Off Topic Posts aka Rabbit Trail Thread - Mostly YEC Geology

They were eroded rather violently in the contact between the folded lower layers and the upper standstone caused by the tectonic and volcanic force from beneath. There is a band or belt of erosion between the lower tilted strata and the upper horizontal strata both at the base of the Grand Canyon and at Siccar Point that has chunks of the lower material mixed in with the sand from the upper.

\
No, the upper layers aren't tilted. Or, WHICH 'upper layers'? What? No idea what you're picturing about the tilting and shortening and sliding but you SEEM to be asking about the underside of the upper horiztonal layer under which the folded lower layers slide? Well, there IS an effect, it DOES get eroded, but in a "smoother" way than the lower folded strata. The erosion area contains chunks from the lower and sifted type sand from the upper. Sorry, not getting the picture here.

They DO erode. See description in previous post. Lyell says otherwise and his analysis makes sense. Go read his treatise. It's online somewhere and i think this is discussed and illustrated in Chapter 5.How does a layer a mile in length TILT? It has to break into smaller sections, and Lyell's analysis from many different formations shows how this happens through folding and buckling. The upright strata at Siccar point should demonstrate the point. I don't think you know what you are talking about.

You seem to have a lot more missing rock in mind than I have, perhaps because you think the tilted strata WERE tilted instead of folded. Since they were folded what was eroded was the upper folds, not some huge length of straight strata which is what you seem to be envisioning. But I also suggested that there could be an area of rubble at the end of the path of the slide that caused the erosion.

FEY, with respect to what I've been presenting here you definitely do not know what I'm talking about. You don't even seem to know that rocks fold. Anyway you have your own theory about the Grand Canyon and aren't dealing with mine at all. If you want to discuss yours, fine, but it has nothing to do with mine. Things are confusing enough, thanks anyway.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There WAS no "orogeny" in the Grand Canyon. Sorry. That's all a lot of speculative hooha that accounts for the unconformity in the conventional way which is what I'm answering.

What you are talking about is not what I'm talking about. I'm explaining the UNCONFORMITY, both the one in the Grand Canyon and the one at Siccar Point that started the whole Old Earth notion. This is normally explained as occurring in stages: strata, tilting, erosion, more strata. I'm sure it can be accounted for as I've been suggesting instead, as: strata to full depth, tectonic/volcanic disturbance from beneath, uplift, folding, sliding, erosion leaving tilted unconformity beneath upper stack.There is NO full length of tilted strata in the Grand Canyon.Lyell happened to have some very useful illustrations when I needed them, useful for my purposes although he had old earth explanations for them. I could picture what I have in mind but he had some illustrations that helped suggest a model I hadn't been able to come up with. Yours don't apply to what I'm discussing.But I do always appreciate seeing such illulstrations as you give here for southern Nevada. Always helps to see what the Flood did in so many particular situations.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 would love to draw a diagram but I am not able to do so on my Paint program as I used to do, something to do with the digital mouse not working for me as well as the old rollerball mouse. Very frustrating.Because of course I would love to be able to answer your mentally ossified nonsense with such illustrations.

I did discuss this view of unconformities in some posts at my blog a while back, including the discussion of what I'd found in Lyell:The Fantasy of Evolution: Angular unconformities.If that doesn't work here's the blog URL, go to "angular unconformities" in the right margin.The Fantasy of EvolutionEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

Thanks for calling me a liar. I love drawing diagrams and illustrations. I really wish I could. I just tried again. It's a real mess but I may keep working on it and post it on my blog eventually. In which case I'll give a link to it from here so you can see just how hard it is to draw with this digital mouse.ABE: Did another search for old drawings I did of the sort of erosion I would expect to find in the Grand Canyon strata if the old earth explanation were true. I know they were posted here years ago, maybe around 2005, but I haven't been able to find them. That was back in the days when I had the rollerball mouse. Too bad, they were a lot clearer than anything I'm able to do now with the digital mouse.I think I'll do some hand drawings and maybe eventually I can figure out how to scan and post those.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sorry, I'm not good with URLs and I don't understand what you mean about the full stop, but I guess I can try to remember to use the URL tags. But the other one works fine, just requires you to find the angular unconformities link at the site, is that too hard? I think it accounts for a lot more than you're willing to recognize because the area of erosion is fairly deep, but what I've also suggested is that if you were to extend the diagrams of the Grand Canyon area for a long distance to north and south you might find areas where the erosion layer was deeper or might even find large areas of just plain rubble, caused by the shearing off of the upper folds. This would be due to the movement between the upper and lower formations over some great distance.There is evidence in the Grand Canyon that there was quite a bit of movement between the Tapeats Sandstone and the Great Unconformity, as one huge boulder was displaced some great distance, at least miles if I recall correctly, from its original location. This is shown in the film I linked to on the UK Creationism thread and also at my blog in a recent post there.The Fantasy of EvolutionBut here is the film at You TubeThe whole film is about the geology of the Grand Canyon and near the end they show this band of erosion above the unconformity with this huge boulder embedded in it. They interpret this as the result of a debris flow in the early stages of the Flood, flowing over the base rocks which they accept as having already been formed according to conventional geology. Of course my effort is to explain how those rocks at the base could have formed in the Flood itself. And yes I know this is extremely presumptuous of me but I can't help that. I think it makes a lot of sense and I've been working on it off and on for years now.In that same film even further toward the end if I remember rightly, they discuss how the Coconino sandstone* seems to have sifted into crevices in the formation beneath it. I found that very useful for my explanation of the erosion belt between the Tapeats and the unconformity although I think they made use of the same principle there as well. But it also appears that the underside of the Tapeats sandstone would have been sheared off anyway along with the folded lower rock.They also show how the strata had to be damp and stretchable because they conform to the slope of the uplift, which is something I've also noted many times from diagrams of the area. This of course demonstrates that the strata were NOT laid down over millions of years but all at the same time, and were deformed by the slope of the uplift all at the same time, which is evidence for the Flood as is everything else they discuss in that film.======
*IThe UK speaker in the film, Paul Garner, according to their website, is taking time off to study the Coconino sandstone, over the next few years. If the world doesn't go up in flames or the Lord return before he gets his study finished I expect him to come up with some very interesting information and I look forward to it.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.

Yes, it's an assumption, you know, theory, which is really all anybody has for any of this, you guys too, and this one IS testable. But I have another possibility in mind that I keep forgetting to mention which is that much of that lower "supergroup" became Vishnu Schist, as the heat and pressure transformed it except where it remains clearly strata. The schist was formed from sedimentary rock; well there's the rock it was formed from. Otherwise we should see those same strata continuing to north and south of the canyon and perhaps they do if you go far enough.Also I do have to admit that the tilt of the unconformity doesn't look like it would have been formed by folded rock, as Siccar Point clearly was, as illustrated by Lyell which I show at that link to my blog on angular unconformities. I've been going by diagrams but when I see that the tilt is really a lot shallower in reality than the diagrams show then it appears that the "ends" of the strata had to have been broken off as well as sheared into the erosion layer, and now I'm thnking, yes, Vishnu Schist which does surround the strata at that depth. I was using Dr. A's diagram and was only answering the specific claim that the lower layers were first formed and then eroded and the upper laid over them which was his main point. Which volume of rock? He starts to discuss the erosion between the Tapeats and the unconformity at about 1:03:19, and the whole discussion goes to 1:08:00. From about 1:05:48 he is arguing that the erosion was caused by mechanical means rather than the chemical means of weathering and that's where the boulder comes in. He discusses the boulder more from about 1:07:10 where he says it was from the Shunimo sandstone {Sorry, SHINUMO QUARTZITE} layer and was moved about a quarter of a mile, not "miles" as I had misrememebered but still quite a distance.But here is the film at You Tube again.You don't have to take anything I say for anything, all I really hope for is that somebody might just get WHAT I'm trying to say here. So far nobody is getting any of it but you. You're the only one here who seems to have made the effort and you do seem to get the basic idea and thank you for that. This is a matter for some kind of experiment but I've consistently disagreed with you that it would have to have been completely lithified. In this case and Siccar Point the harder rock, just by nature not by greater lithification, for one thing the angle of impact would increase its abrasiveness, was the lower rock. And the upper layer was also eroded and was also uplifted which involves a degree of deformation. "Too flat" doesn't fit anything I remember saying. But the conformation to the slope refers to the strata outside the canyon, that follow the contour of the uplift into which the canyon was cut. Sorry that wasn't clear.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Just because the heat and pressure didn't happen to get to them as they did to the surrounding rock for some reason. But you do have to have sedimentary rock from which the Vishnu Schist was formed and I don't see any other candidates in the area. Again, its purpose was limited to answering Dr. A, period. I say more about unconformities in the lower posts, that one was just a quick answer to him. All I can do is say what I've already said. It was hard ENOUGH. The force that caused the lower rock to fold was dissipated sufficiently before it reached that level so that it was expended in slippage between the two different kinds of rock, which slippage was facilitated at Siccar Point by the fact that the greywacke was folded. The underside of the upper sandstone was scraped. Again it didn't deform because it was hard ENOUGH and because the slippage factor took up the remaining force that was already largely expended anyway. Still don't recognize this. Then watch the film after the point the other subject stopped. He gives a diagram and explains it from about 1:10:40. He's talking about something called the East Kaibab Monocline, but i've observed the same phenomenon on north-south diagrams that show the uplift from that perspective. The strata all conform to the shape of the uplift instead of butting into it, which is what they would do if the uplift had occurred before all the strata were laid down which is the conventional idea. The uplift had to have occurred when ALL the strata were still malleable at the same time.AFTERTHOUGHT: I think this last point is particularly good evidence for the Flood. The strata were clearly ALL malleable so clearly ALL laid down at the same time. However, I think all the evidence presented on that film is excellent even if I happen to like to argue about the basement rocks as also having been created in the Flood. Their points are ALL telling for the Flood and against the old earth explanations.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I see the problem. I'll have to think about the quartzite.

Here's a guess: the Supergroup underlies the canyon pretty directly, so the flood waters which carved out the canyon, most likely pouring in from all sides and most certainly being heavily debris-laden so that it could have cut through in short order, perhaps cooled off that area enough to keep it from transforming. Well, I didn't. It wasn't my concern at the time. But by now I've forgotten what the problem is you think I should have addressed anyway. Oh yes, where the eroded material went. Usual answer: somewhere "off screen" or the erosion layer really did contain it. It wouldn't have been the same depth everywhere anyway. So we disagree as usual. Neither of us can prove it. We need some experiments for that. I don't think it was particularly short and I do think the sliding would have used up the force. I have most certainly NOT assumed a frictionless slippage. I HAVE described the contact as "violent" here and there in these posts, Paul, and the abrasion quite "chunky" and the friction WOULD have slowed the slippage and been part of the force-absorbing influence. Of course but I don't see how that has anything to do with however you put it. It's not anything in reality that's "too flat," it's the conventional explanation that assumes an impossible flatness, because erosion is not going to create such a flat surface from a previously lumpy wavy surface, or even from an originally flat surface for that matter. That's not what erosion does and that's one way the usual explanations make no sense. I heard him say that but I'd heard before that it occurred before the strata were laid down so I went with that. But if it occurred afterward then you'd have the supposedly oldest layers already so hard they'd break when such an uplift was applied. In any case they are clearly ALL of the exact same malleability as they ALL conform to the slope, and therefore all the same age, in his example of the East Kaibab Monocline. Of course I like my view of this because it DOES account for everything, including the conformation of the strata to the slope of the uplift and the cracking of the upper strata that allowed the flood waters to cut the canyon and all the rest of it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.