Summations Only

The evidence PaulK was referring to.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm familiar with Smith's original map, but the cross section is clear anyway, even the one with the underground strata. 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. I see no reason to think the underground deformation says anything at all about deposition on top of deformation, it's all deformation, period. 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.

Yes, I'm a terrible person and you win, OK?ABE: If I get a second wind maybe I'll try to answer better.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Absolutely correct, although the valley floor was probably quite a bit higher than the tops of the monuments we see today. Where we disagree of course is that I believe the receding Flood washed away all the sediments originally surrounding the monuments leaving them standing alone.In any case the point I was making is confirmed: Strata laid down followed by erosion.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But you do have to account for the fact that the entire valley area was washed/eroded clean around each of the monuments, and before the talus of each was formed too. Whatever eroded away the sediments covering all the bare spaces between the monuments, on the Old Earth slow erosion over millions of years model, would have eroded away the talus too but clearly quite a bit has accumulated since the valley floor was cleaned off. Suggests water washing it all away to me, followed by normal erosion of each monument after that, probably, oh let me guess, about 4500 years' worth of accumulated talus. But perhaps you have a better explanation. Cute. But of course the point is that there was no erosion BETWEEN layers, ALL the layers were first laid down and then ALL were eroded together as a unit, a unit such as in this case the monuments, or in other cases hoodoos etc. As I keep saying over and over.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes faults qualify as a disturbance, as discussed many times in the past, such as in Message 260 for example where I list it among the effects of the tectonic disturbance I associate with the Kaibab Uplift. That post is a pretty good summary of what I'm arguing here too.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What evidence would you expect to see if water that started out well above the current tops of the monuments, when the entire area was filled with sediments to a level higher than those tops, and then all that washed away leaving the monuments? If it simply carved those monuments and washed off the surface of the valley between them, what evidence would there be? It wouldn't be like the Missoula flood which wasn't deep enough and more forceful and one-directional by comparison. The Flood would have been a huge amount of water carrying a huge amount of sediments decreasing level by level over some months and carrying away all that sediment between the monuments. Any marks it might have left on the monuments themselves would have been eroded away by now. And those flash floods and desert washes you mentioned would have erased some evidence too. So what evidence would you expect to see?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Such as? (If you mean the UK cross section that's still moot in my opinion.)

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. The visible appearance is of a stack of strata with no break there or any kind of sign or indication whatever that something is missing; and what I'm saying remains true: there are examples galore of whole blocks or units of strata that are eroded or deformed together as a unit.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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.The idea of missing rock is irrelevant to the point I'm making, and this diagram has become way too complex and ambiguous for meaningful discussion.

ABE: I don't remember the whole context of the discussion but no I wasn't saying Paul was supporting my position, I was just referring to his position being based on the underground strata. /ABEPaul bases his case on what he sees in that whole underground area of deformed strata. He claims it shows that the lower strata were deformed and then the upper were deposited on top of it. Since the whole stack is deformed I see no basis for coming to that conclusion. The upper strata are also deformed same as the lower.Overall, it looks like all were laid down originally horizontally and then the whole thing tipped over, so to speak, so that what was vertical is now lying horizontally across the whole island. The whole thing is now deformed pretty much beyond being able to reconstruct its history it seems to me. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No I CANNOT see that there were "multiple episodes of deformation and erosion," NO, I can see how you think there are but no, I do not see it that way.

This attempt to prove the order of events from severely deformed rocks strikes me as a desperate attempt to prove my simple point wrong at all costs. The simple explanation is that the strata were laid down flat and horizontal and then deformed as seen, period.The strata beneath the UK are parallel in their deformation which is evidence that it occurred as a block all at one time. And I would guess that those blank unidentified areas to the right are probably schist and granite similar to the situation under the Grand Canyon, which I would guess formed at the same time as all the other deformation in that area too. Can't find anything on a quick google about it so it remains a guess.But I already said I can't fight this no matter what I happen to think, and said PaulK wins the debate. I do not want to argue things when they get this weird.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Here's more about why I have reservations.The erosion that PaulK argues proves that the upper strata were deposited on the already eroded and deformed lower strata is not something I've ever seen on any stack of straight horizontal strata. I think you have to show that it can and does occur that way before you can claim it proves something happened that can't be actually seen on the diagram but inferred. As I said, the fact that all the underground strata parallel each other is evidence for the whole block's having been deformed at the same time.Trying to make the case from deformed strata about something that supposedly happened before the deformation is a bit, well, devious perhaps. Now Percy seems to be trying to make the same case from my examples of deformed blocks of strata. It's too easy to make a case from the many ambiguities found in such a situation. I say if you can't make it from recognizable horizontal strata then you don't have a case.And I think the basic deviousness of this approach is illustrated by the fact that it's only the twisted and bent strata that can be used for such a purpose. I also posted strata eroded as a block and those aren't being used because it's so clear that they ARE just eroded as a block. Well, so are the deformed strata just deformed as a block, it's just that the deformation contains enough ambiguities to allow all this mad speculation.that's my reservation in a nutshell.

I'm not talking about an unconformity. I thought the erosion referred to the cutting off of the strata to the right. If it refers to an unconformity that is invisible then I'm sure you're right.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.