Summations Only

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.

quote:

---

HOWEVER, here's the problem. You are trying to convince me that you can tell what the original horizontal strata looked like from this area of extremely deformed strata underground, and I don't see it It's most likely that the deformation itself accounts for what you are imputing to the original deposition.

---

Actually no. I am arguing that we can tell that the deformed strata have been eroded after deformation. And we can do that by seeing that the strata have been cut off - they terminate where they meet the stratum above, which has not suffered the same deformation.

quote:

---

"..cearly deposited on an irregular surface, but filled it in rather than following it." The "irregular surface" is the product of the deformation, no reason to impute it to the original horizontal deposition. And it's interesting you say the deposited layer filled in the irregularity rather than following it because somebody, you I think, was insistting that the strata followed the Kaibab rise of the Paleozoic strata in the Grand Canyon.

---

No. To start with the last point I mentioned that it was not impossible for later strata to follow the uplift - not that they had actually done so. I don’t remember anyone insisting otherwise, ever.However, the fact that the upper and lower surfaces are not parallel (while the strata when shown are) does indicate in this case that the irregularities were filled in rather than being the result of later deformation.

quote:

---

Here are a couple of the pictures of deformed strata that I posted back in Message 419 where I could point out places the layers "pinch out" or stop altogether, or thicken as if filling in an irregularity perhaps. Are you going to tell me all these things in these deformed blocks of strata are evidence of how they were originally laid down rather than the consequence of the deformation?

---

I don’t see anything like that, while the diagram is really clear: Your images again: In the second one it looks very much as if the fold occurred before the unfolded rock above it was deposited.

quote:

---

So it still looks to me like the strata were all laid down in the usual horizontal fashion and were then deformed as an entire block from the Cambrian to the Recent.

---

No it doesn’t.

quote:

---

It's really not fair even to try to prove your point with an extremely deformed stratigraphic column anyway. If you can't prove it with straight flat strata then you can't prove it at all.

---

Your usual baseless whining is noticed. First, if we are going to show evidence of deformation occurring before all the strata were deposited we have to show deformed strata. Second, places where the deformation is cut off are extremely good evidence of erosion occurring before all the strata were deposited. Third, you brought up this cross section by using the misleading Smith diagram and a correction was needed. Fourth, part of that correction is showing that the more accurate diagram includes evidence against your claims.Whining that people dare to show that you are wrong - as you frequently do - is hardly sensible.

quote:

---

De3formation on top of deformation?: What would that prove?

​

ABE: I can make abolustley no sense of your reasoning about strata being "cut off."

---

It’s a LACK of deformation on top of deformation. The upper layers do not show the same deformation. (They may show some but not the same)That the strata are cut off is an observation. They rise until they meet the upper strata and then stop.From this we conclude that the deformed lower layers were truncated by erosion and then the upper layers were deposited on top.

quote:

---

ABE: Sorry, I keep editing this because I can't make sense of it and keep having different thoughts about it. I'm back to thinking that although you denied it you are describing the original laying down of the strata, lower strata being eroded before upper strata deposited, but you are making this case from the whole deformed stack, which is what makes no sense. As I said, I think what we see in the deformed stack happened after all the deformation had occurred. There's really no reason to think otherwise. /ABE

---

In reality it is my ideas that make sense and yours that do not. We are not limited to simply classifying rocks as deformed or not. We can look at and analyse the deformation and we can tell the difference between different deformations.Thus even if both strata are deformed we can see that there was deformation that affected the lower strata but not the upper strata. In that case we certainly can’t assume that they occurred at the same time - in fact it is evidence that the upper strata weren’t there when the initial deformation occurred.We have a very clear examples in the Grand Canyon. The tilt of the Supergroup is distinct from the effects of the uplift - at the Canyon rim the Supergroup tilts up while the uplifted strata tilts down. Here it is your argument that makes no sense - we have two distinct events and no reason to say that they happened at the same time.And then we have the erosion of the lower strata. The fact that this erosion cuts the deformed surface indicates that it occurred after the deformation. (And this certainly does relate to the original laying down of the upper strata - it is evidence that they were originally laid down on the deformed and then eroded surface of the lower strata.) So now we have two lines of evidence supporting the idea that there was an event which deformed the lower strata before the upper strata were deposited.So far from having no reason to think that all the deformation occurred after the upper strata were deposited we have two very strong reasons to think that some of it occurred before the upper strata were in place. And we have examples of this for both regions you use as evidence

quote:

---

That's rather a tour de force there, I'm impressed, but it seems to me if the Time Scale interpretation were correct there should be lots and lots of erosion and deformation of all kinds between all the layers and not just occurring to any bunch of blocks of strata

---

There won’t be erosion where there is continuos deposition (by definition) and erosion is usually visible. The fact that you look for erosion in very limited ways doesn’t mean that it isn’t there.Deformation on the other hand will naturally affect multiple strata. There’s no way to limit it to a single stratum. So obviously it is going to affect blocks. That’s why the absence of deformation or a particular deformation is significant - if a deformational event didn’t affect a layer it’s often because the layer wasn’t there to be affected.

quote:

---

But I think you are misinterpreting the evidence anyway, in both examples.

---

But only because you assume that your conclusions are correct. I’m taking the simple and natural interpretation, and you don’t have any evidence to counter that. And until you do you can’t honestly claim that either diagram supports your assertions.

quote:

---

Well, in the end after going on your merry go round I have to come back to my first take. Just looking at the land surface itself it is very clear that the whole range of the strata were laid down and then deformed all in the same direction all together as a unit.

---

In other words you choose to ignore the evidence from beneath the surface.Please explain how you can possibly hope to reach the correct conclusion by ignoring most of the relevant evidence.

quote:

---

Seems clear to me that the evidence beneath the surface occurred after the deformation

---

I’ve explained to you why the evidence says otherwise. Please do me the courtesy of explaining the basis for your conclusion.

quote:

---

There is an overall problem with this example to begin with, that is hard to assess, and that is the kind of deformation it shows, which is very unlike all the other examples I've had in mind. That is, the usual situation is something visible on the surface, such as the tilting or buckling or twisting of the strata along the lines of the photos I posted.

---

It is complex, and what is going on underground doesn’t show in the surface. And that is why you need to look below the surface. It is absolutely not a case of the strata being deposited horizontally and then all tilting together. In fact the evidence pretty clearly indicates that there are multiple events and that they occurred during deposition.

quote:

---

The sagging of the4 strata IS the deformation in this case

---

But it is not a simple sagging as I pointed out. The Cretaceous strata are mildly tilted up towards their Western end, but underneath the lowest strata are rising quite steeply towards the East. This makes absolutely no sense assuming a single deformation.

quote:

---

The UK example has all the strata in a row across the horizontal level of the land rather than vertically stacked. In Smith's cross section they appear to have been tilted or buckled to all lie in a row. In the other diagram it's basically the same layout with some probably minor differences I don't know how to assess.

---

Underground it’s much close to vertical stacking for most of the diagram. With at least four eroded surfaces - showing at this scale! - between layers.

quote:

---

In any case all the "time periods" are horizontally laid out and all tilted or folded in the same direction which is what strongly suggests the deformation happened to the whole stack of strata at the same time.

---

Except where they aren’t which indicates separate events, occurring before some of the strata were deposited. The Eastern end again is just so obvious.

quote:

---

Underground they sag and thicken overall. They all follow the same basic pattern in parallel. That suggests deformation at the same time, as a unit.

---

Again, except where they don’t

quote:

---

The fact that the lower strata are cut off by what you are calling erosion while the upper are not doesn't suggest that the erosion occurred before the upper were deposited. That's because they all lie parallel to one another. Whatever happened to the lower strata had something to do with the sagging or deformation

---

Absolutely not. If they were parallel to the upper strata they couldn’t be cut off. What you mean, I think is that the upper strata is roughly parallel to the eroded surface - which is not parallel to the strata. But that is a very different thing and consistent with my view, not opposing it. The more so since there are large irregularities in the lower strata not reproduced in the upper.

quote:

---

And overall we're talking about a whole stack of deformed -- sagged -- strata. If the upper layers had been deposited after the erosion occurred to the lower layers, it woule be more convincing if they were still straight and flat as originally laid down.

---

That there has been later deformation doesn’t really hurt my point much. The evidence is still there.

quote:

---

Since they follow the basic sag pattern of the deformation it's too much of a stretch to accept your order of events.

---

Again you’ve raised no valid objection to my order of events or explained the evidence in terms of your order.The situation underground still looks like multiple deformational events and multiple cases of large scale erosion occurring while the strat were being laid down (of course the strata were not being laid down while erosion was occurring but they were laid down before and after)

Well, yeah. If you look at a map of the surface rather than the cross-section you can also see that Faith’s idea that the strata were simply tilted in a single event is less than plausible. I pointed that out the first time Faith tried using the Smith cross-section.

quote:

---

I'm familiar with Smith's original map, but the cross section is clear anyway, even the one with the underground strata.

---

The more complete cross-section - which is not Smith’s and date# from 1910 is certainly clear. And it clearly shows a long history of events.

quote:

---

I really think you are completely wrong, I think it's quite clear that the strata were all laid down as usual, horizontal and straight and flat, and then all that deformation occurred afterward

---

And yet you can only answer my arguments by making claims that are obviously false, that obviously disagree with the actual diagram.How could it be more obvious that you are wrong ?

quote:

---

I see no reason to think the underground deformation says anything at all about deposition on top of deformation, it's all deformation, period.

---

I’ve given reasons. If you refuse to see them that’s your problem. The idea that we can’t see differences in deformation - we can’t even notice differences in direction - is obviously insane. We can see them on the diagram. I suppose you have to blind yourself avoid admitting that your lovely invention could be wrong (even though it was obviously wrong from the start)Of course if we couldn’t tell that there were multiple episodes of deformation there would be no way to tell that you were right, either. But reasoning is another area you can’t really handle.

quote:

---

But now it's become SO complex I have to give up on on trying to prove it, at least for now. So you win

---

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.

If you want to answer better you are going to have to overcome your irrational tendency to assume that reality is what you want it to be - even if you know better.If the 1910 cross section obviously supported your views you’d want to use it. You don’t want to use it because it doesn’t.

quote:

---

Unconformities in the sense of nonexistent layers you expect to be there but aren't is totally irrelevant to the point I'm making. You see no erosion there either, you just "know" there should be a layer there that isn't there

---

On the cross section of Britain I see direct evidence of erosion, not just missing layersConsidering Percy’s list Obvious even on the diagram wikipedia:Temple Butte LimestoneUSGS on Watahomigi Formation, lowest member of Supai GroupI could go on, I could even add to the list. But I think the point is made. There is plenty of evidence of erosion at unconformities.

quote:

---

I, too, wasn't certain which part of the diagram PaulK was referring to, but he described it as beneath and to the left the "Jurassic" label and that it was the lowest strata

---

I did describe that area but not in relation to the peak which is much further to the East - just to the West of the Tertiary label.I think you will agree that is much more prominent. How Faith can’t see it is beyond me.

DuplicateEdited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The hiccup I had in mind had nothing to do with missing rock, it was just that place on the surface where the land makes a dip before resuming the pattern of tilting or slanting together in one direction.

---

So you were ignoring all the bigger problems underground. After I had pointed them out.

quote:

---

The idea of missing rock is irrelevant to the point I'm making...

---

It is very relevant to the idea that all the deformation occurred after all the strata had been deposited. It’s also relevant to the idea that there is no erosion between strata.

quote:

---

...and this diagram has become way too complex and ambiguous for meaningful discussion.

---

The diagram has not changed since 1910. It is no more complex or ambiguous than it was when you declared: Message 579
How could that possibly be true if the diagram is too complex and ambiguous for you to understand ? I say again that the diagram has not changed since then.And certainly there is meaningful discussion on our part. The problem appears to be that you are, as usual, wrong and your claims are being exposed as utterly indefensible.