Summations Only

I'm a born and raised Unitarian, and nothing you're saying about the Unitarians is true. In fact, nothing you say about almost anything is true. You seem to be here to cast unsubstantiated allegations at all and sundry things you don't like.Unitarianism is a very common compromise religion when Jews marry non-Jews, which was the case with my parents. My mother was Lutheran, my father Jewish. They met during WWII at a dance organized by a women's group in Washington D.C. My father was a lieutenant on a destroyer escort and my mother was a secretary at the Pentagon.Unitarianism is almost dead today. As DWise1 mentioned, the Unitarians merged with the Universalists over a half century ago, and it's nearly killed Unitarianism. The union wasn't total, some purely Unitarian churches still exist today, but most have become Unitarian-Universalist churches. The Universalist side is dominant by far, and you can sit through an entire sermon without hearing the word God once or even anything remotely spiritual.It was several decades ago listening to the Reverend Dorothy Kimball at the Unitarian Church in Hudson, MA, that was the last time I heard a purely Unitarian sermon. It was Easter and the sermon was wonderful. She's moved on and we've moved on, and where we live now there is a Unitarian-Universalist church where you can hear sermons about women's rights and saving the whales and saving the environment, but nary a word about God. We attend the local Congregational Church now.Dorothy, I know you occasionally search for mentions of yourself on the Internet, so if you find this I again say hello and send fond wishes.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

When sampling is random then percentage doesn't matter, only the sample size. For example, a sample size of around 1700 or 1800 is enough to provide a confidence factor of around 95% when checking electronic circuit test coverage, whether the circuit is a million elements or a billion.[AbE]
The example I should have used is for elections. The same reason is why most election surveys query between 1500 and 2000 people, regardless whether the electorate size is a few million people or a few hundred million.
[/AbE]When sampling isn't random then the answer is much more complicated, and there *are* non-random factors in our sampling of some types of fossils. For example, we have very few fossils from upland regions because they don't experience net deposition but net erosion, so fossils from those regions are very unlikely to be preserved.--PercyEdited by Percy, : AbE.

What it is that you're sampling makes no difference. All that matters is that the sampling is random, in which case you only need a sampling size of 1700 or 1800. I did also provide you the example of elections, where election surveys query between 1500 and 2000 people regardless of the size of the electorate.--Percy

You asked pretty much the exact same question in Message 143 of the Genesis "kinds" may be Nested Hierarchies. thread. Are you a troll?--Percy

I know it might seem that way, but as long as the sample is random you only need a sample size of 1700 to 1800 to achieve a confidence factor of 95%. The size of the electorate does not matter as long as the sampling is random. Predicting elections has other sources of error, such as making sure the sample is random and determining who is likely to vote, but the statistical math behind what I’m telling you is solid.Percy

Don't forget that the flood also sorted fossils so that there's increasing difference from modern forms with increasing depth.There's a new technique for analyzing fossils that pieces together the remains of proteins from millions and millions of years ago, and when enough data is in it should show that the flood also sorted by increasing protein difference.Isn't it great - every thread can be turned into a flood discussion!--Percy

Right you are, there is no fossil order. It's all just random. I'm with you. Do you think we should just declare this true, or should we say something about evidence?I have a similar question about the evolutionist claim of increasing radiometric age with increasing depth. Should we just declare it false, or should we say something about evidence? Same question again. Should we just declare this so, or should we say something about evidence? Yes, of course, I give you full credit, wouldn't have it any other way. Discussing the flood in the Biological Evolution forum instead of the Geology and the Great Flood forum - brilliant. And then introducing genetics in Message 266 in a thread about fossils - sheer genius!--Percy

Right, exactly, the flood deposited the fossils, so evolutionists can't use them to prove evolution. But catch me up here - are we just declaring this so, or do we have evidence? Ah, that's great, so that means we have lots of observations for the fossils being deposited by the flood. Good argument. All claims are falsifiable, so radiometric dating can't counter all the flood evidence. Strategizing here, should we just refer to the flood evidence or describe it?I see that in Message 662 you hit them with Bible evidence, and not giving them chapter and verse was exceptional - keep 'em guessing.--Percy

I don't think there was sufficient response to this message. Edge only responded incredulously that you believed this is what people have been saying. Taq only addressed a small part of your message in his Message 792, and you didn't reply. I'll attempt to reply to all of your message. Edge or someone will hopefully correct me where I'm wrong. Dinosaurs lived in many different types of environments, but your scenario seems focused on a region dense with vegetation, a jungle of sorts, and where soil is an important component. Soil is complex and has many contributors in addition to decayed vegetation. Certainly it includes decayed organic matter, but a very important contributor is the sedimentary particles resulting from weathering and erosion that enter the region through a variety of transport mechanisms. Calling it compost isn't accurate, since compost consists only of decayed organic matter. It's soil. The level of the land will rise only if it is a region of net sedimentation, not because of "accumulating compost." It's important to understand that the level of the land rises not because of the accumulating remains of dead life (though it does make a contribution), but because of net sedimentation.Regions with dinosaur fossils were definitely regions of net sedimentation, which means they were lowlands, which is why our knowledge of dinosaurs only extends to those that inhabited lowland regions. Dinosaurs living in upland regions did not become part of the fossil record because upland regions are areas of net erosion, not sedimentation, and so nothing is buried. Again, not compost. And a region of net sedimentation becomes less and less an area of net sedimentation with increasing elevation. If the weight of the sediments is sufficient the region may gradually sink as sedimentation occurs, and perhaps ground level will remain at roughly the same elevation above sea level. That's only one of the possibilities. Another possibility is that an increasing elevation might bring sedimentation to a halt. Another possibility is that geologic forces and processes could cause the region to gradually sink a large amount and gradually accumulate sediments to a great depth, enough to cause sufficient pressure to turn the sedimentary layers to rock. Again, the elevation of the landscape cannot grow too high without causing the region to become one of net erosion, which would mean no more sedimentation and no more occasional burial events. Yes, the accumulation of sediments and subsidence of the region that causes former landscapes to become more and more deeply buried will cause great pressure, and possibly heat, too, which in turn causes the lithification of the sediments into rock and the fossilization of any preserved life. If you include my modifications, yes, that's what we're all picturing. I'm not sure why the question about sandstone and limestone, because sandstone is a marine or desert layer while limestone is a marine layer, and you seemed to be picturing a rich jungle. Are you wondering how sandstone and limestone layers could come to overlie a layer containing dinosaur fossils? If so, then the answer is that subsidence could cause the region to eventually sink beneath the waves, and once submerged any additional sediments would be marine. The particular type of sediments would depend upon the distance from shore, with sandstone being coastal, limestone being shallow seas some considerable distance from shore. Lowland regions of net sedimentation are flat. Even if the region was originally "lumpy", erosion and weathering will wear the higher portions down, and sediments will accumulate in the lowest spots first and fill them in. Any remaining "lumpiness" will be recorded in the sedimentary record, and many images of things like monadnocks and riverbeds have been provided over the years. If buried to a sufficient depth for the sediments to lithify and the organic remains to fossilize, sure. If you incorporate my additions and modifications to what you said, you will get the stratigraphic column from these types of geologic processes.--Percy

Yes. Were you able to understand the comments on your thinking? I think the key points were:

• The level of the land will rise only if it is a region of net sedimentation, not because of "accumulating compost." It's important to understand that the level of the land rises not because of the accumulating remains of dead life (though it does make a contribution), but because of net sedimentation.
  ​
• Regions with dinosaur fossils were definitely regions of net sedimentation, which means they were lowlands, which is why our knowledge of dinosaurs only extends to those that inhabited lowland regions. Dinosaurs living in upland regions did not become part of the fossil record because upland regions are areas of net erosion, not sedimentation, and so nothing is buried.
  ​
• A region of net sedimentation becomes less and less an area of net sedimentation with increasing elevation. If the weight of the sediments is sufficient the region may gradually sink as sedimentation occurs, and perhaps ground level will remain at roughly the same elevation above sea level. That's only one of the possibilities. Another possibility is that an increasing elevation might bring sedimentation to a halt. Another possibility is that geologic forces and processes could cause the region to gradually sink a large amount and gradually accumulate sediments to a great depth, enough to cause sufficient pressure to turn the sedimentary layers to rock.
  ​
• The elevation of the landscape cannot grow too high without causing the region to become one of net erosion, which would mean no more sedimentation and no more occasional burial events.
  ​
• The accumulation of sediments and subsidence of the region that causes former landscapes to become more and more deeply buried will cause great pressure, and possibly heat, too, which in turn causes the lithification of the sediments into rock and the fossilization of any preserved life.
  ​
• Lowland regions of net sedimentation are flat. Even if the region was originally "lumpy", erosion and weathering will wear the higher portions down, and sediments will accumulate in the lowest spots first and fill them in. Any remaining "lumpiness" will be recorded in the sedimentary record, and many images of things like monadnocks and riverbeds have been provided over the years.

--Percy

Hi Faith,About your quoting, there was a time when you were getting the indentation reversed, then you learned to get it right, I assume by using the "Peek Mode" radio button that is displayed just above the message you're replying to. Now you're once again getting the quote indentation reversed, which makes it tough to follow your messages, and which makes it more work for you because of the extra typing instead of just placing the [qs] codes around a cut-n-paste. Could you please return to quoting with correct indentation? In this message I'll reverse your reversed quoting so that it is correct.This is a reply to your Message 875 and Message 876 to Edge.Replying to Message 875: Here in New Hampshire we used to have a famous geological formation in the White Mountains called the Old Man in the Mountain. Here's what it used to look like: It was so famous it has remained an iconic symbol of New Hampshire for over a hundred and fifty years. It's a mainstay of New Hampshire license plates, and it appears on the reverse of the New Hampshire quarter dollar: Alas, nothing is forever, and in 2003 cracks that had been appearing for years due to the forces of weathering and erosion finally took their toll, and the Old Man in the Mountain now looks like this: The missing rock is now at the bottom of Franconia Notch. It's kind of sad, really. When I was young we used to drive by the Old Man in the Mountain every Sunday on our way to the Unitarian Church.But that's what Edge means when in his reply in Message 879 he says that gravity caused the large boulder of quartzite to come to rest on the Tapeats beach below, once the forces of erosion and weathering caused it to break off the Shinumo hills above. What evidence of thrusting are you looking at? What evidence of the horizontal movement of rocks are you looking at? You appear to be ignoring evidence instead of accepting what it tells you. I'm surprised that Edge thinks you have a basic understanding of Walther's Law. You still think of Walther's Law as what happens when water rapidly inundates a landform. That's not Walther's Law. The actions of Walther's Law take a great deal of time because they require the geological processes of erosion, weathering, transport, and sedimentation. The results of these processes take a great deal of time to accumulate to the point where they register in the geological record.The layers in the geological record for which Walther's Law played a role were not laid down sequentially. They were laid down simultaneously, just at different distances from shore. At the same time that a sandstone layer is being deposited at or near shore, mudstone layers are being deposited further from shore, limestone layers yet even further from shore, and pelagic layers out in the deep sea far from shore. With the gradually changing elevation of the land the shoreline will move gradually either inland or out to sea, and the type of deposit at a given location (sand, mudstone, limestone, pelagic) will change depending upon the new distance from shore.That land slopes down to the sea and then continues sloping down once beneath the sea guarantees that sedimentary layers following Walther's Law cannot be precisely horizontal. They will follow the slope of the land. The processes of Walther's Law cannot be impossible since that is what is observed to be happening today at shorelines all around the world. What you're calling a "disturbance" at the interface between the Grand Canyon Supergroup and the Tapeats is actually, in proper terminology, an unconformity, and if you now agree that the unconformity was caused by erosion, which requires it being at the surface, then you have to give up on your earlier idea that the Supergroup tilted while buried, something that is not supported by any evidence. I guess that presenting evidence that shows your arguments untenable could be characterized as trashing them, but there is nothing unfair about it. Evidence is the currency of debate here. If your arguments do not stand up in the face of evidence then you lose the debate.Edge is pointing out that a "strong force from the side" would create folds and fractures in the Supergroup's rocks, and that the absence of these folds and fractures means there could have been no "strong force from the side". He also said that there is "no fault, no thrust and no abrasion. It is an erosional unconformity."A "strong force from the side" could not tilt the Supergroup strata while buried. Tectonic forces that tilt strata would have affected the overlying layers (the Tapeats and above) in the same way as the Supergroup. As has been pointed out many times before, tilting buried layers isn't possible as it requires many cubic miles of strata to simply disappear.Replying to your Message 876: If you go back to your original point in Message 840, the word "local" never even appears, nor in any of your other messages in this recent dialog with Edge: You don't say "local", but you do refer to the Tapeats and the Redwall Limestone as covering "most of North America." As Edge points out, the Tapeats is not continuous across the continent. You can't just look at the Tapeats in the Grand Canyon region and declare that it has the same qualities everywhere else that it does there. It thickens and thins and in some places pinches out completely. You wouldn't call a table top that thickens and thins and has holes and varying elevations above the floor as flat across its entire extent - why would you describe the Tapeats that way?Both the Tapeats and the Redwall Limestone exist only in the western US, specifically in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Utah. In many locations the strata are flat for great extents, and in many locations they're not. The structure of strata vary according to what tectonic forces the region has experienced. How can you describe Edge as having denied and denied and denied that there is "any flatness or tabularity at all" when you just quoted him saying, "Sure, the layers are tabular." What Edge actually said was that the layers are flat in the Colorado Plateau region, but that that isn't true in other regions. You basically just said the same thing: "The main difference with those in the GC/GS is that so many of them remained flat for such a depth while strata in other locations are often found tectonically distorted, buckled, bent, twisted." You're creating your own futility and abuse. If Modulous has already described it, why do you need Edge to describe it again? As he indicates in his reply in Message 878, Edge is differentiating between the actual definition of a landscape and your own definition of landscape. I'm not actually clear on how either of your are defining "landscape," some clarification would be helpful. As Edge points out, strata are not snapshots of what lived in that location. The odds of any life dying in circumstances that encourage preservation is small. Fossil vegetation is extremely rare. Fossils of small creatures are less rare but still very rare. Fossils of larger creatures are rare. The fossils found in any strata are only a partial picture of what lived there. Of course a strata will predominantly have fossils of life that inhabited the region, but it is possible for life outside the region to be carried downstream and become buried in a lowland area or even in coastal waters. Like Edge, I'm unable to make sense of this question. Are you asking what forces are responsible for creating the various types of habitats that can exist? If so, how is that relevant to the discussion? I think the processes responsible for creating habitats would differ between land and sea. For example, there are no rivers in the sea. Erosion is not much of a factor beneath the waves. Water doesn't flow down submerged mountains. There's no rain. And again, how is this relevant to the discussion?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Spelling.

Not quote order. Quote indentation. If you cut-n-paste the quoted text using Peek Mode it all just works itself out automatically. The Shinumo includes both quartzite and sandstone, and everything erodes eventually. Here's our old friend: Just for reference, here's a link to the high resolution version:It's hard to read "Shinumo" in the low-res version, but what looks like a little lump sticking up into the Tapeats and Bright Angle Shale beneath the Grand Canyon is the Shinomu Quartzite layer. At one time this was ocean front with cliffs of sandstone and quartzite. Quartzite boulders would occasionally break off the cliffs and tumble down to the beach below or perhaps crash into the shallow waters offshore. This is incorrect. That lump of Shinumo Quartzite was once a long stretch of island in a great sea. The island's coastline would have consisted of cliffs and beaches. What do you mean by overview? Do you mean your own summary description, and is that what follows? If so, then how can you have an overview that "dictates the horizontal movement and the thrusting"? Only evidence can dictate what happened. As Edge has pointed out, and I reexplained in my previous message, the Tapeats is only roughly flat and certainly not horizontal. It gets thicker and thinner and in some places is completely pinched out. The Shinumo Quartzite did not penetrate up into the Paleozoic strata. Rather, after the Supergroup became exposed at the surface and was exposed to the forces of erosion the Shinumo, because it was harder, it eroded more slowly than the other Supergroup layers. That's what happens to harder rock or at least rock that is capped by harder rock - it sticks up from the surrounding landscape, like Monument Valley: These buttes are sticking up from the valley floor because they eroded more slowly than the surrounding landscape, not because they were thrust up from below. I think what you're saying is that the Paleozoic strata were pushed up by the Supergroup, and that only the Shinomu Quartzite layer penetrated the Tapeats. This has at least a couple problems. First, much of the elevated region is underlain by granite, not the Supergroup, so it must have been the entire region that included both the granite and the Supergroup that was pushed upward. It wasn't just the Supergroup that was pushed upward. There is no known way for just the Supergroup but not the granite to exert an upward force anyway.And second, your view that the Supergroup strata were at one time parallel to the Paleozoic strata and then were later tilted is problematic, as mentioned earlier. It requires cubic miles of rock to simply disappear. Just look at the above image of the Grand Staircase and extend the lines between the supergroup layers to the right into the Paleozoic layers. That represents the original extent of the Supergroup layers. If all that rock was originally present beneath the Paleozoic layers, then where did it go when the Supergroup layers tilted? Since it is nowhere to be found, and since cubic miles of rock can't simply evaporate into thin air, this cannot be what happened.And third, any upward force on the Supergroup, even in the form of an uneven force (meaning more on the right side then the left in the diagram, i.e., a tilting force), would be transmitted to the Paleozoic layers also. Just as the granite pushing upwards would have transmitted that force to the Bass formation at the bottom of the Supergroup, the Bass formation would have transmitted the force to Hakatai, which in turn would have transmitted it to the Shinumo, and in turn to the Dox, and in turn to the Tapeats, and in turn to the Bright Angel Shale, and so forth right up to the Kaibab at the top.This is what we see in the uplift of the Grand Staircase region. All the strata from the basement granite to topmost layers were uplifted. It isn't possible for only deeply buried strata to be uplifted - uplift of deeply buried strata couldn't fail but to uplift the layers above them. It isn't a "piece of evidence" or even evidence at all, just faulty thinking. The Supergroup was tilted long before the overlying layers were deposited, and it was uplifted right along with all the other layers in the Grand Canyon region. You can say that when you have a scenario that doesn't violate a basic law of nature, the law of conservation of matter. Sedimentation tends to fill in the lowest areas first and hence tends to level out a landscape, but unless the slope is too great it will also tend to conform to a landscape. The strata are only mostly flat and approximately horizontal. The more closely the strata are examined the less flat they appear, and varying strata thickness makes horizontality impossible. A quarter mile is a very, very short distance geologically. The sea could easily have eroded the Shinumo back a quarter mile from the time when the boulder fell into the Tapeats. The tilting of the Supergroup tells us that long before there were any Paleozoic layers there was uplift in the region (perhaps even a mountain building event) that tilted the layers. The tilted uplifted region was gradually eroded away until only what we see now was left. The region subsided gradually taking it beneath the waves and resulting in the deposit of marine layers on top of it, beginning with the Tapeats, Bright Angel Shale and Muav Limestone, which were likely deposited simultaneously though not in the same location. While the Tapeats was being deposited relatively close to shore, the Bright Angel Shale was being deposited further away from shore, and the Muav Limestone was being deposited in shallow waters far from shore. As the coastline moved inland the locations where these layers were being deposited moved with it. What is happening geologically isn't open to interpretation. What we see happened in the strata we can see happening today. You may be unable to admit this to yourself, but that doesn't lend any validity to your "interpretation." Denigrating the clear evidence of geology doesn't make it disappear. Why can't Walther's Law apply to a rapid rise of water? Because Walther's Law requires the slow geologic processes of erosion, weathering and transport to bring the sedimentary products to the sea (the lowest point) where they are differentiated by particle size into sand, mud, and pelagic sediments and sink to the bottom according to particle size/density and water energy. Inundating a landscape with flood water does not produce differentiated sedimentary deposits. Floods everywhere just leave mud behind. The 2011 Japan tsumami left only a thin layer of mud behind. The Tapeats strata represents a former coastal area. As subsidence brought the coastline further and further inland, the area on the immediate coast that was beach moved with it. If the Shinomu Quarzite boulder found in the Tapeats first came to rest on a beach it would have eventually found itself submerged and buried in sand as the land continued subsiding and the coastline continued moving inland. Again, the Tapeats represents coastal deposits. Most of the layers in this region are marine. The region rose above and sank beneath the waves at least a couple of times while the Paleozoic layers were being deposited. No, Walther's Law describes a geologic process that occurs over long periods of time as land sediments are transported to sea coasts as coastlines move both inland (subsidence or rising sea levels) and out to sea (uplift or lowering sea levels). Floods do not strip landscapes down to bedrock and then deposit sorted sediments with sorted fossils and sorted radiometric ages. This would be incorrect. Erosion is the gradual wearing away of soil and rock by the forces of rain, wind and flowing water. Erosion can only occur where there is rain, wind or flowing water, which occurs almost exclusively on the surface, the only exceptions being some caves. Erosion cannot occur between strata. That would require flowing water. Underground water exists in aquifers. An aquifer is permeable rock through which water can (slowly) flow. Water in an aquifer cannot erode the rock nor carry sediment. The rock beneath the ground is not moving around except under special circumstances like earthquakes. As described above and in numerous other messages, the tilting of buried layers without affecting overlying layers and with no place for the missing cubic miles of rock to go is impossible. If in reality your scenario worked then you would have answers for the objections. Edge's observations involve evidence, while your "paradigm" is contradicted by the evidence.--Percy

No, that would be incorrect. Here's the diagram again: The tilting of the Supergroup layers, and the faults between the two sets of Supergroup layers making them into separate blocks, and the unconformity with the Paleozoic layers, all indicate that tectonic forces were at work before the Paleozoic layers were deposited. You didn't mention any evidence. What "photo after photo"? You haven't posted a single photo in this entire thread. It's not possible to tell what you're referring to. The implication of what? You haven't presented evidence or argument so far, and your position is contradicted by all the evidence and argument people have presented. Which you've ignored. You just keep declaring your position from scratch while ignoring what people say. By "whole stack" you mean from the Supergroup up to the Kaibab? The Supergroup was quite obviously "disturbed" (tilted and faulted) before the Paleozoic layers were deposited. You can't generalize what happened geologically in the Grand Staircase region to the entire planet. But people have described which Grand Canyon layers were eroded causing unconformities. Here's a list, including Supergroup layers, of some of the unconformities. I say "some" because I'm not sure I found them all:

• Kaibab Formation (unconformity between it and the overlying Moenkopi, which isn't present at the Grand Canyon)
• Toroweap Formation (unconformity between it and the overlying Kaibab Formation)
• Coconino Sandstone (unconformity between it and the overlying Toroweap Formation)
• Hermit Shale (unconformity between it and the overlying Coconino Sandstone)
• Supai Group (consists of four subgroups with a disconformity between each and with the overlying Hermit Shale)
• Redwall Formation (disconformity between it and the overlying Supai Group)
• Surprise Canyon Formation (disconformity between it and the overlying Supai Group and sometimes Surprise Canyon Formation)
• Temple Butte Limestone (disconformity between it and the overlying Redwall Limestone)
• Muav Limestone (disconformity between it and the overlying Temple Butte Limestone)
• Grand Canyon Supergroup (unconformity between it and the overlying Tapeats Sandstone)
• Nankoweap (disconformity between it and the overlying Chuar Group)

It seems that many strata in the Grand Canyon are topped by an unconformity. Maybe Edge can restore it. Which message was it? Erosion tends to flatten and even out a landscape, the exception being channeled water such as happens with streams and rivers, which are also recorded in the geological strata. What is it that you think erosion would do to the strata that isn't present at the Grand Canyon? I think you're saying that erosion wouldn't do whatever is in that Photobucket image that you don't describe. You need to provide more information.The layers of the Grand Staircase above the Kaibab are:

• Claron Formation (formerly called Wasatch) - sandstone, siltstone, claystone, shale
• Kaiparowits Formation - floodplains
• Waheap Formation - coastal sandstone
• Straight Lines Formation - rivers, swamps, lagoons, shorelines
• Tropic Shale - marine shale
• Dakota - marine sandstone
• Carmel - limestone
• Temple Cap - sandstone, siltstone, limestone, desert
• Navajo - sandstone
• Kayenta - sandstone, shale, limestone and floodplain
• Moenave - river, lake, floodplain
• Chinle - rivered land, wetland and eolian
• Moenkopi - marine sandstone

They're all coastal or marine. Coastal regions tend to be flat, like this shot of the New Hampshire coast: The strata vary in thickness, and the closer one looks the less straight and flat they look, but they are pretty straight and flat, just like most coastal regions and sea floors. First correct thing you've said. Also correct. Correct again, though "disturbed" isn't the right term. The region was uplifted and tilted.By the way, look at the extreme left of the diagram beneath Cedar City at the layer that has a big Roman Numeral V in it. That's the Claron layer. If you let your eyes roam upwards and to the right you can see the continuation of the Claron layer at Cedar Breaks. Note how the portion of the Claron layer on the left lies atop an angular unconformity where the layers below are tilted, while the portion of the Claron layer on the right lies atop the Kaiparowits Formation. The portion of the Claron layer on the left was deposited only after the underlying layers had been tilted and eroded flat.Question for Edge: How did it happen that layers on opposite sides of the Hurricane Fault are tilted in opposite directions? When you say "tectonic movement," are you referring only to the left side of the diagram or the whole diagram?And how do you figure simultaneity of the "tectonic movement" with "the splitting of the continents"? Assuming "it" refers to "tectonic movement," I'm again not sure if you're referring to the left side of the diagram or the whole diagram.Why do you think the "tectonic movement" was responsible for volcanism (of which there is not very much, at least not on the diagram), or even that they happened anywhere near the same point in time?And why do think it deformed strata "everywhere" rather than just in the areas where strata appear deformed?And why do you think the diagram represents a single period of tectonic movement rather than multiple ones? Again, why a single tectonic movement instead of multiple ones?And one more time, buried strata cannot be tilted without also tilting all the layers above.--Percy

Here's the diagram again for reference: I just looked up the Hurricane Fault to see if I could get some more details about it, and now I'm more confused than ever. The diagram is a north/south cross section looking in from the west. The diagram shows the Hurricane fault, so you'd think the fault must run east/west, but Wikipedia says it runs north/south. How can the diagram display a north/south running fault in a north/south cross section?I know the answer. Obviously the Hurricane Fault doesn't run precisely north/south, and so it does intersect with the diagram's north/south cross section, but unfortunately for me my visualization skills don't extend to these kinds of subtleties. I'm unable to extrapolate in my mind what the diagram's layers are doing behind the page (east) and above the page (west), and your explanation describes strata in terms of east and west. Anyway, I'll struggle on... Is the upthrust side to the right of the Hurricane Fault in the diagram? Why to the west? I understand about the original tilt, but I can't tell from the diagram whether the layers would be tilted upward or downward to the east. Which is it, and how did you figure that out? Not sure how to interpret "chopped them off." Leaving drag faulting aside, my main confusion is how the strata on opposite sides of the fault could have opposite tilts. It almost as if the region were uplifted centered roughly at where the Hurricane fault is now, then a large central portion of the uplifted region just disappeared, and what remained to the left and right of this central portion was somehow brought together at the Hurricane Fault.This is, of course, impossible, but what is shown in the diagram looks equally impossible. Is it possible that the diagram is inaccurate? Only a small extent of the layers to the left of the Hurricane Fault are shown. Could their tilt just be a greatly exaggerated representation of a dragging fault, while the dragging fault to the right of the Hurricane Fault was completely left out? But there could be no erosion of still-buried strata, and in the diagram there's no drag faulting of the buried layers to the right of the fault. Understood. So now I'll assume you're referring to the strata to the left of the Hurricane fault. But the strata to the left of the Hurricane fault are all buried - how could there have been any erosion? I don't understand this part, either. If the uplifted area was some miles to the left of the Hurricane Fault and off the diagram, why wouldn't those layers slope upward to the left?--Percy

Otherwise known as the evidence-based interpretation. You haven't presented any evidence. The diagram indicates more than one tectonic event. One tectonic event tilted the layers beneath Cedar City and Cedar Breaks. Another tectonic event tilted the layers of the Supergroup. Yet another tectonic event uplifted the Grand Canyon region, tilting the Paleozoic layers. There is no evidence or mechanism for rapid deposition of the geological strata. If by curve you mean the uplift of the Grand Canyon region, then this is wrong on a several counts. First, the vertical axis of the diagram is greatly exaggerated - the slope of the Paleozoic layers from the Chocolate Cliffs up to the Grand Canyon area is much less than on the diagram. Second, even if the slope were as shown, I proved a couple years ago that sediments have no trouble accumulating evenly on mild slopes, something that is intuitively obvious anyway. Third, the region had not yet been uplifted when the Paleozoic layers were deposited - it was usually submerged and fairly flat. I think everyone you're debating with is going to argue from an evidence-based persective. Really, you're done here? But you've already said as much a number of times. This is from your Message 705: And this is from Message 736: Adn this is from Message 769: And yet here you still are. Apparently not even you know what you're going to do.--Percy