Summations Only

Oh. The tectonic activity did NOT "cause the Flood." I do think it's connected with the receding of the Flood though, which is the cause of the massive erosion that I've circled in Message 328, and the angular unconformities and the faultings and the volcanism with the magma dikes and intrusions and so on. All stuff that didn't happen until all the strata were in place.

You really are committed to finding the most trivial objections to anything I say. But why should I expect anything else? Well, I have to leave for a while. I'll try to answer you later, which will be a lost cause as usual but we do try.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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.

All the information you are giving, about "outburst" floods, "break-up" type flooding, and your statement that I give no evidence for an "impoundment" in the area of the monuments, is irrelevant since I don't claim that there was an impoundment or that the flooding was of the type of the Missoula flood. The picture I've had in mind is of strata having been laid down to a depth of three miles or more, the Flood water is still covering them, and this is all over the earth but I am focusing on this particular area of Arizona-Utah, then the water begins to recede and as it does it breaks up the higher strata and carries chunks of it away, and when it gets down to a certain level it washes off the surface of whatever layer presents itself, Kaibab for instance in the GC GS area. This really isn't the same kind of flood as the glacial lake floods. It didn't necessarily rush as hard and fast as those floods for one thing.As for not providing evidence, you apparently want something brand new but I'm working from what I've found out about these things already. It's all the same evidence you have only I try to interpret it in terms of the Flood. Same evidence, different interpretation. I'd very much like to have some brand new evidence but new interpretations ought to be worth something. And anyway, since I'm not claiming an "impoundment" I can't be expected to provide evidence for it.Evidence for no tectonic activity from Tapeats to Claron is on those diagrams in Message 328, basic evidence for the Flood itself is as usual the strata themselves and the huge number of fossils. Same eivdnece you have, different interpretation.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Which is why I've been short-shrifting you too. There's no point in talking to someone who treats creationists as you do. Asking questions sometimes sets me up for insults. Sorry, I get enough of that already. I really don't enjoy it so I stop having the open mind you want. However, it's also true that since I am a YEC I'm always looking for any way to interpret information in support of the Flood so if you want a different kind of open mind you aren't going to get it. I don't like being the target of insults and I also don't like being an endless frustration to a geologist, but when it's clear there's no other option I'd rather not have a discussion at all.No, that one dike is not evidence that all dikes are recent, it's just evidence along with all the other evidence on that diagram that all those phenomena I pointed out occurred in the same time frame after all the strata (from the Tapeats) were laid down. I'm well aware that the Precambrian rocks don't fit the idea that all such activity occurred in "recent" time which is why I stick to what I can prove and leave that for later. Many creationists assume all that was already there before the Flood occurred; I just keep thinking it has to be included in the Flood period somehow. I'd certainly like to find evidence for my theory that the volcanism must have happened at the end of the Flood along with all the other activity. Yes I KNOW you think you have evidence that couldn't have happened. All that means to me is that I have to keep looking and thinking about it.I can't remember the name of that formation northeast of the Grand Canyon that you keep referring to. But let's forget about it for now.Have to take a break, answer the rest later.

And why wouldn't I expect the Andes to erode for pete's sake?

Not "obviously" from that diagram. Speaking of evidence I see no evidence for this scenario. Where's the evidence that the Claron was even partially deposited while the fault was in motion? The diagram shows the Claron to be of equal thickness on both sides of the fault, but what I was saying was that there should be uneven deposition at that point, more on one side of the fault, less on the other, after a fault has shifted the layers relative to each other. Such as here where the gray layer is more on one side and less on the other: The Claron looks like it was already there in its complete form, and there is a partial layer above it too, is that lava? and the fault line simply split the whole thing right to the top. No evidence of deposition going on at the time at all that I can see. Just a good example of layers tilting beneath one that remains horizontal. Thank you very much for that explanation. I've wondered about that all along. But as I say above I don't see any evidence that the Claron was deposited after the fault occurred. Looks to me like it and the deposit on top of it were bisected by the fault. Except that there isn't the unevenness of thickness I said should be expected. The two sides of the Claron are identical, and there is even a deposit on top of it that was already there too. Again I see this formation as evidence for my argument rather than yours. I'd prefer to say it is an hypothesis, but I really do think I've supplied a fair amount of evidence for it. Same here.

We would? Explain what?

Uh. Um. I'm almost speechless.Comparing what a river does to what the worldwide Flood may have done hits me as reallyweird.Flood deposits strata
Water is standing over strata or strata are standing in water. This is not a running river. (by the way how deep are the Amazon sediments, and how many layers etc.?)
Lower strata are compacted by weight of strata above
Higher strata are looser
Tectonic tilting perhaps, ocean floor dropping perhaps, something starts the water running off. It takes five months to completely leave the land so let's not rush things.
The upper strata are soft and break up fairly easily.
Over those five months all that massive erosion I've been hypothesizing would have occurred.I see no comparison with the Amazon river myself.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Doesn't look anything like a growth fault according to the references at Google or
Wikipedia.First you give erosion as the reason both sides of the Claron are the same thickness; then you suggest that the lava above it preserved its thickness.I'd been wondering if the lava might have preserved its horizontality while the other layers tilted, or what you call deformed.Still don't see it in the terms you've suggested, still see the Claron as already fully deposited and as being cut by the fault all as one piece up through the lava field, all of the strata tilting except the Claron.The scenario I described and illustrated was meant to suggest what WOULD have happened but didn't in this case.What is the evidence that the Claron formed in a lake? As it should be, seems to me. Why wouldn't it be?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Lots of things happen that aren't comparable to a worldwide Flood, which would have been unique after all. Again, it's my hypothesis of what probably happened because it seems to explain a lot of things at once. I'll let you know when I have evidence for it to confirm it. Nothing that hasn't been answered many times before already. Don't see why you think it so unlikely. The upper strata would still have been fairly soft. And again, the Flood would have been unique in many ways, which Old Earthers seem to be unable to imagine properly, likening it to limited confined local events. Certainly more likely than the idea that millions of years would have cleaned off the surface of the Kaibab anywhere near as efficiently as the reality shows happened. ?

A little normal imagination ought to be able to tell you that much just because nothing like it ever occurred before or since. That's obviously how one knows it was different. The effects it left would of course be within what we observe of the planet's condition, but how the Flood operated simply cannot be compared with a river or any local flood. Really, edge, how could it be, a Flood that inundated the entire planet?And it ought to be pretty obvious that when you are talking about a one time worldwide event that nobody reported on scientifically at the time, so that all you have is a few scanty descriptions, that you are left with speculation, so that the scientific approach to that would be to work with the known facts of the world you do know about, in connection with what is presented in the only report we have of that one time worldwide event.I'd grant you that you with your geological knowledge should do better at this than I do, but you don't believe in it so you don't bother and you spend your time coming up with objections to it, but if it is real as those of us who believe in it of course take it to be, then we work with what comes to hand. And I believe that once you know it happened you see it in everything on the planet. I do. I see it in the strata and the fossils, and the tumble-down appearance of things. The world screams worldwide Flood to me, the more so the more I get some idea of how perfect, green and lush the original Creation was, from which the planet we have now has fallen. Yes, that could well be. What's with the phrase "in the middle of?" As I've answered many times the idea is that the sediments come from the land mass that was saturated at the beginning of the Flood, and the limestone from the ocean, as per Walther's Law according to the first version of this thread. Sand, silt, clay, carbonates, the spectrum that ended up in the sedimentary rock. If the ocean lays down separated sediments as it transgresses the land, according to Walther, it makes sense to me that it did so with the sediments available in the Flood water. Of course you don't. Again, what's with that "middle" bit? My guess would be that they leached out of the surrounding rock after deposition of the whole stack, but a more knowledgeable geological thought on how it could have happened would be welcome. Figure the rock was full of water at first, which carried down through the layers whatever chemicals were in it, those that would have contributed to the lithification of the rock over time for instance, and salts and whatever else was there as well. Imagination, hypothesis of course. Haven't worked on it much but there's what I've thought. Those occur rather high up in the stack rather than at the bottom of the ocean, and the best guess I'm aware of is that they occurred between tides or waves of either the transgressing or regressing ocean. Why don't you help out the creationists some? I'm sure your imagination is as good as ours, it's just that you don't like what we are trying to prove. See what you come up with for my team? A few would be the depth, the fact that there were no boundaries to it just endless water, ways it would move according to tides and currents and probably long breaking waves before and after the land was inundated, movements we don't see in rivers and small floods and that sort of thing. Full of sediments that killed creatures by the bazillions, buried many of them in the layers on the land, in conditions perfect for fossilization. Of course they would. That's all one CAN do with the unwitnessed prehistoric past. That's all Old Earthers and evolutionists do with their scenarios of different time periods and the flora and fauna they imagine to have lived then, with the geological scenarios of those past ages too, all conjured up from stuff found in the rocks. The theory of how the dinosaurs were supposedly wiped out depends on this layer of iridium found at the surface of a particular layer that probably came from a meteor. That's it, that's the basis for the fantasy of a global catastrophe brought about by the meteor that did them in. You've got the iridium, you've found a large meteor crater, you've got the dinosaur fossils and the rest is imagination. Not getting your point. Whatever it cleaned off it cleaned off. It didn't just leave the monuments, it also left a butte south of the Grand Canyon and it left the cliffs of the Grand Staircase etc. Just as you have to imagine how millions of years of erosion did it all instead, how the Missoula flood cut the scablands and so on. You just don't seem to appreciate how much of your work involves nothing but imagination based on a clue here, a fact there. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Overlooked this: But not everything happened in the Flood. There have been a few thousand years since then you know, in which rivers have been running which didn't run during the Flood. And the sediments that built the strata would have been washed off the land mass and joined with ocean sediments to lay down the layers already, one of which was the Claron, so we don't need more land to erode for that purpose. \ABE: Realized you are referring to the "massive erosion" after the Flood. Well, the Claron was one of the cliffs left by it in the Grand Staircase area.ABE: Or are you saying there are gravels there now but no rivers? I don't know, would have to ponder it. Former rivers I would suppose, since the Flood though. First guess.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There was a land mass before the global flood and still land mass after a lot of it had eroded into the Flood waters during the Flood. Of course. Then the strata would have built upon that remaining pretty much denuded land mass.The Flood is NOT "rivers and lakes" but those would have occurred afterward.I AM confused about what you're asking about the Claron. Added another edit there too that you apparently missed. I don't know what you are asking.What on earth is "Claron time?" The Claron was one of the deposits made by the Flood. Most of it eroded away along with the other cliffs of the Grand Staircase, which I've hypothesized was the result of the receding Flood waters.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.