I already answered this a million times. Tectonic force from side and below pushes Supergroup strata into a tilt up against the Tapeats which is the point where the forces most closely balance out, the force from above being the weight of sedimentary strata three miles deep.
But the GC Supergroup and the Vishnu (etc,) are not deformed to the same degree nor in the same direction. What's with that?
Don't have a picture of this. What's the problem?
The tectonic force pushed the lower rocks some distance beneath the Tapeats, also pushing the strata above upward, causing the mounded shape all the way to the top, (which cracked the uppermost strata above the canyon area and caused the formation of the canyon by receding Flood waters rushing into the craqcks, taking a lot of the broken-up upper strata with it.)
Why is the upper package of rocks not affected? What forces are you balancing?
The last two posts may answer that. Side force causing buckling of strata up against weight above facilitated by differences in texture between upper and lower sections...
SIMULTANEOUSLY the magma was released from below into the lower rocks, forming the granite and the schist in an intense pressure chamber, which was probably mitigated by the Flood water somehow(?), all while the horizontal movement was going on, which kept the effects confined beneath the GU.
But that is my question. You said that all magmatism is related to a single event. Why is there no connection between the Zoroaster Granite and the basaltic dikes that penetrate above the GC?
Don't know what you mean by "no connection." Some magma did penetrate above the GC, but some was confined beneath too. This probably needs more information than can be found on the cross section.
Already described that a million times, so if you want something else you're going to have to be clearer about what you want.
Well, for one, you could show us your evidence for abrasion at the contact. You have repeatedly avoided this question.
I need to collect the information but I'd point to the video I posted yesterday where the quartzite boulder is shown above the GU which is seriously eroded.
Are you really honestly misunderstanding or are you doing it intentionally? I really can't see how you could misunderstand all the stuff you've been misunderstanding. Or this.
It was the BOULDER that didn't move, sheesh. It was a boulder, so obviously it had been separated from its source for pete's sake. Here's the picture: The sliding of the lower rocks up against the Tapeats severed a piece of the Shinumo (there's also another story to be told about the quartzite monadnock but I'll leave that for now) -- the boulder was severed from its source and embedded in the Tapeats sand, and then the Shinumo was moved a quarter mile away.
But you have not given us evidence of how the boulder was separated. What structural evidence do you have? Was it sheared off, or did it roll into place during erosion at the unconformity? If the former, there should be evidence to that effect, some kind of a shear plane or fragment trail, or something.
I expect the violence of movement between the two levels to suggest enough force to break off a piece of the Shinumo.
Perhaps the upper strata moved some also but... It would have been the tectonic lateral force causing all the movement and that would mean the lower moved but not the upper, whch was, however, raised by the upward force caused by the tilting of the lower strata.
But you have exactly zero evidence that this happened.
I'm giving you my theory, which is supported by a ton of simple reasoning about how physical things work.
On the other hand, we have seen evidence that boulders can roll out onto a beach and we know that the Shinumo Island was shedding talus blocks into the Tapeats sea from other locations. What is your evidence that it was tectonically separated?
How about the sheer absurdity of your theory about a "Tapeats sea" with a "Shinumo island" for starters? The nonsense of the time periods which couldn't possibly have existed bounded by flat rocks as they are. Start there. I see it, why don't you? Paradigm blindness. Just a kjowledge of the flat flat Tapeats and the stratified Shinumo ought to be enough to dispel any idea of seas and islands...
abe: the Tapeats sandstone is a remarkable bit of engineering if you see it in places where there is nothing above or below it. It forms a nice flat ledge maybe six or eight inches thick that juts into space and people lean on it and sit on it. /abe
What I'm not getting here is how the boulder could be sheared off of the Shinumo without any evidence and yet the Shinumo 'monadnock' still exists. Shouldn't that tectonic offset also affect the top of the Shinumo outcropping in the canyon?
Part broke off for some reason -- softer for some reason? -- the other part was harder and cut through the layers vertically as the movement occurred. I think the tectonic pressure was still pushing up the strata but the quartzite was hard enough to avoid being sheared off by the movement, except for that one boulder, so a long section of it cut through the strata above. Exactly where these are located would provide more clues. Perhaps the distances traveled make a difference. Perhaps there is evidence buried deeper in the sandstone.
But if the Supergroup were being faulted (after the entire section was deposited) Where did the rocks go? They were tilted upward to the right in the diagram, so where did the extensions of those strata go? Those faults had to go to the surface at whatever time they occurred, didn't they?
It went somewhere "off screen" though I think there is enough rubble scattered around the canyon to account for it, and I still like my idea that the Vishnu schist incorporates a lot of it although you have claimed it didn't.
Thank you for your thoughtful assessment. My scenario does hold together very nicely nevertheless. I can only hope that some day you see the absolute total absurdity of the Geo Time Scale which makes your science a joke.
The simple obvious appearance of the strata is of one layer deposited over another continuously, not of "systems" or any such conceit. Time periods are impossible: these are ROCKS that cover great areas of geography containing dead things. The idea that those dead things ever lived on the surface now covered by that rock, let alone on the rock itself, takes a wild imagination that misses the reality of the situation. The separate sediments speak of continuous water deposition. We don't need to know HOW the creatures were sorted, all we need to know is that the imputing of long ages to a slab of rock assumes a ridiculous impossibility. The "extinctions" are nothing but layers that didn't carry a particular creature. For the sciences of the past the scientists are sure a bunch of gullible dreamers.
There's nothing strange about my leaving this thread. I've said it all many times over, there's no more to say.
SO silly. The evidence for the Flood is nothing short of in-your-face. The strata, the fossils. Good grief, how obvious can you get? And the Old Earth scenario is simply wacko and impossible. The evidence there is little more than reading tea leaves -- scattered contents of the strata imagined into whole fantastic scenarios.
The layers themselves and their fossil contents, no matter how sorted, speak of a worldwide water event. That and the obvious impossibility of a slab of rock that covers thousands of square miles ever representing a period of long ages in which anything lived, that's enough evidence to make all the details irrelevant.
Second thought: Rather than such impressive regularity of the appearance of particular fossils in particular layers being any kind of support for the ToE, it suggests something mechanical about their deposition. Why should evolution produce particular generations of any creature in such an orderly fashion? That doesn't happen in real time, why should it have happened over the time span of the Geological Time Scale?
However, as I've many times pointed out, the sorting does not imply anything about what preceded or followed genetically in a particular biological line. They are sorted according to type, or morphology, but it's nothing but assumption that those in higher layers more recently evolved from those in lower layers. It could easily be the reverse, and in the Flood scenario they would all have been contemporaneous, subspecies, cousins etc.
Also, another thing I've pointed out many times, in real time, the time we live in, species (subspecies) are created over mere hundreds of years. Imputing millions to such ordinary phenomena isn't just overkill, it's another impossibility. You not only don't need millions of years to make small changes such as are seen in the Geological record from layer to layer, the fact that you lose "information" / genetic diversity in the process of producing such changes means nothing could have evolved beyond the Kind anyway.
Oh, and show me those "depositional environments" on which things are living today that are composed of just one particular sediment without mixture, as so many of the strata are, and flat as a pancake too, just as the strata are. And you could also point out the singularity of the living things living there as well, since what we get in the strata are a select bunch of organisms, a bunch of trilobites, a bunch of dinosaurs and whatnot, rather the range of living things we see today. Of course the whole range of living things existed before the Flood too, and died in that Flood and their corpses got sorted and buried in particular layers.
The finer you draw your time scale lines the more all you are talking about is microevolution within a Kind, which makes all claims to any particular fossil order pure fantasy. You can claim order on the level of reptile to mammal, but not on the level of species of trilobites.
As for volcanism, my understanding is that most of it would have occurred after the Flood, at the time of the tectonic splitting of the continents.
Hi Faith How did the Flood manage to mimic a massive extinction of 96% of marine and 70% terrestrial vertebrates at the end of the Permian, with Lystrosaurus being the main vertebrate survivor?
Hi Pollux. This is a nonsensical question from the point of view of a Floodist because there was no extinction, that's all a weird artifact of the Old Earth theory. All the Flood did was lay down sediments full of carcasses. Some of those layers of sediment contained lots of carcasses, some contained few to none. There was a near-extinction was of all life, however, from Precambrian through Holocene, shown in the abundance of fossils, not in any supposed lack of them.
This was followed by a mimicking of a slow increase in biodiversity while isotopes were sorted to make the recovery seem to take millions of years. How did the Flood do it?
The Flood just buried stuff according to some kind of mechanical principles, original location and whatnot. The dating isotopes are some kind of illusion as is the fossil order.
But the 'microevolution' of trilobites still expresses the passage of time, does it not?
Are you saying that this microevolution was just another rapid event that occurred within a year? If so, you must be a super-evolutionist, yes?
Nothing evolved or microevolved during the year of the Flood. All that happened during the Flood was that living things died and were buried in layers of sediment. Whatever groups of trilobites existed got carried in sediments and buried.
The only life on the planet at the end of the Flood was whatever had survived on the ark plus some sea life.