I found a basic stratigraphy presentation that purports to explain how the sedimentary rocks get there in the first place, which is something I've needed to find out, and it's just as unconfincingly as I expected it to be. Sediment is carried by various means from a source such as an eroding mountain. how the mountain produced a single sediment is not explained. And then it is said that the sediment is eroded or disturbed in some way, although the fact is that there is not a hint of a shred of an iota of such disturbance in a single layer of sedimentary rock to bee be seen anywhere that I've seen. What is seen is blocks of strata broken up after it was all in place. And the disturbance is on the surface, not within the layer itself.
They are misled by the fact that much of the existing visible strata are in fact broken up and they misinerpret the erosion or other disturbance seen on its surface to the time period of the layer itself that is exposed. So they interpret the tectonic upheaval thta caused the Gret Unconformity at the based of the Grand Canyon to the precambrian time period, before the layers were built up that can be seen in the exposed walls of the canyon itself.
I spend a lot of time demonstrating from the craosss section of the Grand Staircase to Grand canyon area that there isn't a hint of disturbance shown to any individual layer of rock, but there is massive disturbance after it is all laid down. If there is no disturvance to the individual layers then how tcan they represent time perdios of millions of years on this very active planet? Whether at the bottom of the sea or at the surface of the land or even buried under some depth of land ther is no way they could have formed slowly over time whether millions or thousands or tends of years without being subjected to all kinds of disbturbances.
but they aren't. And I suppose that is acknolwedged for the Grand Canyon area, but not in other places swhere the strata are not preserved in such pristine condition but broken up and twited and so on. however, even in those places a core thrust deep into the land turns up the same kind of layers undisturbed over thousands of square miles. Still if not all thelayers are present they , the scientists I mean, interpret disbturances in relation to whatever part of the column is present at a given location. this is because of their assumptions beult on their dating methods of millions of years. They assume gradual deposition of the sediments so if say a rock of devonian age is exposed soemwshere and ther is a volcanic dike connected with it the volcano is said to have occurred in that time period. And so on.
I do think the absolutely undisturbed appearance of the very deep block of layers on that Grand Canoyon cross section is itself evidence that there was never any disturbacnce whatever during any so called time period. Or it would be inm evidence there as everywhere else. There is no volcano that disturbed the edevonian layer in that area so if it seems to be associated with the devonian somewhere else that is an illusion, it's just that the layers were broken off at that level and so was the dike.
I know I'm awfully cocksure of myself for a nonscientist but that's whthe way it is, I know I've got this right and Im slso sure I'm not going to be able to get it across to anyone who is the captive of the prevailing theory. I say I know that but of course I hope it's not ture.
Anyway, her's what I think happened. I have some of this in agreement with othe creationists bur a loft of it is my own. Most creationists accept the rpevailing idea for instance that the Great Unconformity at the base of the Grand Canyon was there before the strata above it were laid down. this despite the fact that there are layers of sedimentary rock beneath the grand Canyon ajust the same as above it, and ther is really no way to explain the strata at all except by identical processes. You can't say the strata from the Cambrian to the Permian were laid down by the FDlFlood of Noah but not those beneath the Canbrian or above it. Theyh are clearly all formed in exactly the same way whatever that way is.
So I pondered te angular unconformity for awhite a while. I looked at the one at Siccar POint for some time, and many others that you an find on the internet. The standard interpretation is that a certain number of layers were laid down and then a tectonic formce folded them. Then a long time elapsed during which the upper part of the folds were eroded away and smoothed down, and then the enxt layer was deposited horizontally on top of it. And all the rest if any after that in their own time of millions of years per each.
the problem wi this idea in the Grand Canyon is that the strata rise up over the Great Unconformity in a mounded shape and that is not how strata are laid down. They are laid down perfectly horizontal and flat and would not smoothly slimb over even such a gentle slope, let alone a whole stack of them. Yet this is the prevailitng tgheory. they think the unconformity itself is what is left of a great mountain rancge, or some think that. At least it was there a long time before the next layer was laid down, and it had to be eroded flat before that happened.
Looks pretty obvious to me that the strata were all there already and then the great unconformity occurred as a result of the tectonic forme, which was powerful enough to push up the entire stack of strata immediateloy above it. Look at the cross section. That's how it looks and it makes perfect sense.
And at the very top of that mounded area there would have been a great deal of strain so that I theorize that cracks developed in the upper layers and broke them up down to the Permian layer which is the current rim of the Grand Canyon. It was this cracking that opened up the canyhon itself and is the bcause of the canyon.
Since I believe the strata were all laid down by Noah's flood, I think of this has happeneding at the very end of the Flood while the water was still fully covering the earth. Some great upheaval ocurred at that point that began the processes that caused the Flood waters to drain, perhaps a lowering of the sea floor as some creationists have suggested. There had to be some way for the waters to recede, something had to happen to craete somewhere for the water to go. And some sort of great upheaval deep in the earth would be a reasonable guess.
So the upheaval slamemed into the lower strata and forced the pushing up of the Great Unconformtiy which caused strain at the very top of the geological column, cracking open the layers that started breaking up into chunks and falling int to the cracks to carve out the canyon as the flood was reeding.
The Grand Staircaes to the north on that same cross section is also created at that same time. The land was pushed up there shown at the far left and the strata broke off in the stepwise fashion that created the staircase effect. Those layers climb above the Permian which is the rim of the Grand Canyon, all the way up toto recnet time. they include the cinosuar layers, the triassic, jurassic, cretacious and then the mammals and modern flora and fauna abogve that.
One clue that all this occurred after all the strata were in place is the magma rising up through the entire depth of the strata on the vfarleft of the cross section, all the way from the bottom, beneath the lefvelo f the grand Canyoh tot he very top. This volcano obvoiusly occurred after all wer e in place because it penetrates the entire stack from bottom to top.
That volcano and the Great Unconformity under the Grand Canyon seem to me to be clear evidence that the y were part of the same massive disturbance that occurred right after the strata were laid down and at thee very end of the Flood, causing it to recende3 and breaking up strata over the canyon area.
I also think this upheaval was worldwide. That is was the breaking up of the continentns, the beginning of the tectonic movements that separated the continewnts which ad prviously been all in one great continent which is alled Pangaea. Of course I reject all the timing customarily given to it. I think the continents started to break up and move apart, the Atlantic ridge was the main line of this separation in that part of the world, causing the Americas to move apart from Europe and Africa which of course Wegener eventually identified as having once been connected, evidenced by their fossils as well as the shape of the land, the shorelines that match so well.
So I realized I had a different idea about tht Great Unconformity and about Angular Unconformties unconformities altogether. So my theory is that every angular unconformity found anywehre on the planet was formed tat this time. the massive tectonic movement shook up the entire planet , borke up the recnetly formed strata everywhere, twisted it in some places, updended broekn up parts of it as in the british iseles and strewed them across the entire eisland. Also in the state of Tennessee. And no doubt wmany other places.
The moutnains were all formed or at least begun at this time, the Appalachians and the Alps being clearly folded accordian wise like the borrom parts of angular unconformtiies, the Himalayas and the rockies being more abruptly thrust upward and broken off more sharply. but all caused by the same tetonic event that was worldwide. The volcanoes too wer all triggered at this time, all those in the path of land being pushed over them anway.
When I proposed some parts of theas ideas on the EvC formum I got objectsionas about how such activity would cause so much heat the planet couldn't sustain it, Noah and family couldn't have survied and so on and so forth. Especialy since I think the continents tstarte dourt spearating at a rae must faster than is now occurring, I forgot what I calculated, a matter of feet per some very short period of time.
As I ponsdered all this, God helping me I know, or even leading me as far as I know, I realized that the Flood itself had begun with the breaking up of the water camopy indicated to have been put in place at the creation over the earth which would have kept it warm and moist and made it very lush and green. this iw aht broke up with the rain began. It had never rained before but then the whole thing just collapsed and it rained all over the earth for fort days and forty nights. A thte same time something deep in the ocean broke up , the foundaints of the deep, and the flood roase to a great height in a matter of months.
So that canopy of moisture would have been gone by the end of the flood and the planet would have been exposed to cold outser apaced as a result. So I figure that whever headt wqas generated by all the activity of the tectonic movementg and the volcanoes was rapidly dissipated into the into that speace tsince there was no layer of greenhouse gasses there to impede it.
This would have brought on an ice age. I figure that is when the eatrth became smowball earth as someone dubbed it. And this one idce age, there has only been one over the last forty five hundred years since the flood, has been advancin and retreating little by little, more retrating than advancing until we now have the warming that is getting called Climeate Change and blamed on humanity rather than these natural forces.l
Oh and metors would have been pounding the earth and the other planets during this upheaval which must have affected the entire solar system so that the iridium that is taken to be the cevidence of the detero that killed the dinocasuares was just one of many parts of the great upheaval that occurred athte end of the Flood.
Noah and family must have been fairly well protected in the ark stuck on the side of Ararat durin gall this walthough they must have been arearware of earthquakes and asmokyh atmosphere and so on and so forth. But the open sky would have dissipated the smoke. But they woudl have had to cope wit h the cold now. And I suppoe that's whast they did. Although perhaps there are climat e cidfferences in different part os fht eearth in spit of all this to be taken into account.
I think all this lays out the work o future scientists if theyu would lonly come to their senses adn see that something like this iw hat must have ahappeneed, and that were aawe are living int he end part of the world ravaged by the Flood and subject to disease and death as a result of the Fall.
Added laterr: Ididn't explain how the angular unconformity gets created. I ifigure that the main force of the tectonic push came from the idea and buckled the strata from the side rather than beneath. It buckled beneath some depth of flat lying strata above it. Ififigure the two sections would hav split at some point of weakness where the great force from the side below would push something heavy underneath a layer of a certain texture that would allow it to slide fairly easily beneath it. I picture this as somewhat akin to the parlor trick of pulling a tablecloth out from under a complete table setting without disturbin g the dishes and other things on the surface. But it had to be that the force beneath was very sltrong and from the side and the upper strata ere very heavy and there wouas some point of eakness between the two that was a at a balance point between the two forces.
I also want to asdd that after having listented back to this post as I always try to do using the read aloud function, as ususal of course I recognize my own many typos, but Ialso suspect the usual intrference from some external influence as some of the words are just not something I couwould ahve created even making my usual mistakes. Just have to keep reporteing it because it's very disturbing that someone else would be interfering with my writing, or even a program maybe that could attched to my blog.
Friday Oct eighten. Been trying to find out the dates assigned to the formation of the monuments in Monument Valley and all I get are stories about how it's been used in western movies and how it is a tourist attractions and so on. In a related video about Arches National Park in Utah it was said to be hundreds of thousands of years dold but is that the date it started forming into those shapes or the date when the rock was originally formed or what or am I asking the wrong equestion. Anyway, even if it' s only been say a hundred thousand years since those formtions and the buttes in Monument Valley were exposed in their current form, the erosion that fllowed should have destroyed a mlot more of them than it has it seems to me. A million years should ahve reduced the whole thing to a pile of dust. It seems to me. In which case they make a good argument for a young earth as does the arguments I make from the cross section of the grand canyon area I talk about above.
La Late Sunday Night
there is a rest of the story for the biological arguments too, meaning the overall scenario I have in mind based on the biblical accounts that build on the evidence given. The evidence in both the geological and the biological arenas as aimed against evolution but of course it supports the biblical account at the same time. If the earth is not biolions of years old but much younger then there is room for the biblical Flood to explain it all. If you can't get to a new species from a given genome that supports the biblical account of the creation of separate Kinds. I use the term Species fror these Kinds and at some point the terminology is going to have to a be completely cleared up I suppose, but anywaythe rest of the story in this case concerns the Fall and the effect of the Flood on the genetic situation of living things. I'm not going to spell it out here, it's probably as lengthy as what I did above anyway, I just want to point out that there is a symmetry involved.
