The TRVE history of the Flood...

I hope you don't mind if I tell you that I laughed out loud at your picture of boulders on a beach in answer to my question. The cleverness involved is quite amusing.Let me ask: Would you expect to find the source of any of those rocks in a sedimentary layer buried under that beach?Do blocks of strata normally underlie beaches?How would you account for the separation of the rock from its source?Do you expect that beach someday to be like the Tapeats layer in the GC?So, the GC was formed by intermittent risings of water over the land depositing this or that, some six of them altogether? So I suppose the land had to sink to the necessary level for each new shallow sea to cover it without being deep enough to associate it with Noah's Flood? So it keeps sinking for each new sea transgression until it gets all the layers laid down, and then what? Then we get the pushing up of the Colorado plateau because of course those miles of layers aren't going to stay below sea level?Something like that?

How do strata form "by erosion?"

Oh OK, no problem with that.

I think of the glaciers as following the Flood, the ice age as having been created by the climatic conditions produced in the Flood.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I find it hard to consider the quartzite boulder as having occurred by the same processes that produced the boulders you have illustrated. It is embedded IN the Tapeats sandstone a small space above the Great Unconformity a quarter mile from the Shinumo layer, in such a way as to suggest it was broken off that layer and carried that distance by the forces I keep describing.Here's the video I saw it in. I don't know how to set it at the right spot to find it, but it's at 1:06:31. (It seem to be at that location somehow, so if you just click on the arrow it should be there):
/
/
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes I'm aware of their explanation of a debris flow to move the boulder but I like my own explanation better. At least we agree that something moved the boulder so we're on the same page there.I think the rising of the stack over the Supergroup and the movement of the boulder are evidence for my theory of the formation of the Great Unconformity after all the strata were in place.I think the rising up of the Great Unconformity contact over the Supergroup, along with the whole stack of strata above and its rising over the canyon area at the top where the canyon itself was cut into it on the south side (which I argue was part of the same upheaval), is first of all evidence that the strata were all in place when the unconformity occurred. Second my argument includes the horizontal sliding of the tilting Supergroup up against the whole stack above, and since the boulder moved a quarter of a mile and is embedded fairly high in the Tapeats I think it shows that the sliding covered that much distance creating a lot of friction and abrasion, and was violent enough to sever the boulder from its layer. The extreme heaviness of the three miles or so of strata that were already laid down provided a counterforce to the tectonic movement below, allowing for the stack to remain intact despite being lifted, though the uplift would have cracked the uppermost strata which was the opening that became the Grand Canyon. The same upheaval released the magma beneath the area and created the granite and the schist, probably quite rapidly because of the immense pressure between the weight above, the tectonic force from the side below and the intense heat of the magma. And I think of this as all occurring while the Flood waters were still high, in fact I think of it as part of whatever caused the water to recede. I suppose the water would have had a cooling effect too, maybe contributing to the limiting of the effect of the volcanism. I think there was also something else but I'll have to check it out later.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's explained by the horizontal movement between the strata and the Supergroup, which abraded it down flat and kept the fault from going any further than that contact.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, "flat" should probably be "smoothed" because of the mounded rise over the Supergroup. I'm aware of all this and I know you are going to invent any old semantic problem you can to try to debunk everything I say but I can't keep up with all your tiwsts and turns all the time.

The rising had to occur after the strata were all in place no matter how you deny it, and the movement of the boulder nicely fits the abrading of the Supergroup, the cutting off the faults, the confinement of the granite and the schist beneath the GU and etc. I can. Strata wouldn't lay down over that curve, the curve that exists in the entire stack. They were eroded by the movement between the strata and the tilted group. The strata were all in place, the lower strata were tilted by tectonic force, raising the whole stack above, shown by the curving of the stack over the Supergroup, showing that it was all pushed up by the tectonic force, the fault lines were cut off by the abrasion at the contact etc. The vertical movement was abruptly halted by the horizontal movement at the GU contact, cutting off the fault and its step. The erosion and the movement of the boulder, the cutting off of the fault and its step, the confinement of the magma -- granite, schist etc. The horizontal movement would easily accomplish all that and without it you'd probably have your step and the magma would have penetrated up into the strata. Why should it? The forces weren't necessarily perfectly equal, there was enough force below to push up the stack which caused the curved rise in it. I guess you have to be allowed your denigrating opinion. I think it's beautiful myself. Evidence? Ha! There's a river at the bottom of the canyon, that's your evidence. The canyon is far too huge to have been cut by that river, it would have taken cataracts of receding Flood water to do that. And the river is what's left of all that.

You've somehow misunderstood my point: the faults were cut off so they are NOT above the unconformity. I don't think the boulder itself moved, I think the basement rocks moved horizontally in relation to the strata above. Strange, you are asking for exactly what I said didn't happen for the reasons I gave. The movement confined the granite and schist beneath the GU, why are you saying "therefore" it should be found above it? That makes NO sense whatever. Sorry, NO idea what you are talking about. What "detachment" -- you mean the sliding between the levels?Tectonic pressure below against enormous weight above, separated at the point where the forces are most closely balanced..

The faulting and the movement all occurred so close together that the movement cut off the faults as it abraded the top of the tilted Supergroup. If it did manage to penetrate above the GU it would be found a quarter mile away from the Supergroup.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I already answered this a million times. Tectonic force from side and below pushes Supergroup strata into a tilt up against the Tapeats which is the point where the forces most closely balance out, the force from above being the weight of sedimentary strata three miles deep. The tectonic force pushed the lower rocks some distance beneath the Tapeats, also pushing the strata above upward, causing the mounded shape all the way to the top, (which cracked the uppermost strata above the canyon area and caused the formation of the canyon by receding Flood waters rushing into the craqcks, taking a lot of the broken-up upper strata with it.)SIMULTANEOUSLY the magma was released from below into the lower rocks, forming the granite and the schist in an intense pressure chamber, which was probably mitigated by the Flood water somehow(?), all while the horizontal movement was going on, which kept the effects confined beneath the GU.Already described that a million times, so if you want something else you're going to have to be clearer about what you want.

Are you really honestly misunderstanding or are you doing it intentionally? I really can't see how you could misunderstand all the stuff you've been misunderstanding. Or this.It was the BOULDER that didn't move, sheesh. It was a boulder, so obviously it had been separated from its source for pete's sake. Here's the picture: The sliding of the lower rocks up against the Tapeats severed a piece of the Shinumo (there's also another story to be told about the quartzite monadnock but I'll leave that for now) -- the boulder was severed from its source and embedded in the Tapeats sand, and then the Shinumo was moved a quarter mile away. Perhaps the upper strata moved some also but... It would have been the tectonic lateral force causing all the movement and that would mean the lower moved but not the upper, whch was, however, raised by the upward force caused by the tilting of the lower strata.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I can't really picture your experiment unfortunately, but it doesn't sound like it would illustrate what I'm talking about anyway. Lyell did experiments with cloth to demonstrate how strata buckle so I like the basic idea.The physical situation I'm thinking of is more like that "magic" trick where the magician pulls a tablecloth rapidly out from under a whole table setting of plates and glasses etc., leaving them all in place. It's the abruptness of the movement, as well as the angle of the cloth, that accomplishes the trick.Sudden tectonic force from the side to the lower portion of the strata would buckle it in one way or another, breaking, tilting etc., up against any equal force above, separating the sections and moving the lower up against and horizontally along under the upper. This is how I think of all the angular unconformities, including Siccar Point. They would all originally have had a weighty stack on top against which the lower section buckled and tilted, but in most cases the upper broke up and eroded away leaving only one or two layers perched on top of the buckled section.Or another experiment could be a stack of folded cloths, dish towels or whatever, with a cookie sheet on top, or maybe even more folded cloths on top. Place a stack of them up against a rigid barrier on one end just to keep them from sliding all over the place (Lyell put his stack of cloth between heavy books with a book on top.) Then use your flat hand or a flat piece of wood to push against the lower half of the other side of the stack -- I think it should buckle up against the upper part leaving the upper intact, and very likely lifting it at the same time.Unfortunately cloth wouldn't be stiff like strata so the upper will sag into the gap created. A cookie sheet might work better for that reason. Or no, this is better: push the lower with a block of something, a brick or something shaped like a brick; then the upper won't sag. But it may be a matter of finding the best materials for such an experiment. I don't even happen to have enough of an appropriate kind of cloth to try this at the moment. No. Do you have a picture? But I'm not sure what the point would be anyway.

My claim is that the buckling of the lower strata up against an equal force would cause the detachment. I've also many times suggested that the point of least resistance within the range of equal force would be two different kinds of sediment which would provide different textures which would facilitate slippage (the sections at Siccar Point are divided between two different kinds of sandstone). And I've used the Lyell example many times before in discussions of this phenomenon, which I just described in the previous post.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.