Summations Only

quote:

---

I believe what I say.

---

Believing obvious falsehoods is hardly something to be proud of. It’s something that needs to be fixed.

quote:

---

I've lost interest in trying to prove any of it to you or anyone at EvC, I merely give my view in answer to the usual accusations and leave it at that

---

That’s your excuse. But we all know - even you- that you haven’t demonstrated it and can’t demonstrate it.

It is obvious to all that for some reason today you have dropped into full dodge mode. You should be using your messages to respond to the issues that have been raised, such as in my Message 1379, HereBeDragons' Message 1377, PaulK's Message 1385 (to which you posted two replies that addressed none of the issues), and Edges Message 1347 (to which you also posted a non-answer). But if all you can do is declare that you know you're right and that any other view is impossible while avoiding all evidence and rationale, how do you hope to convince anyone of anything but how dogmatic you are? If you can describe evidence that justifies your views then I'd love to hear it. It would also be helpful to see your comments on HereBeDragons' excerpts from creationist Whitmore's paper in Message 1378, and on Edge's comment that there is interfingering between some parts of the Coconino and the Hermit in Message 1263.--Percy

Please stop dodging and start addressing the issues people are raising.--Percy

Here is the Navajo Sandstone. How did the flood create that?

Wait... what does that have to do with anything?? I thought this discussion was only about the physical evidence not the Bible. My criticism was about how you handle physical evidence and draw conclusions that don't follow from the observations.HBD

You are asking too much of me. Half a dozen people raising a bunch of issues, some of you writing very long posts, no. Not to mention that they are often accusatory and sometimes totally off the wall.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This isn’t a race. Take your time. Research your answers to eliminate the impossible and implausible. Address all the questions. Don’t rely upon revelation for information. Develop reasoning to connect your evidence/observations to you conclusion. Take a day off. Take a few days off.Percy

BOGUS - From that information there is no way of telling which happened first. It could have been faulted and then tilted, or even faulted and tilted at the same time. Correct.And I side note concerning the "1 inch layer": I think Faith caught what I meant by "superficial dust" - Something that could be washed off the rock face, not a penetrative coloration. Maybe there is a damp zone at the top of the Hermit, that Coconino dust would stick to. Not likely, but who's to say from just looking at the photos we have available.Moose

No thank you, that's too much to ask. I have no reason to give that much attention to any of this.

quote:

---

BOGUS - From that information there is no way of telling which happened first. It could have been faulted and then tilted, or even faulted and tilted at the same time.

---

Is it ? Once the fault is there the sections can move at least semi-independently. The force can produce motion along the fault rather than simply being transmitted to the other section.

Moose is talking only about the timing of the tilt versus the fault. From the information shown, all we can say is that the bedding is older than the fault, which in turn is older than the unconformity. This is based on the principle of cross-cutting relationships that says if one structural element disrupts another one, it is the younger of the two.We can't say anything for certain about the relative timing of faulting and tilting. However, my prejudice in this case would be that they occurred at the same time because that is common in extensional tectonic settings. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

I was just pondering this tilt/fault question while looking at the Supergroup in the cross section, and found myself wondering why the Supergroup split at all.The Supergroup is considered to have been the root of a mountain range before any of the Paleozoic strata were there, is that correct? So I was wondering why it would have been split into two sections like that. What I had in mind for reference was my memory of a trip to Canada where I was impressed with the Rockies in the area of Banff and Lake Louise and Waterton Lakes. What I remember reminds me of the tilt of the Supergroup, mountains built out of layers of rock of great lengths steeply tilted. I don't know the lengths but they seem to me to have been much longer than the blocks of Supergroup strata. If not then maybe the comparison isn't relevant. But if they are much longer then why weren't they split like the Supergroup?Unfortunately I wasn't able to find pictures of anything in the Canadian Rockies that fits my memory. This first one fits the length of the strata I had in mind, but not the steep diagonal -- it is about the same steepness as the Supergroup, though, just not as steep as I remember the mountains, and the second one is closer to the right steepness but it doesn't look anything like the layers upon layers that I remember. So maybe I dreamed those perfect Rockies.But it did make me wonder why the Supergroup, if it was the root of a mountain chain like the Rockies, would have been split. Presumably at the time they were just pushing up into thin air, nothing to restrict them in their tilt. So why wouldn't the strata have extended for a much greater distance soaring diagonally as I remember from my trip -- or dream. And why two more or less equal sections?Since they ARE split, that now adds to my view that the Paleozoic strata were all in place, their weight being a counterforce to the tectonic pressure on the lower rocks that restricted them all beneath the Tapeats, the lower force being just enough to create the Kaibab Uplift or rounded hill over the Supergroup, AND ALSO CAUSE THE SPLITTING OF THE SUPERGROUP AS IT MET THE UPPER RESISTANCE. Otherwise I don't see a reason for the split.So in this view the fault and the tilt were simultaneous, The Supergroup was being pushed up into the Tapeats and pushed horizontally under the Tapeats as well (the distance of a quarter mile, which is how far the quartzite boulder embedded in the Tapeats traveled from its origin in the Shinumo.) The forces split the Supergroup, its upper edges were eroded off, and the movement that caused the erosion stopped the fault line where the Supergroup met the Tapeats. That's why the "step" is simply removed and didn't penetrate into the upper strata.I like it. What do you think?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.

I guess I just don’t understand the mechanics of it. That the tilt is at the same angle makes a lot of sense to me if the fault occurred later, or at the very end of the tilting event. But if the fault was there I can’t figure out why there wouldn’t be any slippage at the fault that would see one side tilted more than the other.

quote:

---

Since they ARE split, that now adds to my view that the Paleozoic strata were all in place, their weight being a counterforce to the tectonic pressure on the lower rocks that restricted them all beneath the Tapeats, the lower force being just enough to create the Kaibab Uplift or rounded hill over the Supergroup, AND ALSO CAUSE THE SPLITTING OF THE SUPERGROUP AS IT MET THE UPPER RESISTANCE. Otherwise I don't see a reason for the split.

---

Edge and Moose think it is related to the tilting of the Supergroup. So there is an alternative possibility there. And there doesn’t seem to be any upper resistance that would vary enough to cause the fault, as well as the evidence of cross-cutting which shows that the fault occurred before the upper strata were there at all.

quote:

---

So in this view the fault and the tilt were simultaneous, The Supergroup was being pushed up into the Tapeats and pushed horizontally under the Tapeats as well (the distance of a quarter mile, which is how far the quartzite boulder embedded in the Tapeats traveled from its origin in the Shinumo.)

---

Do you have any evidence of this horizontal movement other than a boulder which makes much more sense under the conventional view?

quote:

---

The forces split the Supergroup, its upper edges were eroded off, and the movement that caused the erosion stopped the fault line where the Supergroup met the Tapeats

---

You mean abrasion rather than erosion, and it still lacks evidence and doesn’t even seem to make sense. [quote] That's why the "step" is simply removed and didn't penetrate into the upper strata. [quote] But according to you on the other side of the fault the same sediments did penetrate the Tapeats, and you don’t seem to have a good reason why things would be any different.

quote:

---

I like it. What do you think?

---

It’s just another fantasy you’ve invented to try to pretend that you are right. Of course you like it. But that doesn’t make it true.

Perhaps you could confine yourself to the topic of the goddamn thread. Perhaps everyone could. What is your spam doing here?