Summations Only

Not the point.According to your scenario, we might expect the sediment deposited by flooding of the Amazon Basin to be eroded away. But there is very little river delta at the mouth of the Amazon, even though the Andes are certainly producing sediment. Please explain.

Not "obviously" from that diagram. Speaking of evidence I see no evidence for this scenario. Where's the evidence that the Claron was even partially deposited while the fault was in motion? The diagram shows the Claron to be of equal thickness on both sides of the fault, but what I was saying was that there should be uneven deposition at that point, more on one side of the fault, less on the other, after a fault has shifted the layers relative to each other. Such as here where the gray layer is more on one side and less on the other: The Claron looks like it was already there in its complete form, and there is a partial layer above it too, is that lava? and the fault line simply split the whole thing right to the top. No evidence of deposition going on at the time at all that I can see. Just a good example of layers tilting beneath one that remains horizontal. Thank you very much for that explanation. I've wondered about that all along. But as I say above I don't see any evidence that the Claron was deposited after the fault occurred. Looks to me like it and the deposit on top of it were bisected by the fault. Except that there isn't the unevenness of thickness I said should be expected. The two sides of the Claron are identical, and there is even a deposit on top of it that was already there too. Again I see this formation as evidence for my argument rather than yours. I'd prefer to say it is an hypothesis, but I really do think I've supplied a fair amount of evidence for it. Same here.

We would? Explain what?

If so, then your diagram is limited. Actually, you do see it. You yourself said that the Claron is less less deformed than the underlying strata. At the same time, the fault cuts the Claron.Goind by cross-cutting relationships, the order of events is exactly what you show.The only difference is that the Claron appears to be of the same thickness on either side. That is simply a function of relative erosion. Down-dropped blocks tend to be more completely preserved from erosion. Not necessarily. Just think if the fault continued up into an even younger layer. You still have the fact that the lower strata are more warped than the Claron.In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the fault is part of the reason that the Claron formed in a lake on the north side. That might result in a thicker formation on that side... Yes, the fault was probably active during deposition. That would give you the scenario that you describe. You mean after the most recent movement on the fault. Again, YECS need to think about processes, not just end results. It isn't necessary to have uneven deposition, though it is common. Not really. Growth faults always exhibit increasing offset and deformation with depth. That's practically the definition of a growth fault.In this case the uplifted part of the Claron is still cut by the fault but instead of being eroded away, the volcanic cap (probably on both sides) preserves its thickness.Besides, you're looking at a regional section here. I wouldn't put too much stock in the details. Again, not really. Everything you describe is well within the realm of known geological processes.

I knew you would quibble over this.But yes, according to you, during runoff, the flood removed the top layers of sediments that it also previously deposited.I am drawing an analogy between that and the Amazon Basin which is the closest thing that we have to a global flood. And yet when the runoff flows to the sea, it actually carries very little sediment by comparison to other major rivers of the world. Where did that sediment go? It stayed in the basin. Where did the sediment go?Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix first quote box - Was a "/" at the first qs.

Actually there is a bit of an error here. Your sequence should be:1. Deposition of brown layer
2. Deposition of orange layer
3. Motion along fault
4. Deposiition of lower gray layer
5. Continuation and cessation of motion on fault
6. Deposition of upper gray layerThe only assumption I'm making here is that the brown and orange layers are more offset and deformed than the gray layer (which seems to be the case).

Uh. Um. I'm almost speechless.Comparing what a river does to what the worldwide Flood may have done hits me as reallyweird.Flood deposits strata
Water is standing over strata or strata are standing in water. This is not a running river. (by the way how deep are the Amazon sediments, and how many layers etc.?)
Lower strata are compacted by weight of strata above
Higher strata are looser
Tectonic tilting perhaps, ocean floor dropping perhaps, something starts the water running off. It takes five months to completely leave the land so let's not rush things.
The upper strata are soft and break up fairly easily.
Over those five months all that massive erosion I've been hypothesizing would have occurred.I see no comparison with the Amazon river myself.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Where did the material come from that makes up the strata?

Why? In fact it is very very similar to what is described in either of the flood myths found in Genesis. The water rises, sits, lowers.

I will count my blessings. But you don't know what that really is, do you? It was just a thought. In fact, it is a live example of an actual system.Something that we know happens.I think you are telling us that you believe in something that we don't know happened.But as you can see from other posters, you have even more questions to answer now.You really think that the receding water completely removed all of the most recent sediments? If so, you have found one of the most efficient mechanisms in the history of science.Oh, wait! You didn't actually find it, did you?Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Doesn't look anything like a growth fault according to the references at Google or
Wikipedia.First you give erosion as the reason both sides of the Claron are the same thickness; then you suggest that the lava above it preserved its thickness.I'd been wondering if the lava might have preserved its horizontality while the other layers tilted, or what you call deformed.Still don't see it in the terms you've suggested, still see the Claron as already fully deposited and as being cut by the fault all as one piece up through the lava field, all of the strata tilting except the Claron.The scenario I described and illustrated was meant to suggest what WOULD have happened but didn't in this case.What is the evidence that the Claron formed in a lake? As it should be, seems to me. Why wouldn't it be?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Lots of things happen that aren't comparable to a worldwide Flood, which would have been unique after all. Again, it's my hypothesis of what probably happened because it seems to explain a lot of things at once. I'll let you know when I have evidence for it to confirm it. Nothing that hasn't been answered many times before already. Don't see why you think it so unlikely. The upper strata would still have been fairly soft. And again, the Flood would have been unique in many ways, which Old Earthers seem to be unable to imagine properly, likening it to limited confined local events. Certainly more likely than the idea that millions of years would have cleaned off the surface of the Kaibab anywhere near as efficiently as the reality shows happened. ?

I've found a better copy of this image: It can be found here. If you hover over the image a little zooming bar will appear: I couldn't find a way to include it as an image in a message, nor even how to copy the image, but here's a small section of it. All text is readable: This artistry was created by Peter J. Coney and DickBeasley, last revised in 1985. Note that at that time the Claron formation was called the Wasatch.--Percy

The information is not all that hard to find. Try this:

Well, I have to admit that I was going by your description of the cross section, which, as I look at Percy's new version, isn't really clear on that. Since the Claron is mostly terrestrial, it's kind of hard to compare thicknesses on either side of the fault and the diagram is not very good at showing deformation adjacent to the fault. No, I suggested that the volcanic cap would be a possible reason for preserving the thickness, and erosion of the uplifted side as a reason why they may have unusually different thicknesses. It is my experience that active faulting creates topography and that, in turn results in lakes and streams. The Claron is almost certainly an example, especially if you read my previous post on the subjectHowever, my real point is that faults often are long-lived. Just look at the San Andreas Fault. Some features are more offset than others. That is because the older features have been subject to more earthquake events. A new road may be offset by only a few inches, while an older volcanic flow might be offset by hundreds of meters, or even miles. But you said that your flood effects are like nothing we've ever seen (so we can't compare it to modern floods, right?).That means we don't really know what those effects are.They are essentially unknown. You have never described them to us.Therefor, you don't really have any evidence, just a vague notion that it was really, really, really huge!!!.That is not evidence.On the other hand, mainstream science has described flood effects that REALLY know about. Hence, my statement about known geological processes, all based on knowledge, and nothing in the data violates that mainstream interpretation.