Summations Only

I've spent a lot of time looking at pictures and diagrams and know what I'm talking about even if it's hard to convey. Nothing to do with the geo column. I never said the earth stopped moving and erupting but it has nothing to do with the geo column. I'll try to get it said more clearly if I can.

This has nothing to do with the contacts, it's only about the inclusion of all the strata tilted in one block. This isn't something I'd expect you to notice since you are looking for other things than I'm looking for.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I don't see the fold you are talking about. And if it's at the very far right it would only confirm my point anyway.

---

How could that be true ?Anyway it’s a clear example of deformation occurring before all the strata were in place.

quote:

---

Of course diagrams can be untrustworthy but this point is so very simple and the diagram also so very simple it really doesn't matter how many other things got left out. Really.

---

The diagram is really very, very misleading. It makes it look as if Britain was tilted after all the strata were deposited. But that really isn’t the case. The more recent diagram - itself more than 100 years old - shows that.

It would be absolutely unique in that case because all examples claimed to show that don't. I can only assume this one doesn't either since I can't see it..

Neverthelss, the contacts are not straight and flat, nor is the GU; even if you took out the deformation. In that case, the block was getting bigger (thicker) with time. There are at least three major unconformities shown in the section.

I skimmed it RAZD. I don't see how a fault line falsifies anything I've said. Without having studied your point it seems to me it could even confirm what I've been saying.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The point is that all of the geological processes in the record are still going on today. So, why would sedimentation stop?

Are you talking about the diagram of England? The contacts have nothing to do with this point. The tilting IS deformation and I don't expect contacts to survive it. Missing rocks do not affect the point I'm making, as I've said all along here; sorry you missed it. The point is only to show that the whole RANGE of the time periods is included without any VISIBLE signs of erosion or deformation at any given layer.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sedimentation didn't stop, the column stopped, the "time scale" stopped. Sedimentation that is going on today has nothing to do with that. Sedimentation on top of the rocks in the Smith cross section would not continue the strata as laid down there, sedimentation on top of the Claron would not add to the Grand Staircase. Sedimentation on top of a twisted formerly horizontal block of strata would not contribute to that block of strata. But I understand I'm making a point that's hard to prove given the standard assumptions.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I note that you don’t explain how a large fold of material that wouldn’t even be present if the Smith diagram was accurate could help your case.

quote:

---

It would be absolutely unique in that case because all examples claimed to show that don't

---

But they do.

quote:

---

I can only assume this one doesn't either since I can't see it..

---

It’s perfectly obvious if you can see the diagram at all. A large fold of old rock with the peak just to the left of the word Tertiary. The labels - admittedly hard to read - indicate that the top strata of the fold are Devonian.

They are the only two end to end geo columns I know of, all clearly deformed as a whole unit after all having been laid down. I use them to demonstrate what I'm talking about since I know I can't prove it from them. But I certainly think all the truncated columns follow the same principle, though all I can demonstrate is that what is actually there does follow it, being deformed or eroded as a block.I've said angular unconformities are the only exception, and otherwise I don't see anything in your pictures that suggests anything different than the deformation or erosion having occurred after they were in place.

Eh?Ignoring the layer of volcanic ash now sitting on many square miles of the land we have a whole new island rising out of the bloody ocean. That is now part of the column. Before it wasn't. Ergo, the column is still forming.

quote:

---

They are the only two end to end geo columns I know of, all clearly deformed as a whole unit after all having been laid down.

---

As I have pointed out the Smith diagram is misleading. And the Grand Canyon also shows very strong evidence that there were tectonic events before all the strata were laid down.

quote:

---

I use them to demonstrate what I'm talking about since I know I can't prove it from them.

---

One’s useless the other shows that the evidence is very much against you. That doesn’t make for a worthwhile case.

Just to make clear what I mean by deformation or erosion as a block or unit, with some pictures. These are only partial because that's all that's out there. I just want to point out that ALL examples exhibit this principle, with the one exception of angular unconformities: ERODED AS A BLOCK AFTER STRATA ALL LAID DOWN One we're already seen: <a href="https://www.tripadvisor.co.nz/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g56933-d929405-i194722933-The_Wave_at_Coyote_Buttes-Big_Water_Utah.html#194722933"><img alt="" src="https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/0b/9b/3c/75/coyote-buttes-north.jpg"/></a><br/>This photo of The Wave at Coyote Buttes is courtesy of TripAdvisor [/img]--> (doesn't look like The Wave to me, just an eroded stack of strata). ERODED AND DEFORMED, in China: DEFORMED AS A BLOCK AFTER STRATA ALL LAID DOWN There are plenty of ambiguous ones as well but these should demonstrate the basic principle that deformation does not occur to individual strata during the process of laying dowm, but blocks of strata are deformed as a unit, kind of making hash of the Time Scale interpretation IMHO.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Very very few in comparison with what there should be if the Time Scale were correct. And they are all very ambiguous and can all be interpreted more reasonably my way.