Summations Only

The movement is slightly upward and horizontal between the Tapeats and the basement rocks which broke the boulder from the Shinumo. Do you have an explanation for how the boulder broke off? I do.Also, the way the Supergroup is tilted and pushed up into the Tapeats, and the way the Tapeats is mounded over it, and in fact the entire stack of strata above it, shows a strong force from side and below up into the Tapeats where the Supergroup was abraded. The evidence that this occurred after all the strata were in place from Tapeats to Kaibab is the mounding since the strata would not have been laid down over such a mound. It's all bent together as a unit, no difference between the shape of one layer and another. (In fact this is a pattern seen in many presentations of the column, deformation of many strata as a unit, which is evidence that they were not separately deposited over millions of years) Same movement broke off the Shinumo boulder but abraded softer rock all along the Great Unconformity. That's my hypothesis and I'm sticking to it. No, they all moved as a unit, but the Dox and the Hakatai were broken off at contact with the Tapeats while the Shinumo, being much harder, penetrated upward into the Tapeats and above, except for the boulder of course, which did get broken off and took a ride in the Tapeats relative to the basement rocks. (I figure it was the basement rocks that were actually moving, since the tectonic force came from below.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.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No it's a problem for Geology because of the huge time frames everything happens in. Getting a rock hard and dry takes a lot of time. If you pile more mud on it before it's dry, or any other wet sediment, you get them mixed or at least stuck together, but the stratigraphic column shows nicely demarcated separated layers.The Flood would have sorted the sediments as water does, separating them neatly as we see in many examples of how rivers do it.

quote:

---

No it's a problem for Geology because of the huge time frames everything happens in. Getting a rock hard and dry takes a lot of time. If you pile more mud on it before it's dry, or any other wet sediment, you get them mixed or at least stuck together, but the stratigraphic column shows nicely demarcated separated layers.

---

So you think it is a problem for geology because geology allows the time needed for the sediment to dry out ? That doesn’t make much sense.Or are you suggesting that the sediment would dry out incredibly quickly in the bone-dry conditions of the Flood ? That seems even worse.

Adding mud on top won't mix with rock formation 40 metres beneath where the mud is being added. The mud on top of the forming mudstone will perhaps mix a little with the top, and will certainly stick to the top of forming mudstone - but I don't see why that is a problem.As you know - applying pressure to something flattens it. So that's why its flat. You get a demarcation when a different type of sediment or cementing agent enters the scene. That new sediment may mix a little with any remaining sediment of the old time that hasn't been eroded away, but not much. It's not like if you pour sand on a field the sand mixes up with several metres of earth is it? So why do you think wetness is a problem then? Rivers are wet, as are global floods. If adding new sediment to prior wet sediment doesn't cause mixing today, if it didn't cause mixing during the flood - why on earth do you think it would happen if water comes and goes over a long period of time?

Not only do I have an explanation, I've seen it happen.The boulder is derived from a Shinumo highland and basically rolled, slipped and washed out on the Tapeats beach (yes, still wet) and was eventually buried. But there is no abrasion.And the geometry of the supergroup sediments does not imply a 'strong force from the side'. That would create folds and fractures in the supergroup's rocks which do not exist. I thought you said that the Paleozoic sediments were 'straight and flat'. Now you are saying that they are all 'mounded'.You will need to make up your mind on this. So, they are not just 'mounded' but they are 'bent' also. Again, there is no evidence for abrasion. Of course you are. It is your precious little doubt that allows you to cling to an ancient myth. That is a bond that cannot be broken.But it may cause some abrasion.

I get it: so it's not a problem. Right: not a problem. Ah, I see: not a problem. So, you are saying that it's not a problem. Okay, not a problem. Flood tend to mix things up.Thank you for verifying that there is no problem with mainstream geology and the evidence.

Well, there are times when soft sediments get mixed such as in debris flows, or in the situation where we have clastic dikes.The problem Faith faces is that we are pretty good at identifying such occurrences.

Actually, there are a lot of places in North America where the Tapeats or its equivalents are not deposited. The Monadnocks are just an example, but if you look carefully, the sands are all derived from local land masses.And flat? I'd like some kind of verification for that. What do you mean by 'built up'?And how do you know this? What doesn't happen, and why? You are making simple assertions now. So you say.

Of course not but I had the impresswion you were talking about adding the mud directly to the top of the rock that isn't yet dry.However SOMETHING is added on top of that rock and if it's not yet dry that something will stick to it and destroy its flat surface. Because the rocks in the stratigraphic column are (relatively) flat and clean. Not as flat as the rocks in the column. But that destroys the demarcation. You aren't appreciating just how tight and clean many of the contacts between the strata in the column are. Soon as I post this I'm going to go look for a good example of what I mean. Grass in the field would interfere. But if you pour sand on wet mud it's going to mix into the surface and it will no longer be a flat mudstone surface. When water deposits the layers there is no mixing. You are describing a rock being created by compression due to burial, not laid down by water. Obviously I need examples of this too.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You keep adding sediment until there is lots of it. Let's say 40 metres of it. Then the pressure at the bottom of the sediment is enough to squeeze the water out. Then a cementing agent comes through (say underground flowing water, and deposits small mineral particles like a filter which fills in any gaps. Then you have rock. There is heavily compacted mud on top of the rock. It is squeezed of a lot of water by the pressure of the metres of sediment above it, but it is ether not enough for the cementing to work - or the cementing water flow doesn't go that high. Right, and the formation I described creates a flat piece of rock with mud on top of it. That mud will either get eroded away or will have more sediment added to the top, turning that into stone over time too. If that sediment/cementing element is different than the first you get a different rock type. Both of which are flat. Why not? No it doesn't. But only a few centimetres, and that doesn't pose much a problem as far as I can tell. This will either form its own layer as it gets compressed by more sediment or get eroded away until the next depositional phase. I am describing it being deposited by water. It deposits on top of existing mud. Eventually you have metres and metres of mud. The mud at the bottom is getting compressed and the water is squeezed out. I am describing deposition by water, followed by compression by burial.

Sorry, but I see it exactly opposite.Rapid loading of unconsolidated sediments should produce all kinds of soft sediment deformation and disrupted bedding planes.Two reasons: one is that all of the sediments would still be weak, and two, you would have to be incredibly precise to load the underlying layers evenly. And then, in order to keep all of your sediments suspended in water, the currents would have to be fantastic so that erosion and scouring of unconsolidated sediments would have to occur.We don't see these things in the GC strata as you freely admit.

It's just astonishing how you can create problems out of nothing just because you like to pretend creationists are stupid.The strata are straight and flat originally and that can be seen in most of the GC cross section. They mound up over the Supergroup.;

Amazingly enough, some muds can be stronger than sand deposits. Some clays are thixotropic and create bonds with nearby particles giving them some structure and, hence, strength. If you load the clays slowly with sand you can make a sand bed that essentially floats on clay. If the clay is disrupted, the structure can break down and you've got soup. However, I've driven trucks on such beds and, if the sand is thick enough, you don't sink into the mud. You literally create a sand wave.

Sure, they create sedimentary drape folds along the sides of the pre-existing high points due to compaction.But there is no abrasion. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

I don't think there was sufficient response to this message. Edge only responded incredulously that you believed this is what people have been saying. Taq only addressed a small part of your message in his Message 792, and you didn't reply. I'll attempt to reply to all of your message. Edge or someone will hopefully correct me where I'm wrong. Dinosaurs lived in many different types of environments, but your scenario seems focused on a region dense with vegetation, a jungle of sorts, and where soil is an important component. Soil is complex and has many contributors in addition to decayed vegetation. Certainly it includes decayed organic matter, but a very important contributor is the sedimentary particles resulting from weathering and erosion that enter the region through a variety of transport mechanisms. Calling it compost isn't accurate, since compost consists only of decayed organic matter. It's soil. The level of the land will rise only if it is a region of net sedimentation, not because of "accumulating compost." It's important to understand that the level of the land rises not because of the accumulating remains of dead life (though it does make a contribution), but because of net sedimentation.Regions with dinosaur fossils were definitely regions of net sedimentation, which means they were lowlands, which is why our knowledge of dinosaurs only extends to those that inhabited lowland regions. Dinosaurs living in upland regions did not become part of the fossil record because upland regions are areas of net erosion, not sedimentation, and so nothing is buried. Again, not compost. And a region of net sedimentation becomes less and less an area of net sedimentation with increasing elevation. If the weight of the sediments is sufficient the region may gradually sink as sedimentation occurs, and perhaps ground level will remain at roughly the same elevation above sea level. That's only one of the possibilities. Another possibility is that an increasing elevation might bring sedimentation to a halt. Another possibility is that geologic forces and processes could cause the region to gradually sink a large amount and gradually accumulate sediments to a great depth, enough to cause sufficient pressure to turn the sedimentary layers to rock. Again, the elevation of the landscape cannot grow too high without causing the region to become one of net erosion, which would mean no more sedimentation and no more occasional burial events. Yes, the accumulation of sediments and subsidence of the region that causes former landscapes to become more and more deeply buried will cause great pressure, and possibly heat, too, which in turn causes the lithification of the sediments into rock and the fossilization of any preserved life. If you include my modifications, yes, that's what we're all picturing. I'm not sure why the question about sandstone and limestone, because sandstone is a marine or desert layer while limestone is a marine layer, and you seemed to be picturing a rich jungle. Are you wondering how sandstone and limestone layers could come to overlie a layer containing dinosaur fossils? If so, then the answer is that subsidence could cause the region to eventually sink beneath the waves, and once submerged any additional sediments would be marine. The particular type of sediments would depend upon the distance from shore, with sandstone being coastal, limestone being shallow seas some considerable distance from shore. Lowland regions of net sedimentation are flat. Even if the region was originally "lumpy", erosion and weathering will wear the higher portions down, and sediments will accumulate in the lowest spots first and fill them in. Any remaining "lumpiness" will be recorded in the sedimentary record, and many images of things like monadnocks and riverbeds have been provided over the years. If buried to a sufficient depth for the sediments to lithify and the organic remains to fossilize, sure. If you incorporate my additions and modifications to what you said, you will get the stratigraphic column from these types of geologic processes.--Percy