Summations Only

Hi Faith,I'm having a lot of trouble understanding you here. You say So, there is no sign of strata being deformed by tectonic movement, and then new strata laid on top, except where there are signs of strata being deformed by tectonic movement, and then new strata laid on top. I guess that's true, but surely it demonstrates that you're wrong. Angular unconformities exist; so there is evidence of new sedimentary layers forming after older ones have moved about. The model is falsified.Now, I'm wondering if your thinking is being muddled by being wedded to the idea that signs of tectonic movement all represent one catastrophic event - since you talk about some formations in England not being disturbed by the breakup of Pangaea. But the idea that all tectonic activity is the result of one big catastrophic event is a requirement of your model, not anyone else's. There's no reason to assume this, and it seems unreasonable on the face, since we know tectonic activity is ongoing today. I'm aware you think this all started post-Flood, but that's something that needs to be established.Incidentally, you mention that England's rocks go all the way back to the Cambrian, and so represent the full geological column. There are rocks much older than the Cambrian, however. The Cambrian is estimated to have been about 540-485 million years ago, while the Earth is believed to be about 4,500 million years old. Britain probably lies on rocks dating back about 3,000 million years, but they are not exposed anywhere in England. This is a very strange condition. You're not accepting unconformities as evidence of time gaps. I do understand that in your 'model' there are no big time gaps; but what would a visible time gap actually be? Assuming, for a minute, that the standard old earth model is correct; in what way would you expect missing layers to be visibly different? I have no idea what "spaces where erosion should have occurred and didn't" is supposed to mean.Edited by caffeine, : sentences that stop halfway through - I should learn to reread before posting.

When first considering this I figured that erosion at the plateau edges was just a form of incision and recession. I thought the plateau edges would gradually recede north, expanding whatever plateau is south of the Colorado Plateau. But after a little thinking I realized that you're probably saying that the Mogollon Rim is an example of an orogeny that requires erosion for exposure. Sounds, weird, but do I have that right? You're killing me. Like Faith I know that certain things are true, like that the Rocky Mountains were thrust into the sky by an orogeny to stand high and gleaming above the surrounding landscape, but unlike Faith I can go to Wikipedia and disabuse myself of misconceptions like this. After reading the geology section of the Wikipedia article on the Rocky Mountains I'm just confused. First it says the southern Rocky Mountains were thrust up through overlying Pennsylvanian and Permian layers, then it says the Rockies were once a high plateau like Tibet and that erosion gradually exposed the mountain range. How does unevenly thrust up underground rock cause a flat plateau at the surface? Is it that the orogeny is slow, and so any high spots created at the surface are worked on by the forced of erosion, thereby maintaining a flat surface? Something else?Checking the Himalayas, I see they formed pretty much the way I thought, colliding plates thrusting up mountains, but you have destroyed my illusions about the Rocky Mountains. I was fond of them. Geez, just as I'm getting familiar with Arizona you change states on me! But aren't Mount Evans and Pikes Peak unique as mountains, unassociated with any orogeny? Even if we had draped a giant canvas over the Pikes Peak area to protect it from erosion during uplift and after, wouldn't it still tower over the nearby landscape, just covered with the less resistant rock that used to be there?--Percy

Part of the point I'm making is that there should be lots of examples of erosion or deformation within the block or whole column of strata other than the angular unconformities, if the standard Time Scale understanding is true, but there aren't. Odd that there's only that one kind of example anywhere. That's the first point.The second point is that I don't believe the standard explanation of angular unconformities as "evidence of new sedimentary layers forming after older ones have moved about," I've got my own, that everybody here says is impossible but of course I disagree. I'd like to stick for now to the odd fact that there is NO sign of erosion or deformation until all the strata are laid down other than the angular unconformities. That is difficult enough to prove, maybe even impossible to prove for the many truncated columns/ time scales, though I've made some inroads there with cross sections in my opinion, but anyway this is why I point to the two examples where it is obviously true:The Grand Canyon-Grand Staircase area where the whole range of time periods is represented from Precambrian to Recent, except for the Silurian, the strata all laid down without any real sign of erosion or tectonic deformation until they were all in place, at which time we get the major erosion that carved both the canyon and the staircase. Here's the usual cross section where I first noticed this fact: And the other is the William Smirh cross section of England which also shows all the time periods in one continuous stack, after which they are all tilted as a block: It's not even a requirement of mine, it's the conclusion I came to fairly recently after pondering the order of events as I've been seeing it on these various cross sections. And the point about the cross section of England is that it alone demonstrates that the standard timing of the splitting of the continents can't be correct because there is no disturbance in the laying down of the strata at the Jurassic period, it just continues up through Recent time without a hitch, and THEN they all are suddenly deformed into their tilted form. So that's one EVIDENCE for the timing of the splitting of the continents after all the strata were laid down. As is the erosion of the Grand Staircase-Grand Canyon area after all the strata were laid down. I don't ASSUME it at all, as I say it's my own conclusion from the evidence as I've been encountering it. Yes there's lots of tectonic activity and erosion and volcanic activity, all of it, going on today, going on SINCE that one major catastrophic breaking apart of the continents and deformation of strata everywhere, as I've come to see it. I didn't see it this way a few years ago, it's a fairly new conclusion for me. Of course it has to be established, it's still a new hypothesis, but the evidence I'm giving here does support it. Actually I'm aware of that, and the Precambrian rocks are in fact shown on Smith's cross section to the far left too, but I sometimes try to make the point based only on the Phanerozoic strata where erosion or deformation should be demonstrated during their laying down according to the standard view, so I leave out the Precambrian rocks. Perhaps I should always include them. Timing issues aside, Precambrian rocks are shown on Smith's cross section. abe: Not marked as Precambrian, but the rocks are identified as Granite, which is a Precambrian rock and not part of the Paleozoic strata. /'abe I'd expect to see visible erosion between layers, in the contact lines, and in fact very irregular contacts to the point of gullies and dips that cut into lower strata to some depth, all kinds of deformation and erosion that simply is not there. Here and there are bits of visible erosion, but the great majority of the strata in the Grand Canyon area are straight and flat with sharp contact lines. That is not what I'd expect of time periods of millions of years, which should have undergone all kinds of disturbances if that were true. But the disturbances clearly all happened after the whole stack was laid down and not while it was being laid down. I hope what I just described may make it clearer what I mean.Thanks for asking these questions.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

My misimpression developing from looking at images taken from the canyon rims, but looking at this from above it becomes obvious that the "islands" are definitely not parallel with the Colorado: Ah, yes, of course, seems so obvious now. Right, we're all trying to explain the width of the canyon at its widest point, and the explanation has to include why the canyon is so wide here and not at other places. Faith's explanation is that the river was at one time 18 miles wide at this widest point, but of course rivers flow fast in narrow portions and slowly in wide portions. To have the deepest erosion at the widest point where the river was most quiet is impossible.But why so wide here and not elsewhere? Why is the Grand Canyon so much wider than Marble Canyon or the western reaches of the canyon? If the amount of slope retreat is a function of time, then that suggests that the widest part of the canyon is also the oldest, but somehow I think that isn't true. The section on geology in the Wikipedia article on the Grand Canyon is frustrating because it contradicts itself. First it says this:

quote:

---

The Grand Canyon is part of the Colorado River basin which has developed over the past 70 million years, in part based on apatite (U-Th)/He thermochronometry showing that Grand Canyon reached a depth near to the modern depth by 20 Ma.

---

So the Grand Canyon was a mile deep by 20 Ma. But then later it says this:

quote:

---

The base level and course of the Colorado River (or its ancestral equivalent) changed 5.3 million years ago when the Gulf of California opened and lowered the river's base level (its lowest point). This increased the rate of erosion and cut nearly all of the Grand Canyon's current depth by 1.2 million years ago.

---

This seems to say that erosion of the Grand Canyon began 5.3 Ma and reached its current depth of a mile by 1.2 Ma.I don't know that I believe either one. Any opinions?--Percy

Sure you do, all the time. Most recently you keep changing back and forth between whether the top layers were loose sediments or not.But you continue to ignore my advice to quote what you're replying to so that you have it in front of you and do not misspeak, as you do here once again. There was nothing in the post you're replying to about you changing your story. My post was about you repeatedly asking whether the top erosion resistant layer of the Coconino Plateau is really Kaibab Limestone. In case you forgot again, yes, it is really Kaibab Limestone.This isn't the only area where your memory's a problem. You can't remember the posts about meanders. You keep introducing issues as if for the first time even though they've been discussed many, many times here. Can you post this map again, or link to the post where it appears? Obviously unsatisfied with being wrong about something just once, you insist on being wrong about it over and over again. There is no stratigraphic column in England (or probably anywhere in the world) completely representing the geologic timescale from the Cambrian to the Holocene. I don't think you really meant to say this. You just said that all the erosion and tectonic disturbances occurred after the Holocene, and since the Holocene is the current epoch, after the Holocene is the future starting now. Bald declarations are not evidence. How do you not get this? The geologic timescale has no more come to an end than the Holocene has come to an end. Sediments continue to be deposited atop stratigraphic columns, growing those stratigraphic columns and continuing the geologic timescale on into the future. Time would have to stop for you to be correct. Bald declarations about erosion and tectonics are not evidence. You have no evidence of rapid deposition, which is impossible anyway given the fineness of many sediments. Again, you mentioned not a scrap of evidence against the geologic timescale. The erosion and tectonics that began after the Holocene in the future mark the end of what? Congratulations - another evidence-free post.--Percy

Yes, same question. Why couldn't they just as soon be limestone and volcanic ash?

You're getting your conversations with Modulous and Edge mixed up. Since Edge mentions salt he's obviously commenting about salt flats, not formations in the Painted Desert.But even if you leave off his last sentence and assume he's talking about the Painted Desert, what he said still makes perfect sense. If that were the context then the meaning is that the layers in the Painted Desert formations are lake bottoms that accumulated sediments of limestone and volcanic ash, both very common layers of the Chinle Formation out of which the Painted Desert formations eroded.--Percy

An interesting way of putting it, but yes. By being eroded to the local base level. Below base level erosion can't occur (except possibly by glaciers), so you end up with a 'peneplain'. Sure, think of it as competition between erosion and uplift. High relief means rapid erosion (generalizing here) and low relief means slow erosion. Well, the are much more attractive having been eroded. Well, then it's time to move on to the Roraima Plateau. This area is very high plateau rising out of the Amazon-Orinoco jungle as the 'Grand Sabana'. It's very close to flat and it collects a huge amount of water that drains off the edges in places like Angel Falls. At the edges of the plateau, erosion has created very narrow, spire-like mesas called tepuis wich inspired the novel 'Lost World'. There are no 'mountains' as we think of them, just a giant high plateau with outliers. Well, they are discrete mountains now. But at one time they were planed off to maybe near sea level and then rose again. In fact, there is speculation that such a peneplain is the reason that so many peaks reach an elevation of 14,000+ feet elevation but none at 15,000'. The peneplain has simply been uplifted and then dissected by streams and glaciers. In fact, if you look at the top of Longs Peak, it's kinda flat. Check out some pictures on line. Not sure, but you still have all of the other Fourteeners to contend with. Why do the only reach that elevation? And actually, most of the erosion is probably due to rock structure: faults and fractures controlling erosion more than rock type.Please remember that I did say this is a bit philosophical. One could simply argue that since erosion occurs along with uplift, that mountains form immediately, and I'm full of baloney. But I'm still saying that erosion is a huge part of the deal in forming mountains.

Well, it's fairly simple. Since the GC rocks are not (in the upper levels) composed of strong rocks they have to attain an angle of repose above the river level. So, the deeper the canyon the wider the canyon.More later.

Hi Moose,I got the general idea of the point you were making but wasn't able to follow the chain of logic. I mean that I think I understood the technical points, but not how they fit together into an argument. Here's my attempt at putting the pieces together:You first explain that the particular qualities of the garnets at the top of the Vishnu Schist required an overburden of about 6 miles in order to form. Then you quote Faith insisting that there were only three miles above the schist.You rebut this position by saying that there cannot be high grade metamorphic rock on one side of a contact and low grade metamorphic or unmetamorphosed rock on the other side unless that contact is a nonconformity or a fault.In context that would seem to be a reference to the Vishnu Schist//Tapeats contact, and your rebuttal then becomes an argument that this contact really is a nonconformity, and that deposition of the Tapeats must have taken place after the Vishnu Schist had already metamorphosed and cooled, else the Tapeats would itself have been metamorphosed though lower grade.So whether right or wrong that should help you understand how I read your post. Please correct as necessary, because I think it would be a helpful point for Faith to understand.--Percy

You're conceding the very obvious. You've been honest about how poor your eyesight is, so we know any claims you make of being able to see something are false. No one else sees what you claim to see, and that's because it's not there. You're seeing what you wish was there but is only in your own mind. You couldn't see how flat the Bonneville Salt Flats are, and you obviously can't see how flat anything else is, either. You also have no measurementsMuch strata *is* pretty flat, but not all. Here are some recent examples from this thread alone of how non-flat strata can be: This is false. What you said in Message 320 that Modulous was replying to was this: Mod called it pontification, but a more accurate characterization is that it is false and without merit. Sand is only about 60% as dense as sandstone, so sandstone is only 60% as thick as the sand from which it formed. The question Mod posed and your answer are true Flood or not. The depositional environments we observe around the world today distribute sediments very evenly on lake and sea floors, which we know have large expanses of flatness that can be seen and measured. It would be much more likely in your chaotic Flood of waves and tides to get uneven deposition.That strata are as flat as they are says they formed from the same kind of depositional environments we see today.--Percy

Planned to get back to this eventually and now see Percy's addressed it so I'll give a brief response too.There's something peculiarly attractive about the idea that you can measure the weight of a mountain by the chemical content of a garnet embedded in schist, but of course I have to wonder about how reliable it can be. That's one tiny little rock and six miles is one huge vague number to have been determined by that tiny little rock.I hope many garnets were used for the test and that they all contained precisely the exact same percentage of calcium, which is what shows the weight or pressure it took to form it, but is that the case? Measuring the percentage of calcium in a small gem can't be terribly precise, can it, and again that six miles height of mountain is far from precise.

For "depositional environments" to be the basis of the strata requires that you ignore all the far more common environments that AREN'T flat and choose only those that are. That's a rather peculiar requirement it seems to me. For the marine strata of course you have water which does level sediments, only, really, truly, NOT as flat as those in that particular picture.But those in that picture are Triassic so we're talking land environment with dinosaurs, and those are definitely not naturally flat. So if you have hills and dunes and so on you have to get them flat first, right? Bring in a sea transgression, that would do it. That would also kill all the land life. Kinda counterproductive.And piling on a great depth of loose sediment for the necessary weight doesn't really suggest a flattening effect, hardening yes but flattening no; besides which then you have ti figure out what to do with that extra depth of sediment unless it just happens miraculously to be exactly what the geo column is made up of. If it isn't, you have to find a way to clean it off the flat slab of rock you think it formed. Beisdes which, the strata in th3e geo column are clearly separate from one another. How does your piled up sediment manage just to be a hardening agent without becoming part of the rock it's supposed to be hardening? And how are you getting the very different kinds of sediments that clearly distinguish one layer of rock in the geo column from another?Besides which the enormous extent of such strata as Tapeats sandstone and many others cannot be contained in any lake bed, and why aren't there any edges to them that look like lake beds either?The whole "depositional environment" idea is untenable.In any case the flatness shown in that Painted Desert hill is so much flatter than any salt sea or field or beach that you keep trying to palm off as the basis for it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm going by your own words from Message 286: So reading your above words we can see that you were claiming that fractures in strata two miles above the canyon deepened and eventually became the Grand Canyon. But nothing about the sinuous shape of canyon suggests following fractures in the rock, which tend to be straight. But you've said the Kaibab Uplift began at the same time that the water started receding. The water was still four miles above the surface at that point in time, and the water level was dropping at only 1.5 inches/minutes, far too slow to create any flow of water four miles below the surface. By the time the water level dropped enough to be at the surface the Kaibab Uplift would have been a fait accompli. Water would have flowed down the sides of the uplift, to the east on the east side, to the west on the west side, and to the south on the south side where the Grand Canyon is. The North Rim is about a thousand feet higher than the South Rim. Where the Grand Canyon is today the water would have flowed south off the uplift, not east/west. But no fractures. And let's not forget that wet and malleable rock is your made-up idea anyway. If the canyon was the result of these fractures then that just reinforces what I said above, that the sinuous shape of the canyon is not in any way suggestive of following fracture lines.But directly addressing your argument, why would these fractures occur only where the canyon is and nowhere else on the uplift? So loose sediments can't fracture, and wet and malleable rock can't fracture (you said it stretches just above). So where are these fractures coming from? Thin sheets of water running across a plateau do not create meanders, and water levels dropping at only 1.5 inches/minute are not going to create a significant flow of water anyway. Also, this contradicts your other claim above that fractures in the strata two miles above is what created the channel for the Grand Canyon. Could you describe these stages? Exits? Now you're imagining some kinds of natural dams were in place that needed breaking through? What is your evidence?Your story continues to be contradictory, contrary to the way water, sediments and rock behave, and completely lacking in evidence.--Percy

Actually, you seem to have pictured it pretty well. With the canyon drawing in a great deal of water, why doesn't erosion of the Kaibab reflect this flow of water toward the canyon. An even better question is why there is any flow toward the canyon at all, since the water level is still a few inches above the top of the canyon? You don't seem to realize you have a significant problem - how do you get a significant flow of water in a channel that is completely submerged? Especially with the diminutive flow of water that could be driven by dropping water levels of only 1.5 inches/minute. This is a strange thing to say. The Grand Canyon is part of the Grand Staircase. Were you trying to say something like the water at Bryce Canyon didn't get anywhere near the Grand Canyon? If so then I agree that would probably be true in your Flood scenario if we just go by the contour of the land shown in our favorite Grand Staircase diagram, but I was only referring to water on the Kaibab Uplift around the Grand Canyon. Yes. That plain was at one time much lower in elevation and filled with rivers and streams migrating across it, gradually eroding the upper layers away. We see this happening at many places around the world today.--Percy