Summations Only

quote:

---

I don't care if they erode or not, why does that matter? The point is they DIDN'T erode until they were all laid down as a block. How is that contradicted by the pictures?

---

By the evidence of massive erosion occurring before all the strata were deposited. The tilted surface of the Supergroup was heavily eroded before the Tapeats was deposited (that’s where the missing material went). Edge has pointed out similar features in the cross-section of Britain in Message 522

What you've got is deformation to strata as a unit or block, already laid down as a unit or block, in this case spanning all the time eras.

We weren't talking about the Supergroup, why are you?:There's nothing in the cross section of England that shows erosion before deposition.

quote:

---

What you've got is deformation to strata as a unit or block, already laid down as a unit or block, in this case spanning all the time eras.

---

The tilting of the Supergroup didn’t affect the layers above it. The simple sensible explanation is that they weren’t there. The cross-section of Britain shows other examples. And we do have evidence of massive erosion before all the strata were deposited.

The rise over the Supergroup is evidence against your point. But stick to the Smith diagram, the Supergroup is another subject. I see no "evidence of massive erosion" before the strata were all laid down.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

We weren't talking about the Supergroup, why are you?

---

You were talking about the Colorado plateau. The Supergroup is in that region.

quote:

---

There's nothing in the cross section of England that shows erosion before deposition

---

As Edge explained, there is.

Edge was talking gobbledygook. Let's see if you can do better.

I understand, but then after making that clear you later doubled-down on your claim that the geologic timescale is completely represented from the Cambrian forward. If you don't want me to keep pointing out that that is wrong then don't keep saying it. You originally said from the Cambrian to the present, but the Cambrian is a period, not an era, so if you're switching to eras as I suggested then you have to change it to the Paleozoic, in which case yes, this is true. But so what? You're not making any point for which that fact would be supporting evidence.Interestingly and confusingly, the Cambrian is a period while the Precambrian is a supereon (according to Wikipedia). Why do you think you're saying anything meaningful. It is a physical requirement that strata be "in place" before they can be part of deformation. How is this not something everyone already innately understands? I don't know why you're explaining the bloody obvious either. As I said yesterday in Message 493: --Percy

Opaque, even. Understanding what geology says is a prerequisite for criticizing what it says, don't you think? Most of the time you're flying blind.--Percy

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The principle of cross-cutting relationships is simple. You can’t cut something that isn’t there.Around the centre of the map (beneath and to the left of the Jurassic label) you will see that the lowest strata curve up - and stop. They have been cut by an erosional surface. The rocks immediately above do not follow the upward curve at all - they were clearly deposited on an irregular surface, but filled it in rather than following it.Likewise, beneath the Cretaceous label, there are strata curving upwards, along the side of the buried peak, and strata above them that do not follow that upwards curve at all. Again they seem to be deposited on an irregular surface, and some of them pinch out before reaching the buried peak.

You have lost the thread.Edge wrote "All of these are intermediate products. The ultimate product of erosion is a coastal plain." You replied with a list of things caused by erosion omitting "coastal plain". Implying that erosion does not produce flat surfaces.OThat is what I am addressing.

I'm not interested in the flat surfaces issue, I'm talking only about the order of events: strata laid down then eroded or deformed. Sorry if something else intervened that I missed but that is ALL I'm talking about and the erosion to a flat surface issue is utterly irrelevant to that.

I just replied to what you wrote. If you don't want to discuss a topic don't raise it. If

You "replied to what I wrote" OUT OF CONTEXT.I need a break.