Summations Only

Paul is correct. There are two major points where rocks below an unconformity are more deformed than the ones above. And that does not include the Great Unconformity at the base of the Cambrian rocks. This only refers to the layered sedimentary rocks. The first one is below the Old Red Sandstone where older Cambrian and Silurian rocks are eroded before the Old Red was deposited. You can tell by how bedding in the older rocks is truncated by the unconformity. This is the principle of cross-cutting features at work. If a structural element (such as a bedding plane) is cut by another feature (such as a fault or an unconformity) then the second feature is younger. Note that this unconformity does not cross-cut the Old Red Sandstone and is, therefor younger than the unconformity, and younger than the deformation that caused folding of the older rocks.There is a second such feature at the base of the New Red Sandstone. Once again the unconformity cuts bedding planes in the older rock, but not the younger ones. Simply put, the unconformity is younger than the lower rocks, but older than the upper ones. Since the older rocks are deformed (as at Siccar Point), then they have undergone deformation prior to the upper layers.I am not going to address the rest of your post as it consists solely of negative insinuations and demands.

One way to look at this is to do what we call a 'palinspastic reconstruction' in which deformation is removed from the diagram by graphically restoring the Old Red Sandstone (for instance) to its original, flat-lying geometry. This essentially removes deformation younger than the Old Red.But we also keep the current geometric relationships of the lower plate of rocks to the Old Red.If we did so, we would see that by removing the deformation of the Old Red, there is still folding in the rocks below. This is probably beyond Faith's comprehension, but it is an instructive exercise that I'm sure she will have no trouble misapprehending.

Well, it kind of follows that a layer could only be deformed after it was deposited.But that isn't you only point. You are saying that all sedimentary layers were deposited before any deformation had occurred.This is shown to be incorrect by the numerous contrary posts in this and other threads.

So, you can't refute it, therefor you just mutter disparaging comments.

Where? All I've seen is a bunch of baseless assertions and denials. Why not?

How about this terrace? The rocks are standing on end and yet they are planed off as though with a knife. What caused this?

I thought you had determined that all strata were laid down horizontal, flat and continuous.So, now you are uncertain? Of course deformation has changed them from horizonatal, flat and continuous. That's why we call it 'deformation'. Are you just being obtuse here?If you had a stack of pancakes and eroded it away with your fork the layers would be interrupted, would they not? Red herring.It doesn't matter how the irregular surface formed. The erosional surface still cuts the stratigraphy of the older rocks. Sure, if the layering is horizontal and the surface it is deposited on is not, then you have an unconformity.You are just throwing things against the wall to see if anything sticks. And failing to do anything but obfuscate. No. It means that there were topographic irregularities resulting in what we call an on-lap feature. It's like the Grand Canyon where the Tapeats pinches out against the Shinumo Quartzite monadnocks. This is a misapplication of the term 'pinch-out'. Certainly not what Paul was talking about.Nevertheless, it is also irrelevant to your point. There is more deformation in the lower layers of rocks in each case. How did that happen if they were all deformed together "as a block"? Whut??So, it's not fair to talk about deformed rocks when you are discussing deformation?Edited by edge, : No reason given.

To what 'evidence beneath the surface' do you refer?Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Actually, it does show up at the surface.Just not on this section.Remember Siccar Point? From that exposure, we know that gently dipping Old Red Sandstone overlies steeply dipping (and folded) Silurian and older sedimentary rocks.The other thing to remember is that the Caledonian Orogeny that folded the older rocks, was situated to the north and west side of the British Isles. Consequently, the farther east you go (to the right), the less effect of that orogeny. This effect is directly exhibited by more folding of the rocks at the left end of the section.Just as with the Colorado Plateau area, strong deformation occurred more closely to the edge of the continent (Utah, Nevada and points west).Deformation or not, intense or not, Faith still disregards the erosional unconformities present in the diagram.

I think it's pretty clear that there is more deformation of the deeper layers. The early Paleozoic rocks (left of diagram) are shown as folded whereas the most recent rocks (to the right) are almost untouched. You ignore the erosional features and coarse sediments (gravels) that overlie the unconformities.

quote:

---

In other words it is NOT obvious that you are correct. In fact you are running away because you can’t defend your claims. Because the diagram obviously contradicts you (that is why you had to misrepresent it). But of course you won’t admit that even though any rational person can clearly see it.

---

Denial, the most powerful weapon in the YEC arsenal.

Yes. And it's about this time that the Farallon Plate was consumed and subducted under the western edge of North America. That's when things got crazy.There are several theories. They mainly revolve about (relatively) rapid subduction of a young oceanic plate and a hot spot, whereby the subducted plate does not dive directly into the asthenosphere, but sinks a lower angle. We don't really know what happened, but at present there actually appears to be two layers of crust under the Colorado Plateau. We can see it in the seismic data. There seems to be a 'quiet layer' between two stacked, rigid plates. I'm not sure where research is going on this, but it could be a remnant of the Farallon Plate or possibly a 'delaminated' fragment of the North American crust.One theory is that the lower plate is part of an oceanic plateau that has been subducted, resulting in a non-typical convergent plate geology. Fascinating stuff and I'm sure we will be hearing more about it over the next few years.

I passed through Monument Valley early this year. If you were to look to the left of the image you presented, you would see these formations continuous to the horizon and off to the edge of the Colorado Plateau, so there is really no doubt that the monuments were once continuous.What was amazing to me is how rapidly the huge blocks of rock disintegrate when they fall and are no longer protected by the upper layer. What we are actually seeing is old petrified sand dunes turning into modern sand dunes which can be seen in various parts of the park.As to how long they will take to erode away, a very long time is my guess; mainly due to the fact that there is not a lot of rainfall or freeze and thaw action.Another example of erosion in action...Edited by edge, : No reason given.

There does not appear to be any evidence for this. Certainly, there is evidence of flash floods, but there is no evidence for Lake Missoula-type flooding or meanders around the buttes. I specifically looked for such things while there and all you can see is radial erosion away from the buttes and the usual desert washes in between. You'll forgive me for not calling Scientific American about your discovery. But I think that to find erosion after deposition of a layer would be a lot more likely than erosion of a stratum before it is deposited.

As I indicated, there is surprisingly little talus. And, of course, water has washed away a lot of sediment, but there is no indication that it happened during anything other than what is going on now. If you think otherwise, then show us your evidence. This does not agree with the evidence that has been presented here. Edited by edge, : No reason given.