Summations Only

Can't imagine what you think would be suggested at this level two miles below the initial cracking of the uppermost strata. The cracks deepened and widened as the water receded and they became a channel for it. By the time you get down to the level of the Kaibab they are pretty deep channels. The uplift would have stretched them and put a lot of strain on them. If the canyon was the result there would be no more fractures/cracks to demonstrate. I figure they couldn't have been very consolidated at the very top, yes. You are confusing different stages of the flood as I've tried to describe it. The thin sheet of water running across the plateau that I picture being the cause of the meander doesn't occur until after the water and the strata two miles above that level have washed away, and that washing away would have had stages too, depending on how steep the exits were that opened up as the water level decreased. Some damming probably occurred in places and then broke and so on. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

A bit like Edge's image then? Flat layers with flttened creases and crumples?

I can't picture what you are talking about here. I'm sure it drained a lot of water off the surrounding areas, but not all of it. Water would have run off in many other directions than the canyon itself. The water off the Grand Staircase took a lot of material off the cliffs and probably didn't get anywhere near the Grand Canyon. Can't decipher this at all I'm afraid. Are you talking about a plain two miles over the Grand Canyon area?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

They do look crumpled but not flattened, so no.

So no straight falt lines in there then? No flat contacts? No flattened ridges and no infills? Are we looking at the same photo?What do you think a photo of that section of rock would look like from the distance? Maybe like horizontal flat lines?

Mountains, dead animals/plants, volcanoes.... Bits of rock, animals/plants and rock. On top. So the volcanic ash goes on top of the ground which is the current top layer. Same with the bits of dead organisms. How flat is the strata in that hill? How much weight is squashing down on it? Ah. Hey, I'm just trying to understand things. I'm not pontificating so much as trying to figure out how these straight lines form in your opinion and how that differs from geologists. I dunno, the geologists seem to have quite a bit.

And you've been wrong all those many times you've explained it. The Grand Canyon area and the Smith cross section of England but lots of other cross sections where what strata are present are present in blocks and eroded as blocks and deformed as blocks. Oh yes it does. Everywhere the erosion or deformation is shown to have occurred to a block or unit of neatly demarcated strata is evidence of rapid deposition of the strata, lack of erosion or deformation until all were laid down, is evidence, though the areas where the whole range of the time scale is present are the best evidence. The Claron is Holocene or Eocene, recent anyway, and that's probably the best we get anywhere because strata above that would have been too unconsolidated to withstand the receding flood water. Unconformities and gaps are irrelevant to the point I'm making. Rocks below the GU in both the Smith cross section and the GC/GS cross section are included on the cross sections but also not particularly relevant to the point. It all got stacked up and then was eroded and deformed AS A STACK, everywhere it occurred. It's all over and done with. All I care about is the time scale attached to the rocks really, and it is partial in most places, Usually pronouns refer back to the nearest or at least grammatically nearest antecedent but I'll try to be aware of the problem. yes I think I was referring to the strata in the various stratigraphic columns. What I'm saying is that the strata in all the columns everywhere, even the most incomplete ones as far as the time scale goes, are always found in blocks of originally horizontal strata, eroded as blocks, deformed as blocks, except for the angular unconformities which put two blocks at different angles to each other.I can use "sharp" if it's really the official term but I've followed other advice about my terminology only to find out I was using it correctly enough already. Of course it's evidence, don't be silly. That the strata were all laid down one on top of another without being eroded or deformed until they were all laid down. That suggests there were no time gaps between layers. abe: I mean VISIBLE time gaps, spaces where erosion should have occurred and didnt'; I'm not talking about the supposed missing layers or unconformities. /abe That the strata were all laid down rapidly without time gaps as stated above. abe: and again: I mean VISIBLE time gaps, spaces where erosion should have occurred and didnt'; I'm not talking about the supposed missing layers or unconformities. /abe. That the strata were all laid down rapidly without gaps (I'm not talking about what you call "unconformities, I'm talking about visible gaps where erosion would have occurred; please don't nitpick this, that would miss the point) and eroded or deformed all together after they were all laid down. OK then let me here say I always have the Geollogical Time Scale in mind and that's what can be partial, not including all the different periods. But as long as we've got a stack that climbs from Cambrian to Holocene or Eocene or close enough, whether or not there are some missing periods, that's what I mean by complete because it spans the entire Geological Time Scale. And that is over and done with, the sedimentary tocks that represent it are over and done with. And the evidence is that the whole stack was eroded or deformed after it was all laid down and not during the laying down. There are areas that are wrongly interpreted that way, that are just partial stacks where the upper strata washed away so that the erosion or deformation did not occur in the time period associated with the highest remaining strata but simply after all the upper strata were gone. Nothing to do with the exposed "time period" rocks in other words. Yes that is what I just explained again above. I disagree, I think it all happened as a result of that tectonic jolt. Not that there haven't been plenty of jolts since, but the big one did the major work. As I explain above,. Consider it my hypothesis at least. I disagree with that history. I believe there was only the one supercontinent that broke up into the continents we see today, there was one great tectonic splitting of the continents and that was that. And one piece of evidence I have for that is that the standard interpretation has Pangaea breaking up somewhere around the Jurassic period IIRC, but William Smith's cross section of England shows all the time periods from Precambrian through Recent as having been laid down and then tilted together as a block which would certainly not have happened so completely and neatly if the continents split in the Juirassic period. I conclude that the split occurred after all the strata/time periods were laid down. And it was that tectonic action that caused all the major erosion and deformation, including the tilting of the rock layers in Smith's cross section, and most of the volcanism as well. Not that there hasn't been plenty of all three since then of course. But not before. And again I remind you it's the Time Scale that I have primarily in mind, that happens to be attached to all the difrerent sedimentary columns around the world, making the sediments themselves unimportant. As I say above, Smith's cross section proves the Jurassic breakup of the continents is wrong because the strata would not have been laid down to the present in England in that case.I can't read your chart, sorry. My eyes are much worse and it is a severe strain to be writing this at all. Sorry, you are SO very wrong about that. You've obviously misread something and I have no way of finding out what. Well, I disagree, as I've explained above. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I never said ALL the strata were flat, just most and that those in that picture I kept posting are extremely flat and straight; let's not stray too far from that example.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I can't. I'm going to need some measurements to confirm. Sorry, I thought you were arguing that points were being made as if they were fact without explaining how the conclusion was reached. Well we're talking wet sediments being squashed by tonnes of other wet sediments. I'm pretty sure I can make wet clay pretty flat with just the pressure from my hands. Not necessarily, but certainly sometimes. And the weight distribution would be even.

I'm responding to your claim about lakebeds. Whether those lakebeds would go on to form limestone rock or whatever seems immaterial to the point. How have you concluded this? Wow. OK. The Grand Canyon wasn't caused by the flood. We agree!

I think the word formation is fine, or landform. It's still a relatively low feature of a badlands region probably somewhere in the neighborhood of a hundred feet high. Here's some people walking around on one of these things. They're not that big: Or maybe this image will give you a better idea of how small these things are compared to mountains: If you have good evidence and reasons that it is absurd then by all means call it absurd, then provide your evidence and reasoning. Just keep in mind that if you have no evidence and reasons then calling it absurd won't go over well. And given all the evidence and reasoning from the other side, most of which you ignore or deny without explanation, you then open yourself up to ridicule and derision.I've read ahead in the thread and you seem to say several times that you're making an effort not to be insulting, but you ignore most of what people say, and most people find being ignored more than a little insulting. You've replied to less than 50% of the posts to you, and when you do respond you usually ignore most of what was said. You instead repeat yet again your own account of events while declaring that you have no obligation to provide any evidence or reasoning of your own.So if those strata can't be lakebeds, explain why they can't be lakebeds using evidence that is true because everyone can see it and understand it, instead of trying to browbeat people into submission with repeated declarations about things you know nothing about and that you have no evidence for. If no lakebed is flat, then why is the lakebed of this drained lake flat: Why are the Bonneville Salt Flats, which is the lakebed of a dried up lake, flat, so flat that world land speed record aspirants go there to test their 600 mph vehicles. The Black Rock Desert is another very flat lakebed used for setting land speed records.If sediments in lakes don't generally accumulate flat and horizontally according to Steno's Principle of Horizontality, then why do you claim sediments in your flood accumulate flat and horizontally? Isn't that contradictory? Here are a couple images of flat plains again. What do you want people to see that will make it apparent to them that these are not as flat as strata: (You're also ignoring that it was also explained, at length, why these fields and plains are unlikely to become strata, but that's a separate topic.)Here's a 49 second video on the abyssal plains confirming that they are among the flattest places on Earth: And what have you got to rebut the evidence before our eyes, and the reasoning that sediments tend to accumulate flat and horizontally, first filling in low areas to create flatness where it didn't previously exist, such as stream beds filling in. All you've got in rebuttal is, "No no no, the strata are way too straight and flat, no no no, those don't work and really it should be easy enough to see that, I keep being amazed that it isn't." That isn't evidence or reasoning. It is incredulity. If that's all you've got then you've got nothing. Stop ignoring what people say, which is very insulting I don't think arguing that geology professors put their students under a spell is going to fly. A much more likely explanation is that you're a religious fanatic who has been seduced into believing that facts should be subordinated to a book written by ancient nomads. You need evidence and reasoning if you're going to prevail. Again, no evidence or reasoning, just a bald declaration. You keep making the declaration that the geologic column is "over and done with," but you never provide any reasoning for how that could be true, and you've ignored the explanations for why definitionally it must be false. There's that use of pronouns again that you like so much. What does "they" refer to? You've presented no evidence, just expressed incredulity and made bald declarations. That's not evidence, so "they" certainly couldn't be evidence. More bald declarations, no evidence. All stratigraphic columns are incomplete representations of the geologic column, something that wouldn't be true had the Flood created the strata in a process of continuous deposition. No, they don't make up the entire geologic column. The Great Unconformity all by itself represents a missing 200 million years. Why are you offering obviously incomplete stratigraphic columns as if they were complete? Why do you even think there are stratigraphic columns somewhere in the world that fully represent the geologic column? More generally, why do you think so many things that are so obviously false. No, the William Smith cross section is not a complete stratigraphic column. There are no complete stratigraphic columns. The Smith cross section I presented only goes back to the Jurassic, and there are unconformities that represent missing time periods (you didn't respond to the message where I originally posted this image - if you'd read the information posted to you then you could avoid repeating the same simple errors over and over again, which would be most refreshing for everyone else since we wouldn't have to keep reposting and reposting the same rebuttals of your repeated and obviously false claims): Of course you haven't made a dent in geology's views. You haven't done anything but express incredulity and make bald declarations. You've presented no evidence, you've made no rational arguments for your viewpoint. But if you look at the Entrada Sandstone a bit closer up it doesn't look like a sharp contact at all. In fact it has a lot of gradations and crossbedding: "Tight contact" is not a term of geology. You mean sharp contact. You keep mentioning sharp contacts and seem to think they are evidence against geological views. Everyone agrees sharp contacts exist and that contacts between strata tend to be flat (though that hoodoo topped butte in the foreground has a bunch of wavy strata), but if they're evidence supporting your viewpoint then you're going to have to explain how that is. Just declaring that there's nothing as flat in the current world is not going to fly because there are so many examples showing you're obviously wrong.--Percy

Yes, flat and straight. You know, like we keep saying they generally are.

Please note the tributary stream that runs approximately from the "m" end of where it says "North Rim" in a SSW-is direction to approximately where the "P" is where it says "National Park" -- note that it is a straight line: this follows a fault line, the only one in the canyon I am aware of that does this. The straightness is due to following the fault line. Fault lines do not meander the way all the other parts of the canyon does. There is no part of the main canyon that is a straight as this north rim tributary, which is evidence contrary to Faith's crack model.There is another place that shows a fault line capturing a river flow. See at about minute 1:55 the black lines perpendicular to the rivers, and again at about minute 2:39, where he talks about the fractures -- Again, where rivers follow fault lines they are straight, and where they flow naturally over gently sloping land they form meanders.There is also another place that shows braided flow, and that is the scab lands flow at it's western end. See at about minute 1:19 -- So we have straight rivers following fault lines, meandering rivers flowing over gentle sloped landscapes, and braided rivers where high flows spread out over relatively flat landscapes.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

See Message 358Enjoy

More evidence that you don't read posts, and the ones you read you don't remember. Way back in Message 203 we had this exchange: And Edge reiterated this in the very next message: You even acknowledged this information in your Message 208, saying, "OK but that is not shown on the photo." RAZD then reiterates this in his Message 287: Yet here you are asking the same question all over again.--Percy