Summations Only

Ah, okay. Not into my first cup of coffee yet...

Anyway, there is a little bit of a caveat here. To cover very steep topography, such as shown in the picture, it would either have to be the filling of a lake or very rapid sea level rise.

If the former, you would have spatially restricted deposits, such as the Green River Formation.If the latter, you would usually have erosion of the entire region closer to sea level, such as in places like coastal plains, so that total relief would be less and the area would be inundated more quickly. It is hard for me to imagine this topography being overrun by the sea without a whole lot of erosion first. Even the valleys here are quite high in elevation.

Oddly enough, I suppose, I don't start with any such premise, I am truly starting from observation of all those diagrams and pictures I've seen and they fit that scenario.

Eroding the lumpy surface flat enough for deposition to lay down neat horizontal layers that don't have to fill in the valleys is already beyond the possible (and if you can't see valleys in that diagram there's something wrong with your eyes), ...

... and such deposition could only happen by water anyway and where is that going to come from?

Oh I know: in millions of years we can count on ANYTHING we need to satisfy the theory.

Meanwhile we've got, in four diagrams so far (GC-GS, Great Britain cross section, Percy's of the Gulf of Mexico, and this one of Utah) what I've been calling the Geologic Column, all those layers that would have originally been stacked neatly and horizontally, obviously to a great depth in all those examples, probably in all cases even up to the Holocene level though that isn't apparent on this latest one or the one of Great Britain (just because they aren't labeled), still probably very close because that's a LOT of layers represented there. Anyway, four places where there was this original stack of horizontal layers that do customarily get labeled with time periods in the hundreds of millions, and after they are all laid down then and only then are they distorted: eroded, folded, sagging into a salt layer and so on.

There must be more out there. And you all just blithely imagine more layers getting laid down on top of this formation. I find that eyepoppingly ludicrous and don't see why you don't.

Right, you aren't going to get an angular unconformity here noway nohow.

Yup. No angular unconformity noway nohow.

I have asked you repeatedly for some kind of principle that requires deformation to occur in every location on earth. You have failed to do so.

But I really enjoy the depth of your argument and how you support your 'noway, nohow' statements.

Yes, any deposition SHOULD fill in the gaps but as a matter of fact angular unconformities do not fill in the gaps and dips and valleys. They are shown and interpreted to be deposited on surfaces that have eroded down almost completely flat -- with the exception of a bump or two perhaps such as the Shinumo quartzite.

No need in this case, you did it for me.

The principle would of course be that the layers were laid down in the Flood, after which tectonic, volcanic and other disturbances eroded and distorted the strata. What else?

There should be differences in how different regions were affected but there should be some evidence to show this pattern everywhere.

However, I'm focusing on finding EXAMPLES of where this has in fact occurred. Four so far. So far you've disputed it but haven't shown anything that contradicts it in reality.

Faith writes:But there is no intact stack any more, it's eroded, tilted, folded, there is no place to put your Lego that would build on the original stack that once was horizontal and climbed through all the time periods up to the one where you could put your Lego.

The diagram doesn't represent anything I see in the photograph.

Faith writes:Oh well, if you don't see why the ORIGINAL top is where the column has to continue building I guess all I can do is laugh.