Summations Only

But the Kaibab Plateau is limestone, correct? Is the Coconino plateau also Kaibab limestone?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm looking for a collective term for all the phenomena that are eroded out of stacks of strata, including this object, the hoodoos, the arches, the monuments, the staircase and so on. When I called them "formations" you told me that term is used in a different way. It's still the most reasonable term but obviously I need a different one. Well, so much for my point of course. The strata in that whatever-it-is are too flat and straight and too evenly textured to have been lake bottoms. Besides their being so neatly stacked over some supposed millions of years or whatnot. Oh well. Here I tried so hard to eliminate any kind of insulting insinuations. Oh well.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Even salt flats aren't that flat, Mod, they have low and high points over distances (a few yards?) that would show up in such a contact line, and they have cracks in them when dry that would also show at the contact line. Please, this is so clear, so obvious. You could take a yardstick to those strata in the picture and the contact line would be just about as straight. OK, even that can't be perfect but NOTHING I can think of in geological nature is that nearly-ruler-straight, that nearly-tabletop-flat EXCEPT water-deposited strata. abe: Well, for that matter even volcano-deposited strata since those at Mt. St. Helens are awfully straight.ABE: Up close of salt flat: I think the next one indicates some surface waviness but I'm not sure: In any case most strata are not salt. .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.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If you pile a lot of loose sediment on top of a dry salt lake you'll get a lot of loose sediment in the cracks and not much effect on the straightness factor. If you pile a lot of loose sediment on top of a broad flat field with grass and other green things growing on it you'll get a lot of dead grass under the sediment. or rotted grass if it's wet.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

LOOK AT THE STRATA IN THAT PICTURE. JUST LOOK,. NO LAKE BED, NO SALT FLAT, NO FIELD, NO BEACH, IS THAT FLAT. JUST LOOK.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

YOU CAN FAULT ME FOR NOT BEING CLEAR I AM ALWAYS TALKING ABOUT THE GEOLOGICAL TIME SCALE WHEN I TALK ABOUT THE GEOLOGICAL COLUMN/STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN, BUT NO, I DO NOT CHANGE MY STORY. THE GC/GS AND THE MAP OF ENGLAND SHOW EXACTLY WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT, ALL THE TIME PERIODS ATTACHED TO THEIR RESPECTIVE SLABS OF ROCK IN PLACE FROM CAMBRIAN TO HOLOCENE, AFTER WHICH ALL THE EROSION OCCURRED AND NOT BEFORE, AFTER WHICH ALL THE TECTONIC DISTURBANCE OCCURRED AND NOT BEFORE. THAT IS EVIDE3NCE THAT THE GEO COLUMN HAS COME TO AN END, IT IS EVIDENCE OF RAPID DEPOSITION AND AGAINST THE MILLIONS OF YEARS TIME SCALE. THE EROSWION MARKS THE END, THE TECTONIC DISTURBANCE MARKS THE END. THAT DID NOT OCCUR DURING THE LAYING DOWN, IT OCCURRED AFTER IT WAS ALL LAID DOWN. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

i WAS HOPING SOMEONE HERE MIGHT ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO SEE HOW THOSE CANNOT POSSIBLY BE LAKE BEDS. I TRIED TO AVOID ANYTHING THAT I THOUGHT MIGHT SOUND INSULTING. BUT OF COURSE THE INGRAINED HABITS WOULD PREVAIL EVEN IF THEY ARE TOTALLY WACKO. iEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

Where do all the tons come from, what are they made of, where do they go when the rock is a layer in that hill? Which it won't be in any case because edge said those layers are limestone and volcanic ash. And yes I don't see how it's going to make anything as flat as the strata in that hill. And no, I have no evidence. And neither do you or anybody else.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You said the layers in the hill are limestone and volcanic ash.

You get pressed-in creases and crumples.

OK, conceded. So any ups and downs would occur over greater distances. Yes it is considerably flatter, you can see it with your eyes. Actually not. You are just doing the usual tit for tat that is so popular here without bothering to understand what I meant when I used those terms. Depends on what's being squashed and what's doing the squashing. FlattER, but not necessarily really flat. Depends on the distribution of weight. It could make depressions and lumps rather than flatness, highly compacted no doubt, quite hard, but not necessarily straight and flat, no..Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, we are talking about that colorfully stratified hill and edge said they were limestone and volcanic ash. Most of them. To say the GC was "caused by a divine flood" is to miss everything I've said about it. As for Valles Marineris the latest theory is that it was caused by tectonic movement.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Can't imagine what you think would be suggested at this level two miles below the initial cracking of the uppermost strata. The cracks deepened and widened as the water receded and they became a channel for it. By the time you get down to the level of the Kaibab they are pretty deep channels. The uplift would have stretched them and put a lot of strain on them. If the canyon was the result there would be no more fractures/cracks to demonstrate. I figure they couldn't have been very consolidated at the very top, yes. You are confusing different stages of the flood as I've tried to describe it. The thin sheet of water running across the plateau that I picture being the cause of the meander doesn't occur until after the water and the strata two miles above that level have washed away, and that washing away would have had stages too, depending on how steep the exits were that opened up as the water level decreased. Some damming probably occurred in places and then broke and so on. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I can't picture what you are talking about here. I'm sure it drained a lot of water off the surrounding areas, but not all of it. Water would have run off in many other directions than the canyon itself. The water off the Grand Staircase took a lot of material off the cliffs and probably didn't get anywhere near the Grand Canyon. Can't decipher this at all I'm afraid. Are you talking about a plain two miles over the Grand Canyon area?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

They do look crumpled but not flattened, so no.