Summations Only

"Seems a tad excessinve," to whom?You keep saying this but never say why, other than the fact that you simply cannot believe it.Do you call that 'evidence'?

Good points. I think that the best service that Faith's posts provide is bullet-proof confirmation that YEC is intellectually bankrupt. They remind us that science is the correct instrument for viewing the universe.But, these periods of hiatus where nothing happens on EvC that occur between the massive bombardments 'seem a tad excessive'. I'm beginning to think they are designed for some nefarious purpose ...

And, once again, you have decided what that should mean. Perhaps you could document for us just where 'active planet' notion is postulated to mean that every point on the planet must be subject to erosion on a certain schedule. And there are lots of sources that tell us erosion has been occurring at some point on the planet at all times. By confining yourself to the Grand Canyon area and solely to the Palezoic, you ignore the rest of the activity on the planet.Why do you refer to an active planet when you seem to ignore most of it? You generalize. You seem to say that on an active planet, all locations must be active. At the same time, you say that since the GC area of the Colorado Plateau was quiescent for a period, then all parts of the planet must also have been quiet.Do you know what the end product of erosion would be? Ancient shield areas are locations of massive erosion also. The Grand Canyon is just a stage in the process of getting to that point.

Yes, I agree. Perhaps it's the stubbornness on this scale that is actually the spectacle here, and not the actual beliefs that are incredible. It truly challenges the imagination and demands attention. Responding is irresistible. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Actually, I did. I gave you a diagram showing the structural/stratigraphic relationships during Pennsylvanian time in the Pardox basin adjacent to the Uncompahgre uplift.

So YOU think so, eh?Well, why didn't you say so? I mean, that clears everything up for me! So evidence is intuitive?It just ought to be? But you have never told us why. On what principle do you base this conclusion? Why should there be?Please tell us what schedule erosion should occur upon in order to satisfy your viewpoint. Well, not 'all of the layers', but certainly after many of them.So what? Why is this a problem?

And there may have been layers above the current Canadian shield in Nunavut. So? No, it's not just a 'huge hole'. It is a complete drainage system. how did it get there during your flood? Why was it then buried?

Well, I'm trying to approach it from Faith's standpoint. That's kind of difficult because her whole concept of 'no massive erosion' is arbitrary and irrelevant.We know that there was a huge amount of erosion from the Uncompahgre uplift in the middle of Faith's "no massive erosion" period. It just wasn't where she wants it to be.

I think this is an important point. Erosion is a process and landforms are temporary. We see only a snapshot of that process and all of the buttes will be someday gone. But, as should be painfully clear, that will still be a long time in human terms. Sometimes, I think that YECs see the planet as being in a final and complete form.

Exactly. As long as there is a source area for buttes in a give area, they will continue to form. Ultimately that source is also gone. Erosion is destructive down to sea level. Admittedly, the Canadian shield has been largely eroded by continental ice sheets, but the principle is that any exposed rock is subject to erosion. Maybe I'm looking too far ahead here, but I'm just trying to define the end product where erosion stops.

Of course you haven't. What I have in mind is a nearby locality where erosion was occurring outside of the small area in which you wish to confine your argument. 'Clear' is in the eye of the beholder and an arbitrary qualification. Done. That would be the idea. I seriously doubt that any number would be sufficient for you.Perhaps you remember this: Do you understand it? There was some discussion about it at the time, but all I can remember is that you rejected the evidence depicted.The Mississippian rocks are shown in undifferentiated blue, below the jagged line representing an erosional unconformity. The Pennsylvanian rocks thicken significantly to the east where the source of sediment (the uplift) exists. The horizonta line is a reference line at the top of the Pennsylvanian rocks.What the diagram shows is that, during the Pennsylvanian the Uncompahgre uplift shed huge amounts of sediment, the weight of which probably depressed the basin.I say that this is 'massive erosion' during the Pennsylvanian. It is unfortunate that it did not occur where you seem to expect it should be.

Actually, you haven't. Where is the evidence that shows this is different from typical erosion that forms canyons and valleys.

Faith needs to show us how this erosion is different from what we see going on today.As a historical perspective, we can see how the Lake Missoula flooding was different due to the landforms created by that erosion. But as it stands now, we have only Faith's say so, that receding flood waters created the landforms that we see.I may be wrong, but most of the effects of receding floodwater that I've seen consists of a layer of mud. If that were to be washed away, then there needs to be some kind of impoundment or something to cause rapid runoff. So, where is that impoundment? Where are the scablands and the megadunes, etc.?All we have is expression of incredulity from Faith. The really sad part is that she thinks this to be evidence.

You understand that this is a depiction of data, do you not?Then you should set about showing that all of the stratigraphic correlations and geological mapping over the last couple of hundred years are dramatically wrong. Can yo do that? Has anyone done it?That is the only way you can do it, and I don't envy your task. The only way you will figure it out is to ignore the data.

Now, is that nice? Don't worry. I can understand your frustration. There is a reason for it, do you know what that is?