Summations Only

Correct. If you are trying to unseat the established explanation, you should be prepared to answer detailed questions. That's what we do in science; as opposed to religion where conclusions are never allowed to be questioned.

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?

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.

They occur in other places with break-up type of flooding. This reference refers to some in Russia.See Giant current ripples - Wikipedia The basalt country rock would affect the way that the rocks erode, the giant ripples are a depositional feature. Of course it doesn't. That's the point. Outburst floods are pretty well known and there is no evidence for one in the GC area. I was giving you that picture as an example of 'evidence'. In other words, part of the theory is that there was a lake which drained catastrophically to form the features of the Palouse area.In your case, you do not provide evidence for such an impoundment. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

If the basalt flows of the Cardenas are interbedded with the GC Supergroup then they and the feeder system of basalt dikes are much older than the erosion and the uplift that you claim to be only recent. But it is not evidence that all dikes are recent. At the base of the Unkar Group sedimentation. Simple exposure of a rock tells me nothing about it's deposition. What sagging? This is unclear. What are you talking about? If you showed an actual open mind and asked questions, I might do that. In general, I avoid making long explanations because I'm pretty convinced that YECs don't really care. Of course, uplift is the main cause of accelerated erosion. The Colorado Plateau was not so eroded because it wasn't uplifted until the early Cenozoic. Some of them, yes. But we obviously have older events also. Well, your own words explain it. The Claron was, at least partially, deposited during movement along the Hurricane Fault. The deeper rocks were more deformed because the deformation started before the Claron. Again, we could call this a 'growth fault', one that happens during deposition. It's called drag folding, and occurs adjacent to faults in sedimentary rock. When the rocks are curved up against the fault, the other side has moved relatively up. Actually, you yourself have cited the evidence in that the Claron is not as deformed as the underlying layers... That is exactly the evidence. At least some of the deformation/faulting occurred before the Claron was deposited. Answer provided above. My only real assertion is that you do not provide evidence that is diagnostic of your hypothesis. If you provide actual evidence, which is rare, it does not refute the mainstream version of geology in favor of yours. However, most of what you present is not evidence anyway, it is personal belief.As I said, I do not like to make detailed explanations to people who don't appreciate it. Most of my explanations are not really for you anyway, because I don't think you either read them or care.

One thing I have learned from all of these, largely fruitless discussions, is that Faith, and YECs in general, have no idea what we mean by 'evidence'. Their feelings, myths and wishes are all evidence as far as they are concerned. I don't know if this is a failing of the educational system that we have, or if it is an effect of religious indoctrination, or both.

Ah, I was waiting for that clarification.So, the flood waters simply receded catastrophically. All over the world.This could be a testable hypothesis. Why don't you go out and find actual evidence that this has happened.It would be nice to know why we don't have such flooding features everywhere in the world. It would also be nice to know where the water all went so suddenly.These kind of questions should lead to tests and ultimately to evidence which you could provide to us. Wait, wait, wait...First of all, where did these sediments come from. I'm particularly interested in the limestones and the coarse gravels and evaporites, etc. How do you get three miles of these rock types when the don't even form in a global flood that has no source rocks.You are putting the cart before the horse here. But obviously it cut the Grand Canyon, steep walls and all. How do you manage to maintain clif-like inclinations on the canyon walls? Okay, how about the evidence for Vishnu stream boulders in the Unkar Group? How about radiometric ages? How do you handle those pieces of evidence since you use all the same evidence as we do? Well, then you've got your work cut out for you. Oh, wait! That would require YECs to go out and do real research!Silly me! But you have shown us evidence that there was some pre-Claron deformation. Are you no denying that? Which is also evidence for the mainstream interpretation. Do you think that no one ever noticed these things before? Quite wrong. You have ignored evidence of abundant tectonism and deformation going on elsewhere in the world during that period of time that you say nothing happened.

That is why, for many YECs, discussion is fruitless. On the other hand, I find many of the facts surrounding the discussion to be fascinating. The other day, learned that the Amazon River supplies fully 20% of all fresh water reaching the ocean by river flows. And yet, it carries less than a tenth of the sediment load of the Mississippi. This has some huge implications.Isn't science great?

That would probably change things. I guess to keep this semi-on topic, though, this just points out how irregular erosion and deposition can be; what happens to mountain ranges in deep time, and where does sediment come from. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

I think that the Amazon Basin is the largest flood plain in the world and it is apparently depositional since we can be pretty sure that the Andes are eroding. Not exactly what Faith has in mind.

Heh, heh...If you think that you are treated poorly, you should see how scientists treat one of their own when they make a mistake. The world is full of ideas and some of the can swim. Others, not so much. Yours aren't doing very well, but you get a pass because we are not doing science here.Besides that I'm not frustrated with the conversations in this forum because there are others who seem interested. No, it's just shows that some of the events are later. It also only shows what was going on in only that area. Then don't say, "... all those phenomena ..." are recent. Let us know how that works out for you. And remember there is another intrusive event evidenced by the Zoroaster Granite.

Not the point.According to your scenario, we might expect the sediment deposited by flooding of the Amazon Basin to be eroded away. But there is very little river delta at the mouth of the Amazon, even though the Andes are certainly producing sediment. Please explain.

If so, then your diagram is limited. Actually, you do see it. You yourself said that the Claron is less less deformed than the underlying strata. At the same time, the fault cuts the Claron.Goind by cross-cutting relationships, the order of events is exactly what you show.The only difference is that the Claron appears to be of the same thickness on either side. That is simply a function of relative erosion. Down-dropped blocks tend to be more completely preserved from erosion. Not necessarily. Just think if the fault continued up into an even younger layer. You still have the fact that the lower strata are more warped than the Claron.In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the fault is part of the reason that the Claron formed in a lake on the north side. That might result in a thicker formation on that side... Yes, the fault was probably active during deposition. That would give you the scenario that you describe. You mean after the most recent movement on the fault. Again, YECS need to think about processes, not just end results. It isn't necessary to have uneven deposition, though it is common. Not really. Growth faults always exhibit increasing offset and deformation with depth. That's practically the definition of a growth fault.In this case the uplifted part of the Claron is still cut by the fault but instead of being eroded away, the volcanic cap (probably on both sides) preserves its thickness.Besides, you're looking at a regional section here. I wouldn't put too much stock in the details. Again, not really. Everything you describe is well within the realm of known geological processes.

I knew you would quibble over this.But yes, according to you, during runoff, the flood removed the top layers of sediments that it also previously deposited.I am drawing an analogy between that and the Amazon Basin which is the closest thing that we have to a global flood. And yet when the runoff flows to the sea, it actually carries very little sediment by comparison to other major rivers of the world. Where did that sediment go? It stayed in the basin. Where did the sediment go?Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix first quote box - Was a "/" at the first qs.

Actually there is a bit of an error here. Your sequence should be:1. Deposition of brown layer
2. Deposition of orange layer
3. Motion along fault
4. Deposiition of lower gray layer
5. Continuation and cessation of motion on fault
6. Deposition of upper gray layerThe only assumption I'm making here is that the brown and orange layers are more offset and deformed than the gray layer (which seems to be the case).