not necessarily the case. Looks to me like all that sagging and sinking of that formation the name of which escapes my aging mind at the moment something Indian sounding, anyway all that most likely occurred after the rock above was eroded away, in other words in "recent" time. Same as the exposure of the Kaibab plateau which occurred in "recent" time and not in the Permian in which the limestone was supposedly laid down. Just because any particular phenomenon occurred at a particular location doesn't mean it occurred in the supposed time frame that location is said to represent. But perhaps the Cardenas is an exception. If you would ever bother to condescend to explain the things you say rather than just asserting them maybe I'd read more of your posts. Oh goody, there's something we agree on, since the uplift is associated with tectonic activity which is associated with all that massive erosion and the fault lines and the magma and so on... The formation shown on the diagram is though, and I don't see anything there to suggest a difference in age identified by that fault myself. Same layers on both sides of the fault line, those to the south raised, those to the north much lower and tilted but with the Claron in place looking quite identical to its severed counterpart to the south. I don't know if the north side dropped or was just tilted by the uplifting of the south side, perhaps you can tell me. But again I see nothing suggesting relative age except of course the fault line itself is younger than everything else, but the layers on both sides should be identical in age. Not sure exactly what you mean but if you mean it occurred in stages at earlier times in the laying down of the strata, there should be some sign of that in how subsequent layers were deposited and there doesn't seem to be. That is, the fault shifts the layers relative to each other so that deposition on top of them should be uneven at the fault line. There is of course a problem with the Hurricane Fault since the whole stack is tilted to the north beneath the Claron and I'm not sure what evidence might remain of what you are claiming. Is there any? What is the significance of the Claron's being deformed and the rocks beneath it also? Your rather cryptic (assertional) way of answering me doesn't convince me of that though. As noted before, you seem to be much more invested in doing a snow job than in communicating anything.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The rolling "megadunes" are interesting but what's the evidence that they are typical of rushing water everywhere? Isn't that area basalt? Is it possible basalt would ripple like that while other sediments might not? Also were layers above that layer also washed away in the same event? This is what I've been guessing for the Monument Valley area and I'm not sure your picture represents that area.As for the other picture I have no problem believing Missoula existed, and would have left shoreline rings too. But of course I have a question about timing. Have you ever had a stopped up drain that drains slowly and leaves rings as it goes down? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.