Summations Only

So let me see if I can rememberMy meander scenario is wrong because

• There isn't gravel where he would expect it to be
  ​
• There isn't evidence of back flooding
  ​
• There isn't evidence of sheet flow of water on the Kaibab plateau
  ​
• There isn't evidence of turbulence where he'd expect it
  ​
• There isn't an upper rim where the water level started out much higher, he says that was formed entirely by erosion after the water had reduced in volume. Same in the main part of the canyon: all the slopes were formed by erosion.

Might as well include the objection that my interpretation of the formation of the Great Unconformity is wrong too, because

• There is no evidence of shearing wherever he would expect to see that
  ​
• There are pebbles in the contact, which I think are of schist? which he attirbtes to the former beach environment of the Tapeats sandstone.

That's all I can remember at the moment.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.

Of course, that's what I expected to be doing.

Which is not the same thing at all. Percy would never have said that sedimentary rock cannot form from sediments. That would require some kind of idiot. If you "said something that sounds different?" Sure. Let me remind you and everyone else exactly what you said. I don't believe any additional context is necessary, but I will provide a link to the message just in case you want to explain the inexplicable. From: Message 2760From: Message 2824

Once again you've made an empty unsupported accusation. This is a discussion. If I got anything wrong then it's incumbent upon you to point out what that was, and then we can discuss it. This claim is easily disproven. I have explicitly distinguished between not accepting a view and not understanding it. This is from my Message 49: Why do you so frequently lash out with accusations that are not only untrue, but easily shown untrue? Why not take a few minutes, do a little research, do a little checking, read some old posts to confirm your recollections, then say something true? I think I speak for all of us when I say that your endless made-up accusations, complaints and nonsense have grown more than tiresome. The term "regurgitating" is poorly chosen. Most people here make a concerted effort to advocate views that are supported by evidence and analysis. This is a science site, and explaining and arguing for scientifically supported views is what most people try to do here. Even you try to make your views conform to natural physical laws, though your lack of understanding of them greatly hinders this effort. We're all long past hoping that evidence and reasoning will cause you to accept scientific views, and the conclusion that you lack scientific knowledge has nothing to do with that. Rather, this lack is evident in almost every sentence you write.But it's actually worse than that, becuase you don't even have an intuitive sense of how the natural world works. No, I'm pretty sure it's you who doesn't understand physics. You think cubic miles of rock can disappear into thin air, that buried strata can tilt without affecting overlying layers, that rocks form by drying, that there are underground rivers eroding channels between strata, that sedimentation atop stratigraphic columns doesn't occur, that evidence has an expiration date, that evidence should be subordinated to the Bible, etc.You see, I can be very specific about what you don't understand. You, on the other hand, can only cast meaningless accusations with no basis in fact. If you've got something about physics that I've got wrong then all you need do is: a) Quote what I said; b) Go to Wikipedia, find the information that shows I'm wrong, then post it; and c) Bask in the accolades from everyone here, including me, who will cheer your accomplishment in finally getting something right. Uh, no. What you wrote doesn't even make sense because it doesn't even say what is moving, and in any case there is nothing in Walther's Law that has anything moving across depositional environments. Looking back at my Message 88 I can't imagine how you ended up with what you wrote. Why don't you, as I have suggested many, many times, quote what you're replying to so you have it in front of you and can respond to what was actually said, instead of relying upon your frequently faulty memory.Walther's Law is about the slow movement of depositional environments. It explains how the horizontal movement of adjacent depositional environments results in a vertical sequence of sedimentary layers. Just because, or do you have some evidence driving this denial?71% of the Earth's surface is ocean, and the vast majority of it is experiencing deposition. You yourself have acknowledged the existence of depositional environments, for example, in the discussions of lake varves whose record extends right up to the present. There couldn't be a sedimentary layer on the bottom of the lake from last year if the lake weren't a depositional environment.From Wikipedia, which says, in essence, the same as what I just told you:

quote:

---

Walther's Law of Facies, or simply Walther's Law, named after the geologist Johannes Walther (1860-1937), states that the vertical succession of facies reflects lateral changes in environment. Conversely, it states that when a depositional environment "migrates" laterally, sediments of one depositional environment come to lie on top of another.

---

No, it does not. A rapid incursion of water onto land is not a depositional environment, there are no adjacent depositional environments, and certainly no vertical succession of sedimentary deposits of different depositional environments results. Moose would not agree with your denial of depositional environments.Moose was trying to help you by saying that Walther's Law does not have a time element, that it could happen fast or slow (see Message 2306), but as a practical matter depositional environments do not move rapidly. I pointed out some problems in what he said in Message 2381, and Edge added further rebuttal in Message 2382 This is Moose's specific comment supporting your view: But there are a number of fatal problems. First, this isn't the Faith flood model. You don't claim that new clastic sediments were being added as the sea rose - in order to avoid the lithification of deeply buried sediments on land you decided that most of the sediments came from the sea floor, so they were already in the sea.But more importantly, a rapid incursion of water onto land is not a depositional environment - "rapid" and "depositional" are not compatible. There are no adjacent depositional environments that are migrating, just the rapid incursion of water onto land. Feeding clastic sediments into the sea isn't really a depositional environment. The fine sediments that built Earth's strata could not fall out of suspension in active water. The order of strata is all wrong for a flood. I hope Moose responds and let's us know his views. It's only true if you and whoever agrees with you can build a convincing case using evidence and reasoning. Just because, or do you have some evidence driving this denial? I'm not aware that geology believes there was ever even a single worldwide flood during Earth's entire history, let alone six. You do seem to have difficulty finding anything to say that is true. I think the current motto is just fine. If you engaged in a bit more discussion and a bit less denial you might find a bit more understanding.--Percy

Nice video (Message 147), I'm enjoying it. I'm only a little over ten minutes into it but there are already a few things I'd like to comment on before the main point you want to make comes up.I was interested in the use of the calcium content of the garnets found in the Vishnu Schist to determine the height of the rock above it that had provided the pressure to form the scshist and the garnets, which they determined to have been six miles. Of course they were thinking of the supposed former mountains they imagine to have existed there before the canyon. The weight of the Paleozoic strata into which the canyon was cut has always been my explanation for the schist and the granite formed beneath the Great Unconformity, but that only comes to three miles, possibly four, not six. You know of course that I'm not giving that up in any case but it was interesting how they use the garnets.ABE: Since I think the schist formed as a result of the weight of the strata plus the heat from pressure plus volcanic activity and magma beneath the Great Unconformity, and the whole area would have been under water at the time, I suppose we could add some weight of the water to the rock as well and perhaps that would make up the difference to explain the amount of calcium in the garnets. Of course the strata would have been highly compacted but perhaps the water still contributed some weight, or even the water standing above the whole stack for that matter. A gallon of water weighs something over eight pounds. /'ABEAnd of course this nice geologist sketches out the time periods that divide rocks into former landscapes. Which is very clear in his presentastion: those rocks he really does describe as former landscapes right there on the spot, determined by the fossils in them, though others here seem to enjoy pretending Geology doesn't think any such thing.This is a time of vigorous eyeball-rolling for me of course as I contemplate again this notion that a slab of rock could represent an identifiable time covering millions of years. We mustn't insult the naked emperor scientists though, and after all they really do seem like a bunch of nice sincere people.And this nice geologist goes on to describe the supposed transgressions of the sea over the land that they say account for the sedimentary rocks, some eight of them, and the animation shows a layer of sand followed by a layer of mud followed by a layer of the calcified stuff that becomes limestone, all deposited apparently by precipitation out of the sea. Here I just want to point out that there's no mention of limestone having to grow in place, it is merely the result of deposited broken up shells. Just as I've said.So just a few thoughts before your main topic comes up.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.

Video in Message 147:At 11:50 or so he's saying that the Laramide Orogeny -- ie one aspect of that tectonic event I think was a major single event that split the continents and did a lot of other things I describe in my scenario +-- lifted up the land WITHOUT TILTING IT. So all you people who keep objecting to my saying that's what happened with the tectonic pressure that formed the Kaibab Uplift can stop saying it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Excellent - I enjoyed it. I'm not geology type person, and I found it quite well presented with some tantalizing information without getting too boring. The mountains they 'imagine' don't make any difference to the formation of the Grand Canyon per se, they get eroded away before any of the main stuff happens - so it's not like they have to have them there to preserve the notion of an old Grand Canyon. My understanding is that the garnets simply indicate how much stuff was above - and the amount of stuff suggests mountains.I imagine the flood waters would have quite an amount of weight to them, but rock is denser than water so I expect you'd need a heck of a lot of water to make up the difference - more than 5 or 6 miles deep that's for sure! I'm not here to refute your position - but it's certainly something to keep in mind when figuring out how they formed. I'm not sure what you mean by limestone growing in place - but I think we can agree that as a reasonable approximation 'deposited broken up shells' will suffice to explain the origins of limestone. I look forward to it!

Here's the image again: Two things. First, the Supergroup/Tapeats contact is exposed at the Grand Canyon and there is no evidence of horizontal movement. Grinding Supergroup layers into tiny pebbles doesn't help your problem with the disappearing cubic miles of rock anyway, since turning rock into pebbles does not affect volume.Second, the reason you claimed horizontal movement is because of the Supergroup tilting. There is no Supergroup at the New Madrid fault, and therefore no Supergroup tilting. First, if the Paleozoic layers were already there when the faulting occurred then the faults would extend up into the Paleozoic layers. They don't, so the Paleozoic layers were not there when the faulting occurred. The Reelfoot Rift (the name of the fault system) occurred 750 MYA during the breakup of Rodinia. The Paleozoic layers weren't deposited until a couple hundred million years later. Second, what the diagram does indicate is that the Paleozoic layers were already there when the uplift occurred. You posted no images, but there are both convex and concave layers. The concave layers are nearest to the surface and formed as part of the region's river basin which eroded downward into the convex Paleozoic layers beneath, then filled in with sediments later. The river basin layers are less than five million years old. This scenario is not supported by any evidence.Anyway, there you have it, buried faults that must have occurred, in your scenario, during the Flood.--Percy

quote:

---

At 11:50 or so he's saying that the Laramide Orogeny...lifted up the land WITHOUT TILTING IT

---

That's at about 13:40 I think

They make a big difference to my theory of how the canyon formed.

First let's set the location context. This is Point Hansbrough, and it's outside the canyon proper. It's in a section of the Colorado River known as Marble Canyon that extends from Lee's Ferry in the north down to where the Little Colorado joins, which is where the Grand Canyon actually begins. Here's a map to help you place it - all the controls should work, and you can also open the location in a full window by clicking on "View larger map": Marble Canyon is certainly not as deep as the Grand Canyon, but it's still pretty deep, I think around 2500 feet, nearly half a mile. Actually the land slowly rose (the uplift of the Colorado Plateau) and the river gradually eroded down. As has been explained many, many times, rapidly flowing water cannot meander. I don't think it's either obvious or well known. What is the reasoning that seems obvious to you? The reason the canyon is wider at the top than at the bottom is that the higher above the canyon floor the longer the canyon face has been exposed to the forces of erosion.--Percy

Here is a flat sheet of water flowing across a flat plain. Please point out the meanders for us: --Percy

So I saw it to the end. I kept having the feeling I'd seen it before; maybe parts of it showed up somewhere else, or maybe I did see it before but it must have been quite a while ago before I had the opinions I have now as fully worked out.Anyway. I don't buy the erosion theory to explain the great width of the canyon. Just a way to avoid the obvious explanation of the Flood it seems to me.The part about the lake as the possible cause of the canyon was interesting simply because it is so similar to some creationists' theories about how the canyon formed, by the draining of a large lake left standing after the Flood, called Hopi Lake in that case. same basic situation as Lakes Missoula and Lahontan and I forget the others offhand, also very large lakes left standing after the Flood and eventually draining. I think it's a reasonable interpretation but I like my own better. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Meanders don't form from sheets of water, they form from streama running across flat areas which I pretty clearly said more than once the sheet would have split into.

Elevation matters. Water doesn't flow uphill. Your scenario requires water to flow uphill. Therefore your scenario is wrong.Here's the image RAZD posted in an earlier message showing elevations. It isn't too bright, and you don't need to read any of the wording. All you need to know is that the darker green (the regions outlined in black) indicates higher elevations: The blue line is the Colorado River, and it flows directly through the elevated regions. That's not possible in your flood scenario - water would have flowed around the elevated regions.The reason that today's Colorado River flows through the elevated regions is because the Colorado existed before these regions were uplifted. Gradual uplift was accompanied by gradual downcutting of the river into the uplifting landscape. The canyon is deepest in the region of greatest elevation, because that's where the Colorado had to downcut the most.--Percy