Summations Only

Percy wouldn't have expressed himself so carelessly, either. Percy was very clear in Message 200 that he was quoting from an article at Live Science, and he provided a link.And the quoted text was obviously not Dickinson, since Dickinson wouldn't begin a sentence, "Dickinson hopes..." Faith doesn't seem to care whether there's any truth in what she says, or whether it makes any sense.--Percy

It makes a very big difference. You claimed that the Smith diagram shows a stratigraphic column that completely represents the geologic timescale from the Cambrian to the present, and that if he left anything out it would still be a complete representation. That's impossible. Could you stop cluttering up the thread with inane claims?--Percy

I think the Supergroup strata were laid down at the same time as the Paleozoic strata, but they were in the line of the tectonic force that uptilted them and separated them from the upper block, becoming the cause of the lifting of the upper block. And it was all part of the general upheaval that cut the canyon, scoured off the Kaibab limestone and formed the cliffs of the Grand Staircase.It's a depressing idea trying to explain how I use the terms "block" and "unit" to you, since your misunderstanding them suggests a frame of mind I have little hope of communicating with. I really would like to avoid getting into another discussion like the one about the weird "half inch" between the Cocohino and the Hermit formations that you took to be part of the Coconino.But anyway. A block and a unit are synonymous as I've been using them, yes. They refer to any part of a stack of strata that is subjected to the same forces all together rather than separately, meaning erosion or tectonic deformtation at least, and (usually but not always) where no other strata from the same stack are present, just the one block or unit. The pictures I posted in Message 419 of blocks of strata that were eroded and deformed as a unit were meant to be examples of what I mean. The point is to demonstrate that it s a rule that the strata were not eroded or deformed until they were all in place, which even partial blocks demonstrate. They are all pictures of blocks of strata either eroded as a block or deformed as a block. I hope this is explanatory but I guess I shouldb't hold my breath.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.

As I explained, it's the RANGE that matters to the point I'm making, not inclusiveness. Though in the case of that cross section all the eras are represented in any case.Of course you are missing the point as usual. It demonstrates that the strata were tilted as one block which demonstrates that tectonic deformation occurred after they were all in place. That's the whole point of this. But I think I should stop trying to make such simple obvfious points to you.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You can't see pictures and diagrams let alone understand them. What's the point? Well that's true, but only because you screwed up and said "geo column" when you meant "stratigraphic columns." Sedimentation atop stratigraphic columns did not come to a halt during the breakup of Pangaea. What you have to do to say it more clearly and correctly next time is say that sedimentation would have gone on as before during the breakup of Pangaea. Naturally as new seas opened up the details and locations of sedimentation would gradually change, but sedimentation wouldn't stop. It would be impossible for it to stop because erosion would still have been acting on the continents, producing sediments for streams, rivers, land run off, lakes and seas. These sediments get deposited atop stratigraphic columns around the world.--Percy

Percy, it's certain KINDS of pictures and diagrams I can't see well. I can't see thin line writing, which is harder if it's also small, and fine line graphics too; white is a glare that makes me squint, also many pale colors. Charts that distinguish between kinds of sediments with tiny little dots and dashes on white are impossible to decipher. Strong contrasts help me see especially if the outlies are bold. I see strong lines and strong colors fine. Thick black lines are great. The dark colors of the Smith diagram make it easy to see all the strata. What I can't see is the writing so I give up on that. I also can't make out what PaulK says is a fold at the far right. I seem to be able to see the strata there well enough but I can't make out what he means by the fold.Geo column/strat column, the distinction is trivial to me.The whole idea that current sedimentation has anything to do with the geological column, or any stratigraphic column, is so foreign to me that even trying to remember to mention it may be impossible. But now that you've made an issue of it I hope I can make the effort if it really clarifies things.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Can be but that example didn't look anything like the strata in the GC, it was an extremely steep deposition, quite odd really, and generally speaking, no it doesn't happen.

---

In other words you are now rejecting the flume experiments as reliable guides to real sedimentation. That’s hardly the line you took when you introduced them.But that’s a side point. The real issue is that the fact that the uplift occurs after the tilt of the Supergroup in no way means that uplift has to occur before all the strata are in place. That mistake is obvious.

quote:

---

Of course you are missing the point as usual. It demonstrates that the strata were tilted as one block which demonstrates that tectonic deformation occurred after they were all in place. That's the whole point of this. But I think I should stop trying to make such simple obvfious points to you.

---

Since you claim to be able to see the strata in the 1910 diagram you should know that a more detailed look does not support the impression given by the Smith diagram. Relying on a misleading impression is hardly a good argumentA case based on two diagrams covering a small portion of the world is hardly a good case for any claim that applies to the whole of the globe. That you rely on a misleading feature of one and outright lie about the other (the Grand Canyon cross section contains strong evidence that the Supergroup was tilted long before the Tapeats was deposited on top of it) shows that you literally have no valid case.

sigh How does a meander form Faith?Hint: it starts with irregular shapes ...Enjoy

I understand the basics of meander formation, RAZD. I just went looking at You Tube films of meanders, both actual and animations, and still have the same impression: they make smooth loops, they don't look to me anything like the course of the Colorado over the Kaibab plateau.

I posted a bunch of partial examples Message 419 besides the two complete ones, and the case holds up. I'm sure I can dig up more if necessary. Tou are comparing apples and oranges here. The proper comparison with the Smith diagram is the block of Paleozoic strata in the GC plus the strata in the GS. But your evidence about the Supergroup is more than matched by mine which shows an entirely different history.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I posted a bunch of partial examples besides the two complete ones, and the case holds up. I'm sure I can dig up more if necessary.

---

Since neither of your complete examples has any worth at all how can you possibly think the case holds up?If your two main examples are both false - and they are - the case does not hold up. That should be obvious to any sane person.(I also note that the Grand Canyon has nothing from the Ordovician or Silurian periods, so it doesn’t exactly seem complete)

But they are both true. You are the one who is wrong.

quote:

---

But they are both true. You are the one who is wrong.

---

The Smith cross-section is highly misleading as shown by the 1910 cross-section. The 1910 cross-section does not support your claims at all.The Grand Canyon cross section has clear evidence that the Supergroup was tilted prior to the deposition of the Tapeats, despite your denial.That is the truth.

My "errors" in this case consist of (1) my calling something a "mountain" that looks like a mountain and is identified at Google Image as a mountain; and (2) my neglecting to say that the sheet of water had to become streams in order to form a meander, in one description, which you quoted, although I say meanders form from streams in other quotes. I know how meanders form, it's hardly rocket science, I was talking about an earlier stage in the receding of the water before it got to the meander stage, but for some reason you enjoy misrepresenting me.