Summations Only

Faith, I know I have asked this before and I'm sure others have as well, but has it ever occurred to you to actually read some books on geology? As in textbooks? As in maybe even take a class or two?Reading this post (in addition to the other thousands previous to this one)... is, to borrow one of your words, excruciatingly insulting. Not to only geologists in general, but to any rational and scientifically-literate person. The hubris you display is staggering, to say the least. I honestly don't know whether to applaud your misplaced self-confidence or feel sorry for you. Seriously.Despite 13,000+ posts on this forum and an apparent high intellect, you have apparently learned nothing as you continue to presumptuously proclaim to all who will listen that because geology is a historical science, your guess is as good as everyone else's, including those who spend the majority of their lives actually looking at rocks. You proclaim that because we cannot visit the mantle or go back in time to see just how the rocks formed, there is no way to support or track causality in the geologic record. And this somehow gives you the right to posit a multitude of ignorant, inexperienced, and preposterous ramblings that even the most incompetent geologist can dispel. With this, you will undoubtedly disagree, but that has more to do with your own inability to consider anything outside your abridged world view than the reality of the situation.Geology is an interpretive, verifiable science, and we do this by examining the rocks in detail through geochemical, textural, mineralogical, geophysical analyses, by examining and attempting to understand the geometry of the lithologic and structural relationships, and attempting to understand the role of configuration in the final result. When it comes to a geologic puzzle we'd like to solve, we don't just sit at our computers looking at pictures of rock outcrops and offering up armchair postulates.We actually go out into the field, map the rocks, the faults, the alteration types and assemblages, the fossil assemblages, and we also collect rock samples for geochemical and petrographic analyses. The minerals present in the rocks have formed and are stable under very specific conditions, therefore assemblages of minerals, by default, provide an even better resolution of the conditions under which the rocks formed. The relationships between the rocks and the faults give us relative timing of the events of their formation. Every piece of evidence we collect (and we collect a LOT) offers up even more clues to aid in our interpretations, and every subsequent study or analysis either supports or refutes the working hypothesis. We test these hypotheses by predicting where we'll find the same rocks, alterations, fossils.You, on the other hand, make many, very ignorant, comments and never bother to back them up with any sort of analysis. Granted you are in no position to do so from your keyboard, but that's even more reason to stop and think about what exactly it is you are writing. Instead, you stick your fingers in your ears screaming, "blah, blah, blah" whenever anyone presents anything to the contrary, and then soldier on as if no one has said a thing.There is nothing respectable about that.Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.

Please justify the following statement, "And I don't think all your detailed work REALLY supports this conclusion either."I have seen no evidence that suggests you know the names of the rocks or understand the significance of the minerals that compose them, or even that you understand the very basics of geology, so why should anyone take anything you say regarding geology seriously?If you can provide a well-reasoned and cogent argument to support the above quote, then you have the right to post in this forum. If you can't or won't, then I suggest you move onto topics and fora more suited to your limited capabilities.You are correct, however, that you do not need an in-depth knowledge of geology to have a discussion here. You, though, have failed miserably not because of simple ignorance, but due to an incurious mind-set and a ginormous ego that prevents you from learning a damned thing. To date, your assertions in this forum are silly and indefensible, and come from a place of utter ignorance and fantasy.

Double post.Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.

Agreed. While it's rare for YE Creationists to accept OE science, it happens. We've seen it here a few times, so it's theoretically possible for it to happen to Faith as well. I think a realistic goal with Faith would be to get her to admit she doesn't know everything. That her knowledge and understanding of geology is less than what a first year geology student learns in the first quarter of the year. That she doesn't know what she doesn't know, but that this is easily remedied if she would just take the time to actually read and learn. Agreed. Sadly, that's why I no longer participate. I kick myself every time I let her ridiculous posts tempt me back. But I love what I do and I just can't stand seeing my science being lied about incessantly by Creationists.I have so much respect for people like yourself, RAZD, Moose, Jar, Dr A, and so many more here who have the patience and the passion to continuously argue with people like Faith. It does make a difference, because others are reading these posts, throwing off the shackles of ignorance, and recognizing the quackery that is YECism. But damn! It's hard to sit here day in and day out, refuting the same ol' crap.

A curious mind seeks knowledge, experience, and honest answers to honest questions. Faith wants to mock, lie, and aggrandize her own ego.I stand by my words.Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.

Obviously marine organisms and terrestrial vegetation and terrestrial organisms all have different densities (uh huh) and each will sink at different rates, ultimately depositing in different layers.Just ignore the fact that micro marine fossils, such as forams, radiolaria, and diatoms, should still be found in the layers containing terrestrial vegetation if those layers were deposited during The Flood. In fact, virtually any sediment deposited in a marine setting will have micro fossils.However, considering that you can't see micro fossils in photos on the internet, I think it's perfectly valid to ignore them. Ta da!!!In fact, let's just go ahead and ignore all the other little details we find in Grand Canyon formations, like:-- grain roundness (more round means more abrasion, longer transport; more irregular means less abrasion, transport, closer to the source)
-- mineralogy (carbonate vs. dolomite vs. aragonite vs. shale vs. chert = different water chemistries, depositional environments; micrite vs. sparry)
-- cementation between grains (calcite vs silica vs none)
-- rock textures (beds vs. laminations vs. massive)
-- ripple marks (surface exposure)
-- dessication cracks (surface exposure)
-- paleosols (prolonged surface exposure and vegetation)
-- trace fossils (burrows, tracks; surface exposure; stable and/or slow deposition)
-- evaporite beds (evaporative, arid environment; prolonged surface exposure)
-- Mg2+/Ca2+ and other elemental ratio perturbations in the seawater that affect which organisms flourish and which do not
-- speciation(?)-controlled fossil sorting (that sounds complicated)
-- sand dunes (prolonged surface exposure)
-- cherty horizons (change in seawater chemistry, depositional environment)
-- localized karsts (prolonged surface exposure)
-- air-fall tephra (surface exposure)Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.

Faith, stop being a hypocrite and a whiner."Scientific" has never been synonymous with blind assent (i.e., "faith").

Then please submit a photo or research by anyone as evidence for your theory that show these lithified mudslide deposits containing plant and animal remains. They should be fairly easy to find on top of the Vishnu, correct? Yes we do. In fact, our explanations don't require ignoring 99% of the available data and even work to describe what is happening today. Again, please show evidence of these mudslides. If you can't, this is pure unfounded speculation.And you know what? I'm good with unfounded speculation when it comes to geology. That's how we move forward. In fact, the best part of my job is coming up with crazy theories to explain our geologic mysteries. However, in the end, when we go out there to look for the evidence and don't find it, we have to put that theory on the back burner or give it up entirely (depending on the level of research) and move onto ones that are supported by the field evidence.In the meantime, your unfounded speculation cannot be used as evidence and therefore, by default, does not fit the Flood model "rather well."Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.

Considering that the strata from the base of the Bass Ls. to the top of the Kaibab Ls. represents several hundred million years, it is highly unlikely that none of those strata were affected by faulting prior to it all having been laid down.The large-scale structures we see today, many of which control the path of fluvial carving, are possibly ancient faults that could have existed since before the Vishnu Schist/Zoroaster Granite. Some are undoubtedly younger than the basement rocks, but once you break the crust, you form a zone of weakness that will break and re-activate with continued crustal deformation.Unless someone has actually looked into the structures in the Grand Canyon, which I don't recall reading here, I would not draw the above conclusion regarding them quite yet.Then we have the basaltic dikes cutting some units of the Grand Canyon Supergroup, so not all magmatic events happened after all the sediments were laid down. Though this may be a moot point as I cannot recall where Faith places the beginning of the Flood.

I agree. As far as the structures go, I think it's just a matter of not having discussed this or looked for these data to date on this forum. However, doing a quick search on "synsedimentary faulting 'grand canyon,'" I found the following:Source (from the Abstract):J. Michael Timmons, Karl E. Karlstrom, Carol M. Dehler, John W. Geissman and Matthew T. Heizler Proterozoic multistage (ca. 1.1 and 0.8 Ga) extension recorded in the Grand Canyon Supergroup and establishment of northwest- and north-trending tectonic grains in the Southwestern United States
Geological Society of America Bulletin (February 2001), 13(2):163-180

quote:

---

Sedimentary and tectonic studies show that Chuar deposition took place during east-west extension and resulting normal slip across the Butte fault. This event is interpreted to be an intracratonic response to the breakup of Rodinia and initiation of the Cordilleran rift margin. Laramide monoclines of the Grand Canyon region have north and northwest trends, reactivate faults that originated at the time of Unkar and Chuar deposition, and can be traced for great distances (hundreds of kilometers) from the Grand Canyon. We use the distribution of monoclines in the Southwest to infer the extent of Proterozoic extensional fault systems. The 1.1 Ga northwest-trending structures and ca. 800-700 Ma north-trending extensional structures created regional fault networks that were tectonically inverted during formation of the Ancestral Rocky Mountains and Laramide contraction and reactivated during Tertiary extension.

---

Essentially, this is stating that deep-seated, billion+ year old structures, in particular the ones responsible for down-dropping and preserving the Grand Canyon Supergroup, continued to become re-activated (and are possibly still active), resulting in the formation of monoclines that are presently visible across the surface of the Grand Canyon area and further out.Below is a graphic representation of the East Kaibab Mononcline and a photo. Here is a map of the faults and monoclines from the above-referenced paper: Magmatic intrusions are the result of very specific geologic conditions, such as subduction, extension, hot spots, etc. Unless those conditions are present, and they aren't present everywhere as you can see today, magmatism will not occur. However, down in the Unkar Group, there is a lava flow and basaltic dikes and basalt, so at that time, extension may have been occurring. In addition, magmatic intrusions do not have to result in deformation of the surrounding or overlying sedimentary package. This only happens under certain conditions, mostly due to the type of magma invading the rock and the type of rocks surrounding the intrusion. The cross-section is a simplified graphical representation of a complex system. It does not incorporate all the details because that would be impossible. To get the details, you need to read the technical journals.Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.

They are not bald assertions, Faith. They are based on geologic evidence collected by geologists for decades, using knowledge gained over 200 years. Regardless if you accept the data / interpretations or not, the conclusions in the paper I provided will have evidence to support them; unlike your unfounded opinions based on nothing but your desire to have a 2000 year old book be true.Are the authors suggesting they are 100% accurate in their interpretations? No. They are saying, "Hey, we have these data and we think they point to this happening." Other workers will read those conclusions and think, "They are partly right, but I know that so-and-so collected this other set of data, so their conclusion regarding this is wrong." And so on. Little by little, the story of the Canyon is being told. I personally think there are more faults, but we haven't taken the time to really look into it. Plus they may not be visible on the surface as it appears the off-set on them has not been so great or so sudden that the overlying strata break in a brittle fashion. Presently, most of the strata are behaving ductilely and draping across the structural off-sets. This is why the authors of the paper are looking for monoclines on the surface. However, what I have found so far, is perfectly reasonable.What I would like to see is synsedimentary faulting in the GC, but have not been able to find anything so far in online searches. Synsedimentary faults, also known as growth faults (I believe), have lithologic relationships that indicate active sediment deposition adjacent to a fault undergoing contemporaneous (or synchronous) displacement.The GC exists today in its current spectacular form precisely due to its being located in an area of prolonged stability. The area is really not that large. Continental cratons present on most (all?) the continents have been stable far longer and are far larger in extent.And let's not forget that what we see in the subsurface of the GC is only a tiny sliver of what actually exists under the strata. We only see cross-sections of strata in the canyon walls. What is still left to be discovered? Perhaps a buried volcano, more lava flows, a small/localized igneous complex, synsedimentary faulting evidence . We don't know. We may never know. I did not see "Pleistocene" anywhere, but Proterozoic and Laramide are ages of the faults and monoclines, respectively. The Proterozoic (i.e., Precambrian) faults are the normal faults (horst and graben structures) that down-dropped and preserved the Grand Canyon Supergroup into the crystalline basement rocks before being planed off by erosion (the Great Unconformity). The Laramide monoclines suggest that during the Laramide Orogeny (~80 Ma), the Proterozoic basement faults were reactivated, gently deforming strata in the Grand Canyon area. The lines end for a variety of reasons, in this diagram I'd say it is to keep it simple and easy to read. To get an accurate representation of the structures, you need to look at a geologic map in the appropriate scale.And while the monoclines formed after all the strata were laid down and lithified, the fact that the Proterozoic faults were reactivated suggests this would have happened in the past as well IF tectonic conditions at the time demanded it. Meaning that if the continental margin where the GC sediments were being laid down was passive, nothing's going on and nothing will move. If, however, there is nearby mountain building, island arc collisions, then the faults will give.We simply need more of the strata to be exposed.Why do you keep going back to the cross-section views? They are only schematic representations of the major geologic features of the Canyon? They cannot possibly incorporate the complexity that exists in reality. Your lack of experience and knowledge is clear and it forces you to depend entirely on cartoons when you should be reading and using technical papers to reinforce your statements. The Cardenas formation in the Unkar group is such a unit that spills on top of layers and then is buried by more sediments. It is a volcanic lava flow of basaltic composition and is evidence for continental rifting. Since the lava had to come from a deeper magma chamber, somewhere there are the fissures or maybe even volcanoes or dikes that erupted the basalt. However, they are not exposed and we may never see them. Since that formation exists, it is logical to surmise that others also exist or existed, though they may be buried or eroded away.So the Cardenas lava is there because of continental rifting. Which once completed, would end the eruption of basaltic lavas. Unless something else happened, such as subduction, development of a new hot spot, etc., there is nothing to cause magmatic activity. So yes, I'm okay with little to no igneous rocks above the Great Unconformity. Well I appreciate you not insulting me.You are mystified only because you have used a vague image on the cover of a book to guess at its contents and determined it was not worth reading.

Uh, no. But please go ahead and explain in better detail exactly how a package of rocks can be tilted while an overlying package remains horizontal.

The GC strata WERE buried, Faith.Deformation of rocks requires neither high temperature nor high pressure. Just having been buried under a thick sedimentary package and subjected to tectonic activity is enough. And just because you see the rock on the surface of the earth today, does not mean it was not at one time buried.As sedimentary basins continue to fill, the crust underneath will begin to subside and thin (i.e., stretch) due to the added weight. Down warping of the crust allows an enormous amount of sediment to be deposited within the basin, tens of thousands of feet in fact. This will happen until something changes the tectonic environment, such as the crust thinning to the point that the underlying heat causes thermal expansion and eventual uplift, or uplift due to an orogenic event.You keep ignoring the fact that OE has an explanation and evidence for everything you can think up, while you are left making things up and ignoring 99% of the available data.Your lack of knowledge is palpable.

Well you brought it up first. I simply replied by asking for you to describe how such a thing would even be possible. If you didn't want to discuss it, perhaps YOU should not have posted it in the first place.I figure at this point, you're pretty much obligated to discuss it.

Unfortunately for you, that "idiotic idea" has a mountain of evidence to support it and predictive abilities so powerful that we apply them with great success to find oil, gas, mineral deposits, fossils, etc. In the meantime, Creationists are still arguing about where to place the start of the flood. In fact, it's been nearly 2000 years and you Creationists still have not been able to create a coherent and cogent model. Four thousand years is not a long enough time period and this was so apparent three hundreds years ago, that James Hutton was able to figure it out. You simply refuse to acknowledge it. Out of pure, rock-headed stubbornness. It's clear you know very little and I'm very happy to see you admitting it. I think that the more you learn, the harder it is for you to continue the charade. That's why you often resort to exaggerated derision. You're wrong. So wrong it's silly to sit here day in and day out arguing. It's supported by nothing. Not even your Bible. All it takes is stepping on beach sand to see how easily the water is squeezed out of the sediment. What makes you think the sediments will remain "very wet" once they are buried beneath thousands of feet of sediment? Think about it. It's not that hard. Plus, then you apply even a small amount of heat and drive off even more water. Sure, you're going to have some formational waters, but it will certainly not be "very wet." The water will move into areas of less pressure. Simple physics.