Summations Only

Erosion can only happen at the surface, so if erosion didn't cause the truncation of the Grand Canyon Supergroup strata and the buried layers in this diagram: If it was instead deformation that did it, then where did deformation put the now missing stretches of strata?I don't understand how your knowledge of science can be so limited that you don't realize that matter disappearing into thin air turns your scenario into a complete non-starter.--Percy

One hiccup would be more than enough to falsify your scenario, but there's more than one. Here are crops into the image of all your hiccups (unconformities caused by surface erosion) that I see going from left to right. I've centered each hiccup, just look in the center of each image: That's a lot of hiccups! So tell us, where did all the missing rock go?--Percy

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.

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.

You said that "the evidence beneath the surface occurred after the deformation," presumably about evidence supporting your scenario. PaulK pointed to no evidence supporting your scenario. In fact, the evidence he described shows why your scenario is impossible. So what evidence are you referring to?--Percy

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.

quote:

---

Paul 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

---

Funny how you can’t see what is obviously there even after it has been explained to you.

quote:

---

The upper strata are also deformed same as the lower.

---

But the deformation is not the same. That is very, very clear. We can see that the lowest strata are much more deformed than the upper. We can see that there are large variations in the thickness of some strata where they fill depressions in the surfaces below. We can see strata that bend up and suddenly stop where they meet the strata above - and where those upper strata do not follow that same curve.Look at the magnified sections posted by Percy in Message 617

quote:

---

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 Smith cross-section looks like that. This one certainly does notLook at it!

quote:

---

The whole thing is now deformed pretty much beyond being able to reconstruct its history it seems to me

---

In full, perhaps not. But we can certainly see that there were multiple episodes of deformation and erosion while the strata were being laid down. That much is obvious - and that is the real reason you’re insisting that it’s too complex to understand. Because it is understandable and proves you wrong.

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.

Both PaulK and Edge responded to your post, and you replied to neither one, so here's another response. If you're talking about these images: Then the problem is that you interpreted them incorrectly, and they are not the "usual situation" anyway. There is no "usual situation." Every sort of thing that is geologically possible has happened to the Earth and is recorded in stratigraphic columns around the globe. Your idea that a single period of deposition followed by a single period of tectonic activity is responsible for all the world's geology is contradicted by the evidence. What we see recorded in the Earth's strata is impossible in a flood scenario.Your inclination is to ignore the issues raised about your ideas, as you did in this case by not replying to PaulK or Edge, but problems don't go away by ignoring them. In a discussion context it does tend to draw things out since we have to raise and explain the same issues time and again, usually with the same result that you ignore or deny the issues. The deformations in your images were once underground, too. How do you think such folding occurs if not underground? I don't know why both PaulK and Edge let this stand, but you're wrong all over the place here. Here's the Snowdon/Harwich diagram again: The strata aren't sagging. As Edge comments somewhere, the strata are tilted upward toward the west due to the Caledonian Orogeny.And about salt layers being involved in that Michigan Basin diagram, we all agreed during that discussion that the salt layers were far too thin to be of any influence: Assuming you're back to the Snowdon/Harwich diagram, again, no sagging - uplift. Assuming you're back to the Michigan Basin diagram again, sagging is not what's happening. It's deposition into stream beds. They probably have different amounts of vertical exaggeration and aren't for the same region. "Other diagram"? You mean the Michigan Basin one? Something elese? Repeating your wrong analysis while ignoring the corrections accomplishes what, exactly? Again, no sagging, and no general thickening with depth either, though what that would mean in Faith-land God only knows. Except that they don't. A stratigraphic column will experience deformation as a unit (though you seem to believe otherwise when it comes to the Grand Canyon Supergroup), but strata that aren't present at the time of deformation will not experience any. Once strata are deposited atop deformed strata then they are of course subject to any future deformations. This is just simple logic. Ignoring it makes you automatically wrong. By "what you are focused on" I assume you're referring to where PaulK called your attention to multiple angular unconformities that could only happen through multiple deposition/deformation/erosion events. The diagram is evidence of these multiple cycles. On the contrary, angular unconformities only result from erosion. You quote nothing from PaulK, so are you sure he said the upper strata exhibit no erosion? It sure doesn't look that way to me, so I'd be surprised if it looked that way to PaulK. "They all" (whatever that means) are not all parallel to one another. Again, uplift. And again, uplift. It's even more convincing as is because of how clearly it illustrates multiple episodes of deposition/deformation/erosion. And yet again, uplift. And yet you have no rationale for your position.--Percy

Why not?Please describe your reservations.

I would be cautious about betting on such, even in the case of the above photo.eg: Boudinage

quote:

---

Boudinage is a geological term for structures formed by extension, where a rigid tabular body such as hornfels, is stretched and deformed amidst less competent surroundings.[1] The competent bed begins to break up, forming sausage-shaped boudins. Boudinage is common and can occur at any scale, from microscopic to lithospheric, and can be found in all terranes.[2] In lithospheric-scale tectonics, boudinage of strong layers can signify large-scale creep transfer of rock matter.[2] The study of boudinage can, also, help provide insight to the forces involved in tectonic deformation of rocks and their strength.

---

I think that this is a much more metamorphic situation than the first photo, but is it really that different?Moose

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

Which sounds like you saying that you can see the evidence, but refuse to accept that it can override your opinions. It’s certainly the way you argue.

So, your reasoning is that Paul is desperate?And just what are the 'costs'? But this is an assertion, not a reason or evidence. Quite wrong. No one sees this but you.The layers are not parallel across unconformities just as the Old Red Sandstone beds are not parallel to the underlying Silurian rocks at Siccar Point. Or do you deny that, also? So, just feet away from granite and schist, you have unmetamorphosed sediments that were deformed at the same time as the schist?Please explain. There could be a reason for that ... You are the only one to find it 'weird'.Perhaps it's time to reconsider some of your preconceived notions about geology.

quote:

---

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.

---

That’s an interesting insight into your mind. Looking at the evidence and understanding it + even at a quite basic level - is something you consider a sign of desperation. It explains why you are wrong all the time.

quote:

---

The simple explanation is that the strata were laid down flat and horizontal and then deformed as seen, period.

---

I guess it is simple if you don’t care about accounting for the evidence. Unfortunately for accounting for the evidence is a requirement for a worthwhile explanation.

quote:

---

The strata beneath the UK are parallel in their deformation which is evidence that it occurred as a block all at one time

---

That is certainly not true unless you have a very weird idea of parallel. Is a stratum that slopes down parallel to one that curves up ?

quote:

---

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.

---

Assuming you mean the area under the buried peak rather than off the edge of the diagram it looks like they don’t know what’s there. Certainly there are strata shown which could continue into that region and aren’t marked as terminating.

quote:

---

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.

---

There’s nothing weird about it. The evidence clearly contradicts you and you are desperately trying to deny it. That’s entirely normal here.