The TRVE history of the Flood...

quote:

---

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.

---

Can you explain the evidence that supports your explanation ? You say there is evidence but I haven't seen it. As I have explained before there is certainly strong evidence against your idea, so you would need rather more than the assumption that normal explanations couldn't work.And now I have listened to the video it seems that even your sources disagree with you. So far as I can see, Garner's claims about "catastrophic debris flows" would explain the presence of the boulder quite nicely.Edited by PaulK, : 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.

quote:

---

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.

---

I can't imagine that anyone disagreed with that.

quote:

---

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 cannot see any reason to think so. The boulder must have moved while the Tapeats was still being deposited - and after the tilt of the rocks below (strictly speaking) the Great Unconformity. and I can't see any reason to connect the "rising" to the tilt either.

quote:

---

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.

---

Then please explain why you think so. Because so far as I can see it is obviously a later event. The diagram indicates that the rocks were tilted, faulted and heavily eroded before any of the later strata (currently present) were deposited. And I can provide the reasoning (e.g. there is no "step" at the fault - the tilted rocks are all eroded to the same level, even though there was clearly vertical movement at the fault)

quote:

---

Second my argument includes the horizontal sliding of the tilting Supergroup up against the whole stack above

---

Which is another reason to reject it unless you can provide evidence that something so wildly implausible actually happened.

quote:

---

The extreme heaviness of the three miles or so of strata that were already laid down provided a counterforce to the tectonic movement below,

---

But not the "mounding" ? Why not ? This is looking like a crazy assemblage of ad hoc ideas with no regard for plausibility.

quote:

---

though the uplift would have cracked the uppermost strata which was the opening that became the Grand Canyon.

---

Imaginative but it hardly accounts for the evidence that the river carved the Canyon.

quote:

---

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 how do you square that with the Cardenas lava reaching the (then) surface while the Dox formation was being deposited ?Sorry, wild theorising which ignores so much of the relevant evidence does not constitute a sound argument.

That's a pretty thought but that is all it is, kinda like I think of unicorns as not pure white but pinkish white.What is the evidence that supports such as thought since nothing in the Bible suggests it as even a possibility, the reality and facts show that the last ice age ended over 10,000 years ago and the last ice age lasted for over 100,000 years. It hardly seems that there has been enough time since your imaginary flood for all that to happen.What is your model, method, mechanism or thingamabob that would let a flood cause an ice age?BUT WAIT!!!!!!!!!!!! There's more.Reality shows there have been more than one ice age.

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

That might be how you try to explain it, but it doesn't exactly make a lot of sense. Especially as your "mounding" is supposed to be taking place at about the same time.

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.

quote:

---

Yes, "flat" should probably be "smoothed" because of the mounded rise over the Supergroup

---

That is not at all my point. The point is that it is extremely odd to have the same rock strongly resistant to deformation in one case and happily accommodating - in your opinion, quite rapid - deformation at about the same time.

quote:

---

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.

---

By which you mean that you are going to resort to lying to "win". Well I've been arguing with creationists long enough to be used to it.

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.

quote:

---

The rising had to occur after the strata were all in place no matter how you deny it,

---

I will simply point out that the post that you are replying to does not bother to deny it.

quote:

---

...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.

---

Or in other words you are just assuming your "explanation" despite the evidence.At least that shows that I was right to dismiss that argument.

quote:

---

I can

---

Then perhaps you can tell us what it is. (And if you need the context just look back at your message. It's easy)

quote:

---

Strata wouldn't lay down over that curve, the curve that exists in the entire stack.

---

That is obviously irrelevant. (Technically you are completely wrong, but I'll assume that you mean the tilting). You can't show a relationship between the tilt and the mounding by only talking about the mounding. Your argument in this point cannot possibly be valid for that reason alone.

quote:

---

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.

---

Assuming a single event doesn't show that it is a single event, no matter how hard you try to explain away the evidence. Even a good explanation wouldn't be positive evidence - and an explanation this bad weighs against you.

quote:

---

The vertical movement was abruptly halted by the horizontal movement at the GU contact, cutting off the fault and its step.

---

As I have pointed out that seems inconsistent with the mounding. And the idea of the erosion happening underground is rather daft when you consider the evidence. How, for instance would the monadnocks be formed ?

quote:

---

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.

---

You call it easy, I call it impossible. That's why I asked for evidence, not your opinion.

quote:

---

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 can't think of any reason to expect things to behave completely differently in this case.

quote:

---

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.

---

Forgetting about inconvenient evidence hardly helps your case Faith. My evidence that the river carved the Canyon are the meanders - features of a mature river, not raging floodwaters.

More significant, and absolute proof that the Grand Canyon is NOT and CANNOT be explained by the imaginary flood, is the existence of a horseshoe bend in the Grand Canyon.That one feature puts PAID to the utter nonsense that the Grand Canyon is the result of some Biblical Flood.

Why not? Do you think the Shinumo boulder was never at the surface like the ones I've shown? I'm not sure what forces you mean. But yes, the boulder is buried in the Tapeats just like any fossil or any other pebble. I'm not sure what your problem is here.

As I said, the rocks are buried down there in the sediment. If the sediment came from the flood, how did the rocks get down there?

Faith, what is your evidence for this "abrasion at the contact"?Please provide us some kind of data, such as a photograph, that shows textures caused by abrasion. Ah, good.Then you can show us where these faults still exist above the unconformity.If they were 'cut off' in the manner you suggest, they should appear somewhere. Show us the offset. Please show us some kind of track for the boulder. What surfaces (such as a fault plane) formed during this translation. For instance, if I move my car, you can see the surface that it moved on. If one block of rock moved while in contact with another, there is a shear plane.Please show us your evidence. See above. Again, if you are correct, we should be able to find some offset blocks of schist or granite above the unconformity someplace.That is what we would call 'evidence'. Why would it be 'easy'? What array of forces would cause a detachment (and that IS what you are talking about) such that upper layer would not be in traction with the lower.What is the dynamic situation in the crust to result in such a scenario?Why is it that in known detachment faults (see: Lewis Thrust), the upper plate is the one that is deformed?

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..