Origin of the Flood Layers

edge left this unexplained so I thought I would give it a go since it is something I mentioned in the other thread.Layer "A" is deposited. It is then exposed to the surface and subject to erosion. Erosion of layer "A" results in debris which is composed of material that originated in layer "A". Then layer "B" is deposited on top of layer "A". The debris which was a result of erosion of layer "A" and is composed of layer "A" material is then incorporated into layer "B".Material that is composed of layer "A" that has been incorporated into layer "B" is the "bullet-proof" evidence of what the sequence of events were. (image above) The clasts are composed of the same material that the lower layer (layer "A") is made of and they have been incorporated into the upper layer (layer "B"). This is the evidence (there is more as well) that layer "A" was exposed to the surface and subject to erosion and then overlain with layer "B" creating an unconformity between the two layers.Now, how will you respond to evidence?HBD

Don't like to be preached at... well join the club.Give me a break, Faith. I try very hard to be patient with you and explain things to you in as simple and straight-forward way that I can. Obviously you don't ...

quote:

---

Objective adjective
1. (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts

---

Nope... not objective. You just don't get it. It is NOT a matter of doing "correct science" it is a matter of being objective about the evidence. You can't just make stuff up and expect us to accept it. The least you could do is understand the reasons I have come to the conclusions that I have, even if you don't believe it yourself. But of course, to you it's just "Old Earth Debunkery" Well so is the evidence.HBD

Of course it is... Have you ever even seen rocks in situ?It's the Tapeats and it has been eroded to expose the layer underneath. The layer beneath is Vishnu Schist, which is much more resistant to erosion than the Tapeats. That is what the contact surface (the Great Unconformity) looks like at that locale. The clasts are Zoroaster Granite, which is intrusive material within the Vishnu Schist. The dark material is Vishnu Schist and the pinkish material is Zoroaster Granite. You could follow the images to their source and confirm what I say. You could do a teeny bit of research to verify if what I presented has any validity. You could go to the canyon yourself and collect samples and analyze them to see if what I said holds up. Or... you could just dismiss it as irrelevant and unmeaningful.HBD

First of all, I am sorry you feel I patronize you. I am sincerely trying to be kind and patient and try to explain things simply and in way that I think should be easy to understand. I don't have a feeling that I am superior to you, but I do understand some things that you don't and I try to get them across to you.So a couple points about your interpretation...>That picture was only meant to illustrate clasts from the older layer that had been incorporated into the younger, overlaying layer. It is NOT the big picture of the unconformity...a picture like that wouldn't fit on the screen.>The reason that it is more plausible that the surfaces you see in that picture were exposed by erosion is that they are at the bottom of the Grand Canyon. Everything at the bottom of the canyon was exposed by erosion. Why would you think it is more plausible that it is shaped like that because it was once viscous?>Remember, in your scenario, this was covered by the whole stack of Paleozoic sediments that were squeezing the water out of these lower layers. How could they shrink like that while being compressed?>Don't you think those depressions that you outlined in yellow look more like running water carved them out rather than the clasts fit in them? There is a good strong source of running water at the bottom of the canyon.>If the clasts were part of the Vishnu Schist before this viscous sandstone "plucked them out," how did they get incorporated into the Vishnu in the first place? You already pointed out that they don't look like the surrounding rock.I was going to try to post a summary of what I have presented so far regarding the Great Unconformity but I just don't have the time right now. Maybe this weekend. In the mean-time maybe you could review my Message 103 from the Evidence that the Great Unconformity did not Form Before the Strata above it. It covers the details regarding the contact between the Tapeats and the basement rocks.HBD

That would be an interesting situation for the Tapeats and the Vishnu to never have had layers above them. That photo was taken in Blacktail CanyonI think it is safe to assume that ANY surface we find expose within the Grand Canyon WAS exposed by erosion. If a surface (within the GC) is exposed to the air, then erosion certainly HAS acted on that surface and exposed it. Or another way to put it, there is NO visible surface within the Grand Canyon that has not been acted on by erosion. So ALL the surfaces you see in that image were made to look the way they do by erosion. There is just no doubt about that.The Great Unconformity is deep with in the canyon, so it certainly had layers on top of it. Here is the source of that image. There are more photos taken in Blacktail Canyon on that blog. For example... Look how deep that is. There is a person down there at the bottom of the canyon. That is a good 300-400 feet deep. Here is an amazing 360 degree panoramic view of Blacktail Canyon. The Vishnu is the lowest rocks, mostly darker and more vertical. The layers above that are more horizontal, sand-colored and more prominently layered are the Paleozoic rocks (not sure of the specific units). You can see the clear demarcation between those distinct types of rock. That line between them is the Great Unconformity. It has rock above it, lots and lots and lots of rock.(actually look at some of the other pictures at that website, they are incredible!) You are reading WAY too much into that picture. It is a picture of clasts that originated in the lower layer (they are granite from an intrusion) and have been incorporated into the sandstone of the upper layer. It's that simple. Trying to makeup some alternative way to interpret that one picture is not going to change the fact that the Great Unconformity is an erosional surface. We can just drop that "ambiguous" image and move on, yes?HBD

So it is the evolutionist party line that the Grand Canyon was formed by erosion? Never said anything about millions of years. It could have happened in 5 minutes, but the Grand Canyon was carved by erosion. If it wasn't erosion that exposed them in the first place, what did? Is not the Grand Canyon composed of layers? Is not the Tapeats the lowest layer of the Paleozoic group? Wouldn't that mean there were layers on top of it? I fail to see how this is an article of "faith"???? Notice the question mark? Do you want to continue arguing about that same image? So... what is your conclusion? So now, stating that the Tapeats had layers above it and that the Grand Canyon was carved out by erosion is a "raw assertion?"You complain about how others respond to you. Do you ever consider the way you respond? Your post was anything but respectful.HBD

I don't even know what to say here...ABE: Never-mind...Edited by herebedragons, : pointless to continue

Don't you dare blame this nonsense on me. You are so desperate to explain away anything that seems even remotely "Old Earthy" that you are willing to make up all kinds of silliness. I addressed just a couple of very simple, seemingly obvious and closely related points: where that picture was located within the canyon, that it did, in fact, at one time, have thousands of feet of sediment covering it, and that it was subsequently exposed by erosion. That's it - and that's the "Old Earth party line?"I can't argue with what the picture looks like to you... it looks like whatever it looks like. It may indeed look to you like it was never buried, but we know it was. I said absolutely NOTHING about age of the formation or the amount of time it took to erode it. I try to keep my focus on the relative order of things and the processes involved.HBD