Summations Only

* sighs * By contrast, the picture you put on your blog to show the world what subaerial erosion should look like was a channel a couple of feet deep. I feel that this exceeds that, on account of big numbers being bigger than small numbers.

Of course you have to pretend that. But surely even you must admit that the erosional features must in fact be very large in order for there to be something to speculate about. In order for someone to "speculate" that something is a large paleovalley, it must, in fact, be large. Uh, no. 'Cos you said the erosional features were small when they're large. That's the opposite of being true, just like small is the opposite of large. Now, we discussed why this is impossible, didn't we?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

We can observe real processes depositing sand in exactly this form, so it's not a problem for real geology. On the other hand, no-one has ever observed imaginary magical processes depositing sand in such a form, so they may constitute a problem for imaginary magical geology.Just to remind you, here's a photograph of a real non-magical thing that actually exists. Do you have any photographs of made-up magical things that don't actually exist?

And yet what you wrote was, and I quote: Faith, meet Faith. The two of you have such a lot to talk about. I suggest that you reread what rox wrote until you understand it, or hell freezes over, whichever is sooner.You have been shown repeatedly, repeatedly, Faith, that the contact between the Coconino and the Toroweap is an unconformity. Note that the unconformity is not flat, Faith, 'cos of flat things being flatter and less not-flat. And I'd like to hear your alternative magical explanation for the truncation of the cross-beds. I could do with a laugh.

In message 1001 you pretended that the erosion was too small to be subaerial. You did not mention karsts, I did not mention karsts to you in my reply, and I have no idea why you've suddenly started babbling about them. As with many things you are certain of, this is obviously untrue. The erosion I keep drawing your attention to was filled in by the next sediment. As is clearly demonstrated in the photographs we keep showing you. That's the point, Faith. That's why it shows your dumb YE fantasies to be impossible.

We appreciate them as much as they deserve. ... oh, wait, were you talking about yourself? Well that's just adorable.

You may have inadvertently said something true. For it to be consistent with your usual nonsense, I think you meant to pretend that the erosion happened after the deposition of the Toroweap. Just saying "after deposition" leaves you in danger of saying something sensible. It's called erosion, Faith. I may have mentioned it now and then.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well, it's not that strange, since even you can understand it ... some of the time ... And this is what happened, Faith.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Or you're not understanding the answer. The shape of the bottom conforms to the underlying rock. As for the shape of the top, if it was, as you claim, loose sand during the marine transgression, that would make it even easier. The angle of repose of dry sand is impossible for wet sand, the dunes would slump, and the action of the tide would tend to flatten out the sand. But I'm not convinced you're right on this point. Perhaps you should have a quiet word with yourself and decide whether you want to deny that the erosion exists, or assert that it occurred after the deposition of the entire stack.Or you could say something that isn't jaw-droppingly silly.

Perhaps this would be a good time to remind you that according to your own version of events, the top of the Kaibab Plateau was exposed by erosion. It's no less flat than all the things you keep claiming can't be produced by erosion because they're too flat.

"It did what it did" is in fact perhaps the ultimate in handwaving. The difference is that we have detailed physically possible mechanisms which an be observed, whereas you have vague magical mechanisms which can't be observed. Once again, I find myself wondering if you even know what a river is.

Specifically, they're the sort of blind people who know what shape a riverbed is, who know what a beach looks like, who recognize a meander when shown a photograph of one, who don't say that large things are small, who don't say that irregular surfaces are flat, who don't say that visible things are invisible, who don't think that something two feet in diameter would be visible across an eighteen mile wide canyon, and who don't look at the layers in the Grand Canyon and claim that "there is no difference in their appearance one from another".

So, you're prepared to admit that erosion can produce flattish rocks. Good.You don't explain why you think the Coconino wasn't rock when the erosional surface was formed, but it barely matters, since a fortiori what can flatten rocks can flatten loose sediment. If you look at exposed sediments which are still depositing, in the real world outside your head, they do not typically exhibit dramatic erosion. The impossibility of this explanation has been pointed out to you. Has it ever occurred to you that sometimes when you don't understand something the problem might be at your end? For example, maybe your inability to understand geology doesn't mean that all the geologists are idiots. Just a thought. Apart from a time period of forty days and forty nights, yes? And since geologists have given serious thought to it, and it is not obvious to them, you are wrong.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Erosion flattened off the top.Perhaps this would be a good time to point out that all depositional processes, whether of wind or of water, that produce cross-bedding also produce an undulating surface. We both have to explain where it went. My explanation doesn't involve magic.

Excuse me, doesn't your model require the erosion, on the Kaibab Plateau, of everything above the Kaibab Limestone? Which of the words are giving you the most difficulty? Apparently you are using the English language in a different way from the rest of us. Forty days and forty nights is in fact a period of time, are we agreed? So you must have some secret meaning of "represent" that you have not as yet vouchsafed unto us.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.