Summations Only

Absolutely irrelevant to the point I'm making and therefore nothing but obfuscation.

quote:

---

The diagram shows the deformation of the strata below the usual baseline. It had to have deformed since being horizontally laid down, that is, AFTER it was deposited, which is the only point I'm making.

---

The point that you are trying to make is that there was no deformation of any stratum until all the strata had been deposited. There is plenty of evidence against that in the diagram.

quote:

---

Can't beat the authoritative-sounding willful assertion of total absurdities so I guess there's nothing more for me to say.

---

That’s your tactic and it isn’t working.

Well, it kind of follows that a layer could only be deformed after it was deposited.But that isn't you only point. You are saying that all sedimentary layers were deposited before any deformation had occurred.This is shown to be incorrect by the numerous contrary posts in this and other threads.

Only by some really convoluted wacko reasoning. You can't get those neatly "tilted" rocks in a row that way.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So, you can't refute it, therefor you just mutter disparaging comments.

quote:

---

Only by some really convoluted wacko reasoning. You can't get those neatly "tilted" rocks in a row that way.

---

As you know, that isn’t what we’ve got.

I did refute it. You can't get the neat row of tilted rocks on your scenario.;

Where? All I've seen is a bunch of baseless assertions and denials. Why not?

It's crucial to the point you tried to make. You denied erosion causing flat surfaces. You listed some other things erosion causes, implying those are all that it causes. I pointed out that ain't so.You can list other things caused by erosion till the cows come home, it still won't be a refutation of erosion causing flat surfaces. Or even relevant. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Your uninformed opinion is neither evidence nor refutation.

How about this terrace? The rocks are standing on end and yet they are planed off as though with a knife. What caused this?

It is screamingly irrelevant what other things erosion causes, flat surfaces or anything else, where is your head? The point is that the erosion that carved the phenomena I'm talking about occurred after the strata were all laid down, and what erosion does otherwise has absolutely nothing to do with that. Same point about tectonic deformation. In the pictures I posted with the erosion pictures, it all happened after the strata were all laid down. This has nothing to do with anything else. You are having some other discussion that is just irrelevant to this one.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What evidence causes you to think this? I'm not sure what "in the line of the tectonic force" means, especially as something that can separate adjacent strata one from another. Could you define it?And what caused this "line of tectonic force" to affect only the Supergroup layers but not the Paleozoic layers above it?In the context of your Flood scenario, how do you explain the wild coincidence that the Supergroup layers date much older than the Paleozoic layers, and that that's also where the division between tilted and untilted layers occurs.And just so you don't forget this important unanswered question, your Flood scenario has the Supergroup layers tilted while buried - where did the missing cubic miles of rock go? Please recall before answering your previous attempts at answers and how they were shown bogus, after which you went silent. It wasn't just the upper block (by which you mean the Paleozoic layers) that were lifted but the entire column, from Vishnu Schist to the Supergroup to the Paleozoic layers, as can be seen in your favorite diagram: What is your evidence for a general upheaval? Meaning that you can't define "block" because of the contradictory way you used it. It's understandable that you would like to avoid discussions where you end up in a train wreck, unable to respond to messages like my Message 1379 and my Message 1397. In the context of strata, erosion is the wearing away of the exposed surface of strata and is not a force. Why can't you just say that exposed strata experience erosion? If you want to refer to the strata of a stratigraphic column that are exposed, why not just say "exposed strata"? How is saying "strata are eroded as a block" doing anything more than sowing confusion about what you're trying to say?Saying "strata are deformed as a block" is at least comprehensible. This makes no sense. How are you defining stack? Why isn't it just another synonym for block or unit? I'm looking at Message 419 now, and I don't think you know what it is you're trying to say. It is self-evidently true that strata cannot erode or deform until they are "in place," i.e., until they exist. I have no idea what a "partial block" is. Except that they're not. Take this image for example: You're presenting this as a block of strata that erode as a unit, but this is actually only a partial block, as we can see if we pan out a bit: By your definition huge continuous stretches of the Earth are a single block because they're at the surface and they're eroding. For example, the entire Colorado Plateau is a single block because it is a block of eroding strata.Exposed strata erode, but that doesn't make them part of the same block. I think what you've made clear is that it is sufficient to say that exposed strata erode. And everyone already knew that.--Percy

Uh, tectonic pressure of course, what does that have to do with anything we are talking about?.

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? The strata are all neatly there, straight and flat as usual, the erosion having occurred to the whole block as a unit. And I've already said partial blocks make the same point, but you probably haven't got to that post yet so you are answering me out of turn as usual. As long as all that's available is a partial block, all of those examples show the same order of events: strata laid down followed by erosion, or strata laid down followed by tectonic deformation.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.