Summations Only

Yes I believe all of it.

OK, let's talk about the hoodoos. For a minute. I'm interested in the ones that are clearly carved out of the stack of strata. I'd post some pictures of my own but I still haven't figured out how to do it so I'll link as usual to my blog where I've posted them.As I say there what's amusing about the hoodoos is that they make it clear that all the strata were built up first before they underwent any carving or cutting. But of course that's the case with all the formations that are carved out of the stack of strata, hoodoos, monuments, stairs and cliffs, canyons etc.I'm still sort of waiting for an "aha" moment to hit some Old Earthers about this.Anyway, HERE's the hoodoo blog post.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I know about IMG, but I can never figure out what the URL is for a picture. I've tried various ones, from the original source, from my Paint program, from my blog, the one under "Properties" for the image. Nothing works. Maybe I'll go back and look at what RAZD saidEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

Funny, I only see rather tight contact lines in all those pictures, with of course plenty of disturbances that happened to the whole stack later.

Oh there was enough pressure already, on the Kaibab too.

How clever! Abracadabra, erosion that WAS there disappears! Please let everybody know who has been arguing that the nearly invisible erosion that IS there between layers that are pretty tight to the naked eye is clearly SURFACE erosion, since you've now proved that surface erosion would have been eradicated by a stint under the sea. I just noticed Tempe's post back a ways where he insists on that bit of erosion as surface erosion, but he's just one of many.But of course I don't think there ever was any surface erosion because I don't think there were any risings and fallings of the sea or any time at the surface of the earth for any layer, so that the small amount of erosion between layers that you have to get up close to see was caused by something like runoff between the layers.The very existence of hundreds of miles of neatly parallel strata as shown in those cross-sections speaks of a billion years of NO disturbance, accepting the standard time frame of course. The only disturbances came AFTER all that was laid down, which suggests the same for the disconformities and unconformities, including erosion channels between layers.I wonder, do you or anybody here have an overview of just how many subsidences under the sea are considered to have been involved in the making of the strata we see in the GC area? How many risings and fallings, and was it the land or the sea rising and falling?

You could be right about the depth of the erosion, but it seems to me there should be a LOT of erosion of that sort and other sorts if there were really long stints at the surface, and that the filling in of such gaps by the sediments supposedly depositing above would distort all those nice neat contact lines. The point is that the EXISTING erosion is not even as deep as the gully in that picture.

When shaping things from clay you find they hold their shape while wet, even have smooth surfaces that don't dent easily, even thin walls that don't collapse or deform. They hold their shape and you can carve them.Damp firmly compressed Kaibab, that became rock over the following years.

The unconformities themselves are not nice neat lines but there ARE nice neat lines even in those formations, or you can see that they once were originally nice neat horizontal lines even though now they're a bit wavy. I see lots of those in those pictures even though the overall formations have undergone disruptions that angled them and collapsed parts of them and so on. Karst formation would have occurred after all were in place too.

You wanted me to answer this question about your hoodoos: Never "soft" but when originally shaped were no doubt still damp, but their current shape has been formed since they became rock. All the hoodoos and other formations in the Southwest are eroded yearly through expansion and contraction by temperature changes.

Karst formation is due to dissolving limestone. No reason this couldn't happen even deep in the stack of layers wherever you've got both water and limestone.

Without witnesses who were actually there you can't CONFIRM whatever theories you come up with about the past, though some should be more plausible than others. If those pictures showed type of sediment/rock rather than the fantasy time periods of OE theory I might be able to study them, but as is I find it impossible.I draw conclusions from what I'm looking at too, I'm not making things up out of thin air. I'm looking at pictures and diagrams and whatnot. But everybody works with a theory in mind as well. Geologists do, you do and I do. And everything you see is naturally interpreted in conformity with the theory.

Probably about four thousand years. It would be interesting if somebody would calculate the degree of yearly erosion and measure the skirt of erosion at the bottom of hoodoos and monuments to come up with an age. Hint: it's not millions of years.

What is it about being subaerially exposed that promotes karst formation? Limestone plus water should do it, no? But if it must be, consider that it IS subaerially exposed vertically. I mean we can see it in the rock.

And that is true. The existing erosion between the layers in those otherwise absolutely straight blocks of strata is not as deep as that gully.