Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?

The arguments given have been all about dating. The fossil record is irrelevant if what I've shown is true, that the strata clearly show rapid deposition by water and absolutely no evidence of time gaps suggesting millions of years for time periods. "Buried landscapes" are also easily understood to be features carved underground by running water. If time periods are eliminated so are buried landscapes. I grant the logic of the claim but the logic breaks down when it can't be confirmed, which it can't because it reaches into the unwitnessed past where things may be different enough to invalidate it.But I'm not rejecting it for reasons concerning dating itself, but on the grounds I spelled out in the previous post, that the strata show features that make time periods impossible, and if time periods are impossible the dating methods are wrong. I believe the actual evidence I've given explains the geological facts and shows the standard interpretation's to be wrong. The strata support the Flood and clearly do not show any evidence for long ages between layers. This is not ignoring anything or explaining away anything, it's answering it with a more reasonable interpretation based on the actual observable facts. The problem is that I just showed how this is wrong and all you are doing is asserting the contrary. Speaking of ignoring evidence that's what you are doing since the evidence as I spelled it out in the previous post demonstrates the Flood and offers no support whatever for any long period of time. That really hasn't "been known," it's been put together from an inadequate assessment of the evidence. The physical facts of the strata do not support long ages at all; they support rapid deposition which supports the Flood. Everything I said is based on observation of the geological facts, the strata as seen in the Grand Canyon, and not on any prior belief. I described what I see in the strata, the lack of the kind of erosion between layers to show time at the surface which the Time Scale needs to be true, the lack of disturbance through all the laying down of the strata, which invalidates long ages, including lava flows and faulting occurring after all the strata were in place; the bending of rock supposedly millions of years old in tandem with much younger sedimentary deposits, which is impossible and suggests that all were equally young and malleable at the time of the bending. All this is actual evidence against the idea of an old earth, it's not something imposed on the facts, it's there IN the facts. And all that was only a brief sketch based on my memory of former threads, so I'm sure it could be much better argued. But still, it's based on observed facts, not on any prior belief.And again, when the evidence on this level is so clear, that makes other evidence wrong, such as the dating methods.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I've answered the evidence, not ignored it. Rapid deposition of the strata is evidenced in what I've said and that means that the millions of years per time period is wrong. I believe it's clearly shown in the facts I've given. I also believe the monadnocks and the boulder are easily explained in terms of rapid deposition followed by tectonic disturbance.It is not refusing to admit contrary evidence when that evidence is being answered with a better interpretation.I've also seen the deformed fossils. The extreme pressure of tectonic twisting of the rock can do that, and of course ALL the rock in the strata were not completely lithified at that time, being recently laid down in the Flood, which is what the evidence for rapid deposition shows. I believe the tectonic deformation of rock all occurred at the same time after the Flood, including the raising of mountains, the works. I certainly believe it occurred much more rapidly than you do but it still could have taken as long as hundreds of years, and it is still going on as seen in the continued raising of Everest and the continued movement of the continents.You accept what is only an assumption based on OE geology that the rock was millions of years old when deformed. But my example is just of a gentle bending, the bending of different layers to which conventional Geology assigns a difference of millions of years between them, all being deformed together identically and that is not possible. Try it with clay some time, try folding completely dry strips with a damp strip.You say the erosion can be seen if I look for it. If I have to look for it that proves that it is not the sort of erosion that would occur if a layer existed at the surface of the earth. A bit of rubble between layers is far from what we see at the surface of the earth everywhere. Give us hills and valleys, a canyon, a gorge, even an eroded grassy meadow. Nothing anywhere near that scale is found between layers.Yes I do claim the evidence is there in the actual facts and can be seen by eyes not biased by the OE paradigm.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This is simply not true at all. I studied the situation of the strata and drew my conclusions from that alone. Nothing else entered into it. Since you don't bother to debate my points I think you are guilty of nothing but bias without the slightest "real-world" observation.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If the evidence shows continuous rapid deposition of the strata and refutes the idea of millions of years per time period, which it does, then it makes other contrary evidence irrelevant, such as Old Earth dating.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's a good question and really, the answer is that I wouldn't expect any strata at all to have anything to do with it. Strata fit water deposition, and these humongous strata require water deposition on a grand scale. For time periods over millions of years there is absolutely no reason whatever there should be any strata marking them off from each other. And since most of them span enormous areas of geography nothing could possibly have lived there at that "time" anyway. Cores from the Midwest show continuous layers over a huge span of geography. The fossils in them are supposed to be the evidence of things that lived during a particular time period marked by a particular rock, but if they ever did then they were killed by the sediment that covered it all, and then how would the next batch of living things have arisen? The whole thing is utterly utterly absurd but they have their rationalizations all in order to deny it.Geology has cobbled together all kinds of rationalizations for the water including a series of six shallow seas. But given the great expanse of the strata across the land they have no way of showing how anything lived then anyway, or stayed living if they ever did. Yes even marine life. All that sediment in the water would kill them too. And did, judging by the fossil contents found in the rocks.No, the strata must be the result of the worldwide Flood that killed all things that were living on the land at the time, burying them in the sediments where we now find them fossilized. marine life died too of course. There shouldn't be a series of any sort at all, there shouldn't be stratified sedimentary rocks at all. At best maybe in one time period perhaps, as a sort of fluke, and then I'd expect it to be part of an extinction event; but a series marking off each time period, no, the idea is ludicrous. The eras should be continuous one from another, not flat and straight but lumpy and hilly and blended together. If creatures really did live earlier in earth's history from which nothing since had yet evolved, perhaps one would expect to find places here and there where they were buried and if fossilized local areas of lakes perhaps where they died, not straight flat sediments stretching for hundreds of thousands of miles.ABE: There is no way strata make sense at all on the Time Scale theory but at the very least they should not be flat and straight AT ALL, they should show hills and valleys and gorges and canyons and eroded fields between layers, and they don't.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This is false. I've described the evidence, the evidence I showed and argued for on previous threads which I'm sure you remember. The cross section of the Grand Staircase/Grand Canyon area was a major part of my argument. I pointed to the flat layers with no indication of the sort of erosion one would expect from time at the surface, I pointed to the straightness and flatness of the strata through the entire depth from the bottom of the GC to the top of the GS. I pointed out the magma dikes that penetrate all the layers and issue in lava flow at the very top of the GS.. Also the fault that cut through the same depth of strata. I also pointed out the curved strata that couldn't be deformed in a block if the layers were millions of years apart. All this is evidence of complete deposition of all the strata before any kind of disturbance occurred, tectonic, volcanic, any of it. Continuous rapid deposition, no time periods.This was SHOWN. These are FACTS. This is EVIDENCE. You can LOOK at it and follow the reasoning, you don't have to take my word for anything.
/
/ Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The far left formation with the Claron lying horizontally on top of the tilted strata is a perfect example of an angular unconformity in which the lower strata tilted under the upper, in this case the Claron. It's like Siccar Point and dozens of other examples where the layer on top is usually a single layer which I interpret as all that was left of what was originally a higher stack, the one layer being more or less welded to the tilted layers by the friction that occurred in the tilting. Except in that case it seems to be the result of the faulting that occurred with the lifting of the strata to the right of it, which caused the tilting of the section to the left, dragging it and tilting it, though I'd guess it was all part of the same tectonic activity at the end of the Flood that all disturbances appear to be. The whole Grand Staircase-Grand Canyon area is lifted to the South, where it rises right over the Grand Canyon, all part of the upheaval that brought about all these phenomena after all the strata were in place. It's also where the strata are clearly seen to be curved as a block which I keep referring to.The far left unconformity is also like the Great Unconformity at the bottom of the Grand Canyon which you know I've interpreted in the same way, as tilted while all the strata above were in place, in this case confined by the weight of what would have been about three miles of strata above, the tilting forced by the tectonic pressure that produced all the disturbances seen on the cross section, all of them AFTER all the strata were in place. What's remarkable of course is that the main depth of the strata remained roughly horizontal and parallel during all this activity, which is what makes this area such a good place to see such things. That quartzite boulder we've discussed embedded in the Tapeats sandstone moved a quarter of a mile in relation to the tilted strata below the unconformity. That was one HUGE upheaval. Good thing there were only eight people and selected animals around to experience it, and perhaps where they were the effects were minimal anyway. (ABE: In fact, they may not yet have left the Ark.)And since the Great Unconformity covers a huge distance, well beyond the Grand Canyon area, it looks like when the continents separated there was quite a shaking in the Earth, and in most places, take other angular unconformities for example, it shook off a lot of upper strata as lower were buckled and tilted beneath them, leaving a single layer in many cases.I'm more and more convinced this had to have occurred simultaneously with the receding of the Flood waters, somehow related to whatever triggered the draining, some kind of sea floor phenomenon all connected with the continental rifting and bucklings.Flood followed by continental splitting/tectonic shakings is amply evidenced in a lot of what I've presented on various threads.You and edge should really start recognizing all this and joining us Floodists in renovating Geology.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I've simply said I don't have a way of answering the dating claims so I've focused on evidences I can present and support more clearly. The point is that if some evidence is as conclusive as I believe what I've shown is, then other evidences against it have to be questioned. Both can't be true, and I believe my case is very clear. I have, however, pointed out that the dating methods lack any kind of independent corroboration which is normally needed in science.That's the problem with the historical sciences that depend on making inferences from present tense observations into a past where they can't be verified. It seems logical, especially if you assume the uniformitarian principle, but it can't be verified, it can only be hypothesized and assumed. There are creationists who can deal with this stuff a lot better than I can, I just stick to what I understand best and if my case is good then yours comes under doubt. Again, giving strong contrary evidence in favor of a young earth is not "hand-waving," it's defeating the evidence of an old earth, at least calling it seriously into question. It isn't still there if it's been defeated; all that's still there is your touching adherence to it in the teeth of the contrary evidence that calls it into question.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

About anything at all?I do think my views differ to some extent from other Floodists' but we share a lot nevertheless. And I also think that my discussion of the evidence should convince many of them of the parts where I differ from them if they spent time considering it.

Only of that kind that one has to look hard to see, the kind that could have been caused by runoff between the layers after they were deposited, or by tectonic movement that shifted layers a bit in relation to each other -- after all were in place of course -- not erosion anywhere near the scale that would have to exist if the rock had spent time at the surface for more than a week, let alone millions of years. Of course most of it was under water most of the time, but the rocks higher in the strata where the land animals are buried don't show anything different. What's a "fault surface?" Where have I argued this? You mean the unconformities or what? But that would be absolute nonsense, especially since it can't be hard to find statements affirming tectonic and volcanic activity during all those supposed hundreds of millions of years, which are absolutely absent from the cross section. How stupid could the artist be who put that together? The denials and empty assertions seem mostly to be coming from you, such as this one for instance, since I've offered quite a bit of discussion of actual evidence. Does the addition of the word "diagnostic" mean anything or is it just there to sound cool? Let me put it this way: I've given evidence after evidence after evidence, all of which is illustrated on that cross section or the actual rocks of the canyon itself. It is you who are denying all that evidence I've given. I'm not even denying yours, I'm just showing that it's wrong -- there is no way any layer of the strata was ever the scene of a "time period" in which creatures lived for millions of years. True, not on this cross section anyway, but the Cardenas flow emerges in the far eastern end of he canyon where those lower rocks are exposed. After those above it were eroded away. That still puts the flow after they were all in place, following the erosion.There is still the question how to explain the layer of magma in the Supergroup. If it occurred after all the strata were in place, it would have penetrated between the layers somehow, layers still thoroughly wet from the Flood and probably just tilted by the same tectonic force that released the magma. I know there are questions to be resolved, but that doesn't change the fact that the overall facts I've described fit the Flood and not the Time Scale. Can't be. Clearly the granite was the result of the same event that tilted the Supergroup and released the volcanism beneath. Tons of it. A lot of it the same evidence you use, just interpreted differently. But in this case it cut through an otherwise completely undisturbed depth of strata, just one of the many evidences that the strata were already all there before any kind of disturbance occurred. The fault in this case divided the northern strata at the far left of the diagram from the southern strata that are raised up to its right. The dike issuing in the lava flow at the top is surely all part of the same event -- the uplift of the land to the south, the fault and the tilting of the strata to the north of it beneath the Claron which remained horizontal, and in fact the forming of all the steps of the Grand Staircase as the land was pushed upward toward the Grand Canyon area, AND the formation of the Grand Canyon itself. Same time the Cardenas flow occurred is what I would assume. It got trapped beneath the canyon area by the movement that tilted the Supergroup and slid the whole shebang about a quarter of a mile, which is how that quartzite boulder got embedded in the Tapeats sandstone a quarter mile from its origin. Upper layers were shaken and eroded away and the Cardenas flowed over the remaining rocks far to the east. Those faults would have been part of all the activity I've just described that went on beneath the canyon after the strata were in place. ' All the evidence I've mentioned that puts all that activity beneath the canyon after the strata were in place. Gosh I have to give evidence that rock millions of years old would be hard and stiff compared to sediments not yet fully dried? I did give the example of trying to shape as a unit a stack of strips of clay when some have first been allowed to dry completely and others are still damp.
There is n Except all the evidence I've been giving that show all the disturbances to have occurred after the strata were all in place. I believe the evidence shows that all the activity beneath the canyon occurred after the strata were in place, from the tilting of the Supergroup to the raising of the canyon itself, shown on the cross section as rising from north to south, which would of course include the faulting of the Supergroup. The appearance that it all occurred before the Tapeats deposition is caused by the massive sliding that occurred between the Supergroup and the Tapeats with all the strata above it, cutting off the faulting that occurred at the same time; all partly evidenced by the fact that the fifteen-foot quartzite boulder (seen in the video of the British creationist group which I've posted many times and can dig up again) is a quarter mile from its origin in the Shinumo quartzite deposit. How does deformed Vishnu schist or irregular GU prove anything against what I'm saying? That can only be because you refuse to really think about it and must at all costs defend the geological status quo. I've shown it all on the cross section many times. And of course I know standard Geology has its own interpretation of these things, that's what I'm answering. Bald assertion there. Sigh. Not all. Steve Austin has studied it and come to conclusions contrary to standard Geology's. The British creationist group I've mentioned have been studying it for years and do not accept standard Geology's views. What I've given is actual evidence, simple stuff I admit, compared to Austin's or other creationists', but still good evidence, and I'm sorry you feel insulted but all your insults of me in return are just the result of your hurt ego and not a fair assessment, because the evidence IS there. As I've said before the problem is paradigm hardening (on top of ego wounds) and sometimes it takes a generation or two before the establishment can afford to admit it's wrong about some things. Reviewed by a hostile opponent of YEC though. Scientists aren't above ego games or biased judgments. The cost of going against the establishment, scientific establishment or any other, is always at least embarrassment, sometimes much worse if you are a scientist, a member of that establishment. I have nothing to lose in that regard of course but I admire those who do and have the courage to stick their necks out anyway.

Using a pseudonym as a creationist in the current scientific environment should hardly brand one a "prevaricator." Austin has done a lot of good geological work, and put together a good book on the Grand Canyon too, where his own study of the nautiloid layer I find very convincing. Probably not, but some ideas are my own and I wouldn't expect anyone to agree with them right off the bat. I've been doing a pretty good job, if I do say so myself, of evidencing my peculiar views nevertheless. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Akshully, there's nothing desperate about it, I don't even know what the contrary view is in this case. I just look at the cross section, ponder it, and report what I see. A horizontal layer with tilted layers beneath it is what else but an angular unconformity. The tilted layers are easily identified as those that on the right are lying horizontal just beneath the Claron there too. Wouldn't have occurred to me that it needs a reason. Just looking at the diagram I conclude that the strata to the right (South) of the fault line were raised up -- and those to the left (North} appear to have dropped. For some reason the strata split at that point, at the fault line, dragging the strata beneath the Claron on the left (North) into their tilted position, but the Claron itself simply stayed in its horizontal position, probably originally with many other layers above it. I usually explain that kind of formation elsewhere in terms of the friction between the tilted or buckled lower strata and the upper causing the two to "stick" together, so I'd apply that here too.All this of course is just one of the many results of the tectonic activity that occurred after the strata wree all in place, which order of events ought to be clearly enough evidenced on the cross section. Oh I've been wrong a lot, and I'll even grant that you are honestly seeing things as you see them, even if I would love to be able to get you to see things my way. Well, this happens to be completely untrue. I got it from studying this cross section. What is seen there is NO disturbances except at the top of the Grand Canyon and underneath it, and the canyon itself of course. The walls of the canyon and the strata stretching from there to the Grand Staircase are all neat and parallel. Then note the raising of the whole area from north to south, peaking over the Grand Canyon. Note the fault line to the extreme north where the strata north of it tilted under the Claron while the strata south of it is penetrated by a dike of magma that spills out at the very top. This obviously all happened after the strata were all in place.Then note the steps of the Grand Staircase, arranged on the incline from north to south, where the slope then turns upward to the Grand Canyon. Lot of shaking going on in that movement of the land, which coupled with the receding of the Flood waters is sufficient explanation for the eroding away of all the sediments above the steps, and the cracking that is Zion Canyon. And farther South there is the Grand Canyon itself sliced into the side of the apex of the raised land there. Again the tectonic disturbance plus receding Flood waters explain very nicely the formation of the canyon itself. A lot of strata had to have existed above the canyon originally, all the way to the level of the top of the Grand Staircase. The butte to the south of the Grand Canyon stands as another monument to that former height of the strata.That all had to have happened almost as one event, due to the tectonic shaking: the fault, raising of hte land, the dike and lava flow, the carving of the Grand Staircase and Zion Canyon, and then the carving of the Grand Canyon and the distant butte. All one acton basically.Then there is what went on beneath the Grand Canyon, which is usually interpreted as having occurred before the strata were built into which the canyon was later carved. But since the dike to the north clearly followed the building of the strata and so did the fault in that area, I find it more likely that the upheaval beneath the GC occurred at the same time as those events. The raising of the GC area itself can be seen as a contour right over the Great Unconformity, the same raising that caused the curved mound at the Permian/Kaibab level into which the canyon was cut, contributing of course to that event along with the receding water which would have taken huge chunks of the uppermost strata with it into the opening crack and carving out the immense width as well as depth of the canyon. Looks to me like the raising of the land and the tilting of the Great Unconformity occurred simultaneously, whatever tilted the GC also pushing up the whole area.Pondering that likelihood along with other angular unconformities led to the idea that the Great Unconformity itself would have been a great sliding between the Supergroup and the strata from the Tapeats upward, and when I saw that huge quartzite boulder on the British creationist video that clinched it, the boulder being a quarter of a mile from where it broke off the shinumo layer.And that focused me on the forces that caused all this: tectonic disturbance being the obvious main cause, pushing and buckling the lower strata beneath the upper strata that begin with the Tapeats. It also seems that the tectonic force would have caused the eruption of the volcanoes beneath the area, as now happens when the moving continents or the subduction of sea floor under a continent may trigger a volcano on the western side of the Americas, or just earthquakes. Tectonic movement does all that so it would have done it beneath the Grand Staircase/Grand Canyon area too.The magma had to have made the granite and contributed to the Vishnu Schist. They are both confined beneath the Tapeats so the pressure added to the weight of the strata would have had a part in colidifying them. The Vishnu must have involved the metamorphosis of some of the lower strata. I know this has been denied, but I can't think what else would have been available. And the layer of magma called the Cardenas in the Supergroup must have been an intrusion although that is denied too. The whole area would have been soaked because the Flood hadn't yet drained, though the weight of the three mile depth of the strata above would have consolidated the various rocks even when wet.That was fun, spelling that out. I wonder what I forgot.Anyway all that was to answer your assertion that "there was no tectonic movement before all the strata were deposited." Beg to differ. Not at all "despite the actual appearances" but entirely because of those appearances as I just spelled out. Truly truly I have derived all these ideas from my observations of the evidence and no prior ideas whatever. Yes it is. How odd since I've done a good job of mustering the evidence that shows that they were already in place before ALL the disturbances shown on the cross section, above and below the canyon area. Strata would not have been laid flat over that mound raised over the Great Unconformity. For just one objection. It had to be the movement between the GU and the strata that embedded the monadnocks too. Well it's local in a lot of places then actually it's how I react to the rehearsal of the evidence as I see it. The more I review it the solider it gets.ABE: Here's another copy of the cross section. If I don't have it in front of me I misremember parts of it: Alas, but this fond wish I did know is a pipe dream.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

As I recall, edge once described the tilting of the layers on the left as caused by the fault itself dragging them.How could the Claron be deposited separately so horizontally and neatly on both sides of the fault a vertical mile apart? This suggests they were already together and the fault separated them, pushing up the right and possibly also dropping the left. I think that's one bit of evidence.Another is that the fault clearly cuts through to the top of the formation, showing that it was all deposited before the two sections were separated. Even the deposit above the Claron is partially present on both sides, both in a similarly eroded condition too. There is also a vertical drop of a mile between the two so the fact that the two horizontal strata are identical on both sides of the fault suggests prior formation and not new deposition. It's quite similar to what I think happened with all the angular unconformities where only a layer or two is left horizontally lying across the lower buckled or tilted strata. Just to be clear, the one on the right being the Great Unconformity?Yes I remember something about the spikiness of the lower strata supposedly proving the standard scenario? I'm not sure why though. It's exposed to the severe weather there which has splintered and desiccated the whole formation so severely it's hard to reconstruct it. But the idea of laying strata horizontally over that spiky picket fence formation isn't any more convincing than the idea that originally the lower buckled under the upper. Unless I'm forgetting something, which unfortunately does happen. I'm not sure what you mean by how the contact surfaces should be the same; which contact surfaces? I'm also not sure what flatness you are talking about. It's certainly there on the right, but the tilted strata on the left would be broken off and eroded and not exactly flat even though it looks pretty flat on the diagram. Yes the Claron does seem to be unaffected, but wouldn't deposition after the faulting cause it to pile up against the fault on the left instead of being cut off so neatly there? And it has been pushed up along with all the other strata up against the fault on the right, whereas fresh deposition should have left it thinner against the fault it seems to me. No, I studied this cross section very carefully to draw my conclusions about it, because this area is such an amazingly good exposure of the strata with many clues to the order of events. And you really haven't said what evidence I've supposedly overlooked. It seems to me what I've addressed answers the standard view quite thoroughly. I very thoroughly took it element by element as each showed up one after the other. Cherry picking would imply leaving something out, which I have no impression of having done. I went from one piece of evidence to the next, that's all, no cherry picking, no selecting, just one after the other. I didn't do so; you must be imposing your own view of the situation on what I did. I followed my view of it, not yours, that's all. The fact that they did is evidence for rapid deposition of the strata and against the Time Scale.
Order of events:
Strata laid down three miles above the Tapeats.
Water starts draining, tectonic pressure occurs, volcanoes erupt, land is raised over the GU and beneath the GC, and at the far north end of the GS, faulting separates north from south segments at that end. Dike penetrates to top of formation there and spills out as a lava flow. The land is raised under the Grand Canyon simultaneously with the tilting of the Supergroup which occurs as a result of the tectonic pressure under the weight of the overlying srata. It all hangs together. Well I think I've been pretty coherent about it myself. The receding Flood waters in combination with the tectonic shaking carved the canyon as deep water washed away all the upper strata down to the Kaibab Plateau. After most of it was gone streams contined to run across the plateau, making meanders as water does on a flat surface. They cut deeper and deeper to make the deep meanders we see today. And all this occurred at the eastern end of the canyon, after which the river straightens out for the rest of its trip. Not sure what effect you'd expect from the tilting, but since it occurred simultaineous with the raising of the whole column at that point, which is what shaped the rounded rise into which the canyon was cut I'd say that the tilting, as part of the raising of the land, did in fact affect the upper strata. And again, the Great Unconformity is right where the land is pushed up, and the strata are not going to lie flat on top of such a raised area. Clearly they were laid down flat and then the force occurred that tilted the GU and raised the land simultaneously. That same raising contributed to the forming of the canyon by causing the uppermost strata to crack and break up over the raised area. Perhaps I can improve it if you identify what's wrong with it. I thought my presentation was pretty orderly but perhaps it needs some improvement. Well all I have is the logic of it and the impression that in the GC it had to occur after the strata were in place as that's when all the shaking and disturbance occurred, judging by lots of evidence I've given. I'm not sure what other evidence there could possibly be for such a thing if it's true. Strange idea to me. Again all I can say is that I got it all from simply studying the cross section, nothing desperate about it. If I have to get desperate about an argument I simply don't make that argument, I go on to something I understand better. This cross section has been a delightful opportunity. The more I studied it the more I found evidence for the Flood. the fact that the land is raised over the GU and all the strata above it follow that contour, the fact that the canyon itself is cut into that contour, the fact that the Cardenas lava flows out at the far eastern end of the canyon at the uppermost level still standing there, which suggests it happened at the same time as the lava flow at the top of the Grand Staircase, ... I'm sure there's more but I'm getting tired and have to stop. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : fix quote codes

The deeply incised meanders we usually see are at the eastern end of the canyon where the river is starting. It isn't the receding Flood waters that produced the meanders, the point is that it would have been after the Flood waters had receded enough to leave the flat plateau where streams would continue to run for a while, and meanders form on flat plateaus.

The deeply incised meanders we usually see are at the eastern end of the canyon where the river is starting. It isn't the receding Flood waters that produced the meanders, the point is that it would have been after the Flood waters had receded enough to leave the flat plateau where streams would continue to run for a while, and meanders form on flat plateaus. I really don't know what the problem is. The river cut the meanders but the meanders are nowhere near the size of the wide parts of the Grand Canyon which it couldn't have cut. Seems to me the river formed after the receding Flood had carved out the wide parts of the canyon farther down river.