Summations Only

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

The fact that you can’t remember seeing examples (like Siccar Point)
is irrelevant to the interpretation. The diagram shows what it shows.

quote:

---

Trying to make the case from deformed strata about something that supposedly happened before the deformation is a bit, well, devious perhaps

---

It contradicts an obviously false idea that you made up. That doesn’t make it devious.

quote:

---

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.

---

Obviously if we are going to say which view a diagram supports we have to deal with the diagram as it is. And you have certainly tried to make such arguments yourself. Moreover we are not relying on any ambiguities but on obvious features of the diagram - and you haven’t pointed out a single case where we are.

quote:

---

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.

---

It’s obvious we can only deal with the question of when deformation occurred by looking at deformed strata. To accuse us of being devious on that ground is just laughable. Such a silly smear.

quote:

---

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.

---

The main reason they aren’t being used is that they aren’t any of the strata seen in any of the diagrams under discussion. And assuming that your interpretation is correct, they don’t even have much to contribute to the discussion. You are making a universal claim (at least with regard to this planet) - you can’t refute counter-examples by pointing to a few small examples of your own.

quote:

---

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.

---

The diagram clearly contradicts your mad speculation as has been explained. All you can do in response is to deny, to lie and to make false insinuations. And apparently you think that’s better and more honest than actually looking at the diagram as it is.

Thanks for this information. I hadn't considered extension, but that's a fine explanation, too. I'm only objecting to explanations which require rock to disappear.I spent about a half hour with Google Images yesterday looking for an image showing more of that fold but no luck. I was hoping that if I could see more of what happened to the layers further to the right I could become more certain (or not) of my conclusion. What can be seen in the image is that the layers appear to be stretched by different amounts (because they thin out by different amounts).--Percy

Of course not. If you were shown such a situation in conformable strata, you'd simply deny the fact of an unconformity because the layers would be parallel.By showing deformed situations, you can see the effect more clearly in angular unconformities. Then you are reaching. You position is unbelievable.

Here is a schematic diagram showing the formation of flexural flow folds. This requires a degree of plasticity and usually occurs in a dynamic metamorphic situation.There are other types of fold mechanisms.

Meant to reply to this earlier, somehow missed it: Then why do you believe there is such a thing as wet and malleable rock? Why do you think it weird to conclude that your belief in wet and malleable rock means you think water isn't "forced out of rocks under compaction?" How could the rock have had the water forced out yet still be wet?By the way (and I also mentioned this in an earlier thread), even the hardest, driest rock does not have zero water content. Granite can be as much as 0.5% water while a very porous sandstone can absorb water readily (some coasters are made of sandstone for just this reason). But anything that is rock already has a very, very low water content, and while water content can reduce rock strength (making it less competent) it will still only crumble, not bend. Rock isn't malleable on the small scales you need where it can somehow be transformed into pieces small enough to be carried off by 4 inches of slowly receding water.I have a ThirstyStone coaster, which is made of an absorbent sandstone. Nothing's been on it for days so it is completely dry. It weighs 161 grams. Now I'm going to soak it in water for five minutes and weigh it again.Okay, I did that, it now weighs 163 grams, so this particular sandstone can absorb 1.24% water by weight. Had I waited longer than 5 minutes it might have absorbed more, I don't know. But I'm holding this coaster in my hands right now and it does not feel wet, and it still feels very, very hard. My attempts to bend it are in vain.Can we put this myth of wet and malleable rock to bed? Those of us on the science side wish you could reduce your error rate below 90%.--Percy

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.

You are going to drive me to an early grave. Not that I'd mind, I'm ready to go. but the deeper the rock the drier it will be by compaction, the higher it is in the stack the more wet and malleable. I don't think it would be COMPLETELY dry if under water, however, no matter how much weight was on it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You didn't reply to PaulK's response, so I shall respond also. This is false. Do I have to quote you from the discussion?The problem for you is the one we've been discussing, the angular unconformities. PaulK called them "cut off" strata - you even asked what he meant by "cut off". I don't see how you could deny that that's what we've been talking about with a straight face. Have some honesty and integrity.I'm frankly stunned, not that you pull this stuff so blatantly and so frequently, but that you apparently think it works well for you. It does not. Your modus operandi is emphatically apparent for all to see. It is not serving you well. Please stop.My images showed you all the angular conformities I could see in the diagram. Each one is something you can't explain, a considerable number of hiccups. The diagram is no more complex now than when PaulK first introduced it. It was fine for you then, it should be fine for you now. And it certainly isn't ambiguous.You're investing your efforts in trying to find ways to avoid discussion of the issues that have been called to your attention. You should instead be working toward finding explanations that follow the evidence and known physical laws. The diagram: PaulK's and my points are related and equally relevant. PaulK is making the point that only tilting deformation followed by erosion could have cut off the strata and created the surface for what later became an angular unconformity when deposition atop it occurred. I'm making the point that your claim that deformation cut off the strata would require cubic miles and miles of rock to disappear into thin air.These are the issues you have to address, but you've apparently instead decided to avoid them.--Percy

I haven't been talking about angular unconformities at any point in this discussion and I didn't know anyone else was either.This thread became one of those familiar EvC nightmares of miscommunication and weird interpretations some time back that I just want out of, period.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, indubitably true. We already know what you believe. What we're discussing with you, or at least attempting to discuss with you, is the evidence you can muster for your position. So far the answer is, "None." I have the same reaction as Edge, that it seems strange that anyone would feel the need to say this since it would be very strange for strata to be eroded prior to deposition. Maybe you're thinking of strata made of thiotimoline. But I think maybe you were trying to say something else. Was it maybe that erosion happened not just after the strata were deposited, but after they were buried beneath deposition of more strata? If so then no, that's impossible. Underground water exists in the interstices and pores of rocks. There's no such thing as underground rivers and streams flowing across and eroding buried strata (and we're not talking about karsts).--Percy

The point I'vfe been making for days now is that erosion occurs to stacks or blocks or units of strata and not between layers; also that deformation occurs to stacks or blocks or units of strata and not between layers. Sometimes I forget to say the whole thing which seems to leave it open for you all to think I'm saying something entirely differen, which is weird and frustrating but not unexpected. If only I was always able to expect it before I post it but unfortunately I tend to assume a continuity that obviously doesn't exist.The point of those photos I posted is to demonstrate that the strata were all in place before the erosion or the deformation occurred. Sometimes as in the Smith diagram the whole range of time periods is present and eroded or deformed as a complete block; but usually it's a partial stack where the rest of it is no longer present and what is present is eroded or deformed as a unit or block by itself. This demonstrates something really very very simple: that the strata are not time periods.ABE (I'm aware that that last sentence is likely to lead to another flurry of weird ideas, but in this case I think I'll just leave it and try to be entertained by the weirdness).Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's it? All you can do is confirm that you consider faults a disturbance? Why are you ignoring the rest of my post?In your Flood scenario the Supergroup strata and the Paleozoic strata were originally part of the same block of strata.
You say that strata tilt as a block. If this were true (and it is if there aren't additional factors) then if the Supergroup and Paleozoic strata were all present at the time of the tilt then they would have tilted together. Why are you instead claiming the Supergroup tilted separately from the Paleozoic strata?As PaulK notes in the context of your Flood scenario, where the Supergroup unit on the right should have exerted the greatest upward pressure (its rightmost portion) the Kaibab lining the North Rim is actually lower in elevation than further north (further left). If the tilting Supergroup were actually responsible for the uplift then the North Rim would be higher in elevation than further north, but it isn't. Here's the diagram for reference: Also, since some Supergroup exposures lie outside the Kaibab uplift, we know the Supergroup didn't cause it. For example, Nanoweap and Unkar group strata are exposed well to the west of the Kaibab Uplift, see Figure 5.1 on page 77 of GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE OF THE GRAND CANYON - one of the authors is Dr. Karl Karlstrom from Mod's video.And do you have any comments on this very short (10 seconds) animation of the tilting and eroding of the Supergroup. Just click on the diagram: Tilting, Faulting and Eroding of the Grand Canyon Supergroup--Percy

Oy

If you believe that then you are very confused. Your position is that deposition was continuous, and unconformities are proof that deposition was not continuous, so unconformities are totally relevant. What do you mean I see no erosion "there"? What do you mean by "there"? I listed at least 9 unconformities:

• Supergroup/Tapeats: unconformity
• Muav Limestone/Temple Butte: unconformity
• Surprise Canyon Formation/Supai Group: unconformity
• Formations within the Supai: unconformity at top of each
• Supai Group/Hermit Shale: unconformity
• Hermit Shale/Coconino Sandstone: unconformity
• Coconino Sandstone/Toroweap Formation: unconformity
• Toroweap Formation/Kaibab Limestone: unconformity
• Kaibab Limestone/Moenkopi Formation: unconformity

Some we know are unconformities because of the evidence of erosion, some we know are unconformities because of a discontinuity in indicator fossils. So of these unconformities that geologists believe have evidence of erosion, which ones do you believe they're wrong about and why? We have time and time again described the evidence that gives away when a contact represents an unconformity. And I just described it again above. What you've been saying has never been true, so it certainly couldn't remain true, because it has no supporting evidence, is contradicted by much evidence, and often doesn't even obey natural physical laws. Saying the strata are eroded as a unit is meaningless. The whole Colorado Plateau is eroding as a unit, and that does not make the whole plateau into a single block of strata.Saying that strata deform as a unit makes more sense, but there is still that outstanding question about why you believe the stack of Supergroup and Paleozoic strata didn't deform as a unit.--Percy