Summations Only

herebedragons writes: So this area in brown, which represents most of the continental U.S. has not had major tectonic activity since the basement rock was laid down.

But Arizona, the Grand Canyon, and the Grand Staircase, are in the purple area.

--Percy

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

And

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."

(Often attributed to Mark Twain)

And New Madrid is in the brown area. But Faith still needs to establish a basis for how much tectonic activity should be expected in the GC based on mainstream thinking.

But Arizona, the Grand Canyon, and the Grand Staircase, are in the purple area.

Yea. I suppose I should clarify that a little better.

The purple area represents portions of the stable continental core that has been deformed WITHIN the last 600 my. It is thought that the major deformation of the Grand Canyon area was during the Laramide orogeny which began about 80 mya. But between 600 mya and 80 mya, the area was part of the stable continental core.

If 100 mya was the cutoff for coloring the purple area, the Grand Canyon would be included within the brown area.

Faith's argument is that there should not have been hundreds of millions of years WITHOUT a major tectonic event. The brown area shows this is not correct; there are large areas of continental crust that have not undergone tectonic disturbance for long, long periods of time.

As kind of a side note, I ran across this interesting animation of the Laramide orogeny showing all active faults during that time and heave rates.

Also note that according to the animation, faulting activity in the GC ceased about 30 mya.

I hope that clarifies my point somewhat.

HBD

Faith's argument is that there should not have been hundreds of millions of years WITHOUT a major tectonic event.

Please keep in mind that this is what I thought conventional GEOLOGISTS believe. The usual presentation is of a very active planet, which would seem to imply a lot of ongoing movement. Way back there Rox even agreed that this is what she would expect. But then all she came up with was activity in the Supergroup area, which supposedly occurred BEFORE that long long period of apparently NO activity. So perhaps now they are all happy with the idea that nothing at all happened for hundreds of millions of years?

Also note that according to the animation, faulting activity in the GC ceased about 30 mya.

Does "faulting activity" refer only to the formation of faults? Not to the slippage of existing fault lines? See I would include earthquakes caused by fault movement in the sort of tectonic activity one should expect over hundreds of millions of years.

ABE: Actually the following suggests "faulting activity" in the GS a lot more recently than 30 mya: /ABE

National Parks Service on Cedar Breaks:

Between Cedar Breaks and the valley below, the Hurricane Fault divides the two provinces. Although movement has occurred along the Hurricane Fault for as long as 30 million years, the most dramatic episode of movement began 10 million years ago. This period of faulting caused a massive block of the earth’s crust to drop to the west, forming the level valley far below. It also raised the Markagunt Plateau to its present altitude and exposed the edge of the Claron Formation to the elements. The tension that resulted from this movement caused the rock to crack; these cracks are known as joints.

As I keep pointing out on that cross section, there was this long long period in which the GC strata stayed quite neat and parallel for those hundreds of milliions of years (reckoning with OE time estimates, of course) AFTER which a lot of tectonic activity obviously occurred: the uplift in the GC area, the cutting of the GC and Zion Canyon as well, and all the cliffs of the GS and the Hurricane fault and the dropping of the strata to the north of it, and the magma dike which spilled over at the very very top of the GS, which I thought was supposed to have been formed in recent time, Holocene? which would make it a lot younger than 30 mya, but perhaps all that has been adjusted to fit with other information?

And if you're all content with hundreds of millions of years of no activity at all FOLLOWED by a LOT of activity as described above, I'll leave you with that.

Now, would you mind reviewing the claims about erosion between the layers? Thank you.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

A layer represents millions of years according to OE thinking. Not exactly. A layer represents a period of time in which a specific depositional environment existed. A geological layer could very well represent a very short period of time or a very long period of time.

The time periods are dated from the ROCKS, right? Who cares about the exact time frame DURING that period in which they MIGHT have been deposited? The point is that the WHOLE period is dated from the ROCKS.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

We should expect that all mountain ranges (being all formed during or immediately after the Flood) should show similar, near equal amounts of erosion. They don't.

---

http://www.creationism.ws/what_if_flood.htm

quote:

---

The Loess Plateau in China has a layer of loess more than 300 m thick. Loess is wind-blown sediment that would not occur during a global flood. The Loess Plateau occurs around the downwind edges of the Ordos Desert, its source of sediments, and the grain size of the loess decreases the further one gets from the desert (Vandenberghe et al. 1997).

---

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH550.html

What should be expected from someone who starts off the thread with evidence against the global flood and sees in it an argument for a global flood? Message 6

the fact of the different sediments and that they are so neatly separated and demarcated by sharp dividing lines between them.

See the first item on the list.

Edited by shalamabobbi, : No reason given.

For those Christians who are concerned that the intellectual flood of insights provided in this thread might be lost due to error and/or malfeasance on the part of the moderators at EvC rest assured that the 39 pages of posts by Faith in this thread will soon be compiled into a book and added to the bible. It will be organized under a section that will bear the name "The Newest Testament" and besides her enlightened teachings that canyons can be carved underground will include other topics of interest such as Faith's theory of the degeneration of DNA over time since creation week. (God was apparently incapable of sufficiently robust biological engineering to cover for the possibility of the fall of mankind).

For those who are interested, a poll will soon be provided, so you can express your enthusiasm to have Faith added to the godhead creating a quadrinity from the older outdated trinity which fails to answer so many scientific puzzles and enigmas of our modern era. Remember the guru's example and follow her wise lead. When presented with an uncomfortable fact or piece of evidence simply stretch forth your arms making a cross with the index fingers and with voluminous discharge from the lungs pronounce it to be OFF TOPIC, in the holy name of Jesus, amen.

We should expect that all mountain ranges (being all formed during or immediately after the Flood) should show similar, near equal amounts of erosion. They don't.

Typical anti-creationist crap. There are different kinds of mountains with different kinds of exposed surfaces in different kinds of climates, there is no reason to expect erosion to be identical from one to another. Mountains formed of upthrust tilted strata would erode differently from mountains formed from folded strata for instance, and certainly from mountains formed from igneous rock.

Of course you have nothing to say about how you think it is against the Flood.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That is probably THE most evil vicious lying blasphemous post ever put up here.

quote:

---

Typical anti-creationist crap. There are different kinds of mountains with different kinds of exposed surfaces in different kinds of climates, there is no reason to expect erosion to be identical from one to another.

---

Okay, so if erosion is so dependent upon climate, why do the Andes look so similar over thousands of miles of extent through different climatic zones?

I would think that parts of it should look like the Appalachians, and other parts like the Canadian Shield. According to you, that is...

quote:

---

Mountains formed of upthrust tilted strata would erode differently from mountains formed from folded strata for instance, ...

---

What do you think 'upthrust strata' are but folded sequences?

quote:

---

... and certainly from mountains formed from igneous rock.

---

You mean like the igneous rock under the Andes which are similar to the more eroded Sierra Nevada?

quote:

---

Of course you have nothing to say about how you think it is against the Flood.

---

How what is against the global flood? Please be specific.