Origin of the Flood Layers

When another interpretation is possible it doesn't prove anything about which is correct but it may certainly raise some doubt about the accepted interpretation

ITYM anothert plausible interpretation. We know there's always an infinity of ridiculous interpretations such as invisible pink unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters or invisible space walruses.

So a YEC's task is to come up with a plausible interpretation and convince us using evidence that it's plausible. We could be convinced by another plausible explanation with evidence or be convinced to question the mainstream interpretation. But all you present is your implacable determination that mainstream science must be wrong. You have no interpretations to offer because you haven't examined any of the relevant evidence. All you have to offer is fantasies from the voices in your head.

'The point is that I see no reason to think of any of what is seismically imaged and called "ancient rivers" or "canyons" was ever on the surface.' when you have no knowledge of those canyons whatsoever isn't an interpretation. It's a fairy story.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

That's not an interpretation at all, it's just a refusal to examine the evidence. Denial is not an interpretation.

The evidence clearly shows, to us and many others, that those features were formed by the processes we see today when they were exposed at the surface. We'd certainly be willing to consider another interpretation (as I said).

An interpretation would consist of a discussion of the features and a hypothesis about how those features formed. We got one, you don't.

When I have the evidence then you'll know it's objective too

When and if you come up with a scenario that fits all the evidence we will believe it's scientific.

I am not even trying to DO "correct science," I'm trying to do what is needed to prove the Flood.

Yes, we know. But with that explicit declaration this thread should be moved out of a science forum.

Believe me, if I ever prove these things you'll say it's scientific.

Oh, we will, When and if. But we know approximately how long that will take.

Looks as if the schists image originates at Earthly Musings: Seven Days of Geology and Hiking on the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, about 2/3 of the way down the page, captioned "Close-up of The Great Unconformity with Vishnu Schist below and Tapeats Sandstone above. Quartz clasts rest right at the surface of the unconformity, which represents 1,200 million years of time. Note the small dendrites that seem to emerge from the quartz clasts on their top side"

He also shows a similar picture:

"A small scale channel within the Tapeats Sandstone just above the unconformity. These channels were likely cut as the waves of the Tapeats Sea washed back across the surface."

From Written in Stone:

"We are viewing the Great Unconformity at arm’s length within Blacktail Canyon. Blacktail is a popular locale for literally touching the Great Unconformity in the serene setting of a beautiful side canyon. The regional westard dip in the strata has caused the Tapeats Sandstone to descend back down to river level making the details of the Great Unconformity well exposed to view along the river-polished walls of the canyon. In addition, Blacktail Canyon has a great little echo, and if you're really quiet, you can still hear the waves of the advancing Cambrian sea crashing onto the shore as it churns up loose chunks of granite and schist.

According to the geological Principle of Inclusions, clasts are older than the rock in which they are contained. Notice the “loose” fragments of Zoroaster pegmatite from the underlying Grand Canyon Metamorphic Suite incorporated within the contact below the basal-most Tapeats Sandstone. Inclusions can often be utilized to recognize a nonconformity such as this."

From Fossils and Geology:

"Great unconformity (black tail canyon, AZ) between the Vishnu schist (below) and the tapeats sandstone (above). The missing time is about 1100 million years."

{ABE} I sure don't see any way to interpret this as a fluid sandstone [sic] flowing across and stopping at the Vishnu. Pretty obviously both were eroded to expose this cross-section. Note the clasts in the sandstone.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

I keep seeing it as having stopped rather than having been eroded away to that point because the vertical "edge" is so smooth for one thing.

You call that smooth?

Sandstone doesn't flow. Something in the process of lithification might but it sure seems unlikely that it would be just soft enough to flow and just hard enough to hold a near-vertical edge and just happened to stop right there.

However, erosion of sandstone more than the underlying harder rock is a perfectly reasonable explanation. Especially see the last picture I posted above. Note the clasts and explain how that all formed.

At first I did, but as I kept analyzing the situation I noticed the apparent fit of the clasts in the depression right below them. How they fit is what the yellow lines I drew on the latest photo were meant to show.

I don't see any depressions. I see dark shadows of the clasts.

and if that's the case then the sandstone itself pulled them out

Wow, maybe we should be using unpowered sandstone instead of electrically powered vacuum cleaners. Apparently sandstone has undetected but exremely powerful suction. Who knew?

Seriously, pulled out? Really? What generated that puling force?

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

You call that smooth? What are you looking at? The vertical frontal edge of the sandstone that I've outlined looks pretty smooth to me, as opposed to being at all ragged from erosion.

Looks all ragged to me. Is it as smooth as your floor?

But what is so special about "right there?

Yep, that's the question. Why did your alleged flow stop there?

I wouldn't have expected sandstone to have a viscous stage either, but this photo and the one of the Danxia formation in China certainly suggest something of the sort. Something that occurs during its laying down as a wet sediment, not during lithification.

Wet sediment ain't gonna form a near-vertical ragged edge.

I wasn't clear what you were seeing in that photo, perhaps you could mark it to bring out what you see there? But I'll get back to that post in a minute.

Don't have the time ow to mark it up, but you are looking at the Tapeats sandstone (forming a near-vertical ragged wall) above the Vishnu forming a near-vertical ragged wall lining up with the edge of the Tapeats. I.e an eroded near-vertical surface encompassing both formations.

You can see small white clasts in the Tapeats right at the junction.

and if that's the case then the sandstone itself pulled them out Wow, maybe we should be using unpowered sandstone instead of electrically powered vacuum cleaners. Apparently sandstone has undetected but exremely powerful suction. Who knew? Seriously, pulled out? Really? What generated that puling force? Something to do with the relative looseness of the quartz and the relative stickiness of the sandstone and the dryness and hardness of the schist

I.e. it's just a fantasy and is impossible in the real world.

You'd need to explain the other pictures more, perhaps mark them to indicate what the descriptions refer to because it isn't obvious to me, and I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with them anyway.

The point is that there are many pictures of many locations where the Tapeats contacts the Vishnu and clasts are in the Tapeats and the near-vertical face of the Tapeats is obviously from erosion and not from magic flowing sandstone.. I'm not going into a long explanation, I've been down that road before. Perhaps someone else will.,

The part I've circled in light blue shows it most clearly: It's BLACK underneath the sandstone and there isn't even a clast there to cast a shadow.

Yup, there's obviously a depression there, and no matching clast or place where a clast was. So that's a shadow of the sandstone itself.

It is just as black beneath the bottom of the sandstone all the way to the right, which is now outlined in orange, both where there are clasts to cast a shadow and where there are not.

Yup, the underside of the sandstone is undercut so its shadow shows up. I still don't see any depressions matching the clasts.

Back to the other picture:

Note the near-vertical edges of the Tapeats and Vishnu. The Vishu face is rougher than the Tapeats, but the Tapeats face ain't no billiard table.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Nicelyl labeled. Except for the misspelling. :-)

Oh, and we can tell she's the youngest one in the picture because her hand is intrusive in both.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Because it LOOKS like it was thick when laid down, and the thick edge with the clasts stuck in it, which is clearly vertical as shown by the shadow on it, doesn't LOOK to me like it was eroded, though JonF keeps insisting it does to him, and also because of the way the clasts seem to me to have come out of the depression in front of them. It's possible the appearance of thickness came as the sand was lithifying, after pulling the clasts out of their seat in the Vishnu I guess. That's the only other possibility I can see.

"Pulling the clasts out of their seat in the Vishnu".

Rock or slurry or intermediate doesn't lift rocks out of depressions. Don't happen. Ever. Even if he \rock/slurry/intermediate is magic.

You've been given an alternative explanation that, unlike yours, is consistent with reality. You've rejected it solely because you don't like it.

Sorry to say but neither JonF nor edge seems to be able to read how light and shadow define three dimensional forms, but it happens to be one thing I'm pretty good at. I'm also usually pretty good at spatial relationships.

I'm fantastic at light and shadow and spatial relationships. I spent twenty years doing 3D CAD models and photorealistic renderings with ray tracing programs adjusting light source positions and intensities to get the desired effects. I know my stuff in this area.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

But I'm not interested in arguing about it.

I.e. no depressions, no shrinkage, no pulling schists, but there must have been a fludde what done it.

The smooth upper surface of the Tapeats does give it the appearance of having been a liquid that flowed into place.

Sure don't look like it tome. Pockmarked, ridges, a bedding plane that Edge pointed out, definitely rough front surface.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Though this is a reply to Faith, I'm actually just trying to draw attention to what Faith has been trying to say about the shadows beneath the clasts.

I think everyone understands that. The shadows under the clasts look to me like shadows of the clasts, just like the shadow of th overhand to the left of the clasts. I see no indication whatsoever of depressions under the clasts.

I see the same flattish topography inside the shadows as outside. I don't see and "socket" from which the clast could be magically pulled. I see the same thing under the overhang shadow to the left as I see under the clasts.

Moving on, I think Faith asks a very relevant question here. It might be answered later on, I don't know, I have to read and respond to posts in order rather than jumping about: If you are talking about the picture in Message 247, no, they look like veins of quartz in a wall of schist. If something caused the quartz to come out of their veins then they might look like clasts either lying on the schist or stuck in sandstone and not lying on anything.

What is the hardness of schist on the mohs hardness scale?

quote:

---

Schist is a composite material made up of a mixture of several minerals, each of which have different mohs hardness. Schist is made mostly of quartz (mohs 7) and feldspar (mohs 6) but also includes minerals such as chlorite (mohs 2) and hornblende (mohs 5). Schist has no real mohs hardness, but a composite of its constituents of approximately 6.

---

Seems to me that erosion of the material in which the very hard quartz is embedded it quite possible, probably rounding-off the quartz as we see in the pictures posted so many times, but not enough erosion to wear it away.

High dynamic range composite: