Summations Only

Not sure. The same initial movement would certainly have exerted force at the west coast end of the continent too, where subduction began and pushed up the Rockies. Could have been going on in the same time frme. How odd. I thought the continents were separating from that ridge.

Here's a typical piece of Old Earth mystification. "During the Triassic" is utterly meaningless to me. I associate all the names of eras with ROCKS. The idea that basins formed during the Triassic or during the Carboniferous and Tertiary is just gobbledygook, like saying a rock is a landscape, which is one of the most bizarre ideas of historical Geology. It provides nothing in the way of evidence one could even begin to picture in one's mind.I always thought the Alps were very high mountains and the Appalachians very low mountains more like rolling hills.

That's why I suggested rebound.

Your post conveys just about nothing to me so I can't respond to it, except to this part: Lateral force buckled the lower strata. The buckling pushed upward against the strata above.

They are separating now, previously they were colliding and the Appalachians formed during the period of collision. This is why they are older than the Alps ... They were high mountains but now they are greatly eroded mountains. Because you are ignorant of even basic geology, refuse to learn the terms that school children know about, and pretend that your lack of knowledge is superior to actual knowledge.These are just the "names" of layers, so they designate locations in the geological strata with oldest layers at the bottom and youngest layers at the top.Even if you ignore the absolute dates of geology in order to make you fantasy conceivable, you still need to pay attention to the relative ages - what layers are below other layers, when plates collided and when they separated.Doing otherwise is just plain foolish silly putty fantasy.

You need to use grade-school terminology with Faith, as it seems she doesn't understand anything more complicated ...

Yes, it is odd that you think nothing happened prior to the initial opening of the Atlantic Ocean.Odd also that you should think separation of the continents would result in convergent deformation.

Of course it is. I would expect that a lot of things are utterly meaningless to you.My guess is that this dismissal means that you don't really care, either. You mean to your mind. And?Edited by edge, : No reason given.

I have to agree with you here Rox! I have suggested to many of my friends that are interested in knowing more about the world that they look up this thread to begin to understand the structure of the canyon. While Faith's evidence has been dismal and relied upon thinking about each aspect in isolation from other portions of the canyon, the evidence that everyone else has given in rebuttal can give anyone a great understanding of the mechanics that worked to give us the Grand Canyon. In fact, even having lived in the state, visited many times, read about the canyon, watched videos about its formation, and hiked through the canyon on several occasions, I have found so much information in this thread that only continues to support the ancient beginnings and the processes that can be seen in the walls. I look forward to visiting again soon and looking at the canyon with even more clear eyes.

As I expected. It appears that I was right in guessing that your knowledge of the earth was just bumper-sticker slogans. And how did that stress translate to the lower layer? So, this force was strong enough to deform the lower layer and uplift the upper layer, but left no deformation in the upper layer.Sorry, but you're going to need a reference here.

Then you do not agree. You do feel competent to judge. Why do you say that I am right? Well, I suppose a minimal amount of knowledge would be assumed. But feel free to criticize. Yeah, it's a tough world where words have meaning.I'm sorry that things aren't easier for you.Edited by edge, : No reason given.

You may have suggested it, but you didn't explain it. What rebounded off of what?You could just say it was a miracle...

Keep in mind that Faith accelerates all tectonic plate movement to occur in 4,300 years. This means the plates were initially moving at 20 feet per day and have gradually slowed down to their current rate. So this "initial jolt" would have to accelerate the plates from a stop to 20 - feet per day which would be a force beyond reckoning - the kind of force that tears planets in half ... or gently folded the Appalachians, either way.In case Faith accuses me of falsely attributing this concept to her Message 6. To the best of my knowledge she has not recanted from this position even though it was shown to be all but impossible.HBDEdited by herebedragons, : Correction: changed 2 feet per day to 20

This is something I find frustrating. YECs think that we all start with the assumption that the earth is old and then build a story to support that premise. When in fact, the exact opposite is true. You don't need absolute ages to determine sequences of events. You can start by assigning very young ages if you wish, and the relative sequence still stands. I have tried and tried to get this across to her, which I see you have picked up on, but to no avail. I guess it is because a YEC begins with an assumption of age and tries to make the data fit the predetermined age and so they assume that is just how science works as well.Frustrating to no end ....HBD

I wonder why the India plate hasn't rebounded off the Asian plate? The size difference is what ... 20 to 1. The India plate should have rebounded into Australia HBD