Summations Only

There's that amnesia flaring up again. Just read the thread and refresh your memory. I liked Edge's word of "sinuous." The canyon follows a sinuous course, including through the Kaibab Uplift, and not along anything resembling a fracture or fault. You called these strata wet and malleable - why are they fracturing? So if you drop a wet and malleable blob of clay on the floor, you expect it to crack because it's soft? Not going to happen. If you really want something to crack I suggest you drop a coffee cup. You've got everything backwards. Wet and malleable things bend and flex and twist. Hard things fracture. You're imagining fractures in wet and malleable things where they're not possible, and in hard layers like the Kaibab where fractures are possible we don't see any. You mean the water started receding at the same time that the Kaibab Uplift occurred? Since the water had to be at a height above eventual sea level to cover Mount Everest at 29,000 feet, the Kaibab Uplift at an elevation of only about 8000 feet would have had 21,000 feet of water (4 miles) above it when it began receding. Since the upward forces were uneven, concentrated as they were just under the Kaibab Uplift but not over the rest of the region, why is the whole stratigraphic column pushed upward instead of just some of the bottom layers tilting, like what you think happened with the Supergroup. You're repeating yourself, so so will I. Why do you think wet and malleable strata capable of bending and flexing would experience fractures? Did you ever play with Play-Doh? How do you fracture Play-Doh? Which is wet and malleable and would just bend. That's what causes bends. If they were soft then they wouldn't fracture. And not to forget, I thought you decided the upper strata were still loose sediment. Finally, something true. How does water break up strata that are wet and malleable? Just how many fractures are we talking about here? You seem to be imagining the entire stack of layers above the Kaibab, a region of tens of thousands of square miles and a volume of rock of more than twenties of thousands of cubic miles of rock, being fractured into chucks small enough to be carried away by a thin sheet of water a few inches thick. Again, the water level is dropping at the rate of 1.5 inches/minute. That's not going to generate any meaningful flow of water, especially not miles beneath the surface. Even a stratum of loose sediments wouldn't be affected. There is nothing to widen the fractures that wouldn't form anyway in wet and malleable strata. Are you actually imagining that when the water level reaches the surface that there is already a canyon? Well, we certainly wouldn't expect to see any evidence of the impossible, and we don't. This has been explained many, many, many times. Go find one of those explanations. The site is littered with them. You're imagining a problem that doesn't exist. Downcutting during uplift is a well understood process. This has been explained. Read the thread.--Percy

Looks like you never went back to reread your message. The claim of complete stratigraphic columns came from your Message 284, where you claimed they existed several times: So it looks like you did say what we said you said, it was incorrect, and then you compounded the error by trying to retroactively claim you were saying something different, and that it wasn't important anyway. Face it, you were wrong, then you falsely denied it. No worries, your points not only don't approach "detailed perfection," they lack evidence, rationale, coherence, consistency, and are constantly changing.--Percy

LOOK AT THE STRATA IN THAT PICTURE. JUST LOOK,. NO LAKE BED, NO SALT FLAT, NO FIELD, NO BEACH, IS THAT FLAT. JUST LOOK.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

YOU CAN FAULT ME FOR NOT BEING CLEAR I AM ALWAYS TALKING ABOUT THE GEOLOGICAL TIME SCALE WHEN I TALK ABOUT THE GEOLOGICAL COLUMN/STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN, BUT NO, I DO NOT CHANGE MY STORY. THE GC/GS AND THE MAP OF ENGLAND SHOW EXACTLY WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT, ALL THE TIME PERIODS ATTACHED TO THEIR RESPECTIVE SLABS OF ROCK IN PLACE FROM CAMBRIAN TO HOLOCENE, AFTER WHICH ALL THE EROSION OCCURRED AND NOT BEFORE, AFTER WHICH ALL THE TECTONIC DISTURBANCE OCCURRED AND NOT BEFORE. THAT IS EVIDE3NCE THAT THE GEO COLUMN HAS COME TO AN END, IT IS EVIDENCE OF RAPID DEPOSITION AND AGAINST THE MILLIONS OF YEARS TIME SCALE. THE EROSWION MARKS THE END, THE TECTONIC DISTURBANCE MARKS THE END. THAT DID NOT OCCUR DURING THE LAYING DOWN, IT OCCURRED AFTER IT WAS ALL LAID DOWN. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

However, they are lake bottomsAnd they are flat.And why couldn't they be muds rather than salt? In fact, many are.

i WAS HOPING SOMEONE HERE MIGHT ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO SEE HOW THOSE CANNOT POSSIBLY BE LAKE BEDS. I TRIED TO AVOID ANYTHING THAT I THOUGHT MIGHT SOUND INSULTING. BUT OF COURSE THE INGRAINED HABITS WOULD PREVAIL EVEN IF THEY ARE TOTALLY WACKO. iEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

Actually, some are missing. Actually, incorrect. These two locations do not represent the entire world. Again, demonstrably wrong. Siccar Point is an example of deformation before the most recent sediments. Not really. You cannot predict what is going to happen in the future as sea level changes. Again, the process is ongoing. We only see a snapshot in human terms. Erosion is acting as it always has and tectonism is very much alive as it has been for the last half billion years.I am surprised that you have not yet figured this out.

That's pretty much what your science consists of ... hoping. Recent lake beds look exactly like the ones in your picture. The sediment cores from Lake Suigetso are also similar.This image shows the upper layers in the upper left of the image as kind of vague and obviously of very low strength, usually uncountable. The layers seem to blend together rather than show sharp contacts. This is similar to your image where the bedding, while flat, is still vague and gradual in some cases. Irrelevant, but I understand that your habits are hard to break. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Every message should have some real content. Snark messages are just topic pollution.Adminnemooseus

How flat is that flat? Does this apply to lake beds that are squashed by millions of tonnes of material? Just looking only gets us so far, we need to apply reason and reference actual measurements. Salt flats - which are former lakebeds - certainly pass your yardstick challenge for how flat they are.I'm afraid yelling at me isn't persuasive. I thought you were protesting "a flat {haha, a retrospective pun - mod} assertion of what purports to be fact" but here you are making 'pontifical declaration of dogma.'So if it wasn't caused by a large pool of water slowly draining or evaporating away, and then being buried under tonnes of rock - since that would not cause it to be that flat (although you don't seem to want to explain how you know this nor do you seem willing to provide measurements for how flat it is)...what was it that caused it?

Where do all the tons come from, what are they made of, where do they go when the rock is a layer in that hill? Which it won't be in any case because edge said those layers are limestone and volcanic ash. And yes I don't see how it's going to make anything as flat as the strata in that hill. And no, I have no evidence. And neither do you or anybody else.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You said the layers in the hill are limestone and volcanic ash.

You get pressed-in creases and crumples.

OK, conceded. So any ups and downs would occur over greater distances. Yes it is considerably flatter, you can see it with your eyes. Actually not. You are just doing the usual tit for tat that is so popular here without bothering to understand what I meant when I used those terms. Depends on what's being squashed and what's doing the squashing. FlattER, but not necessarily really flat. Depends on the distribution of weight. It could make depressions and lumps rather than flatness, highly compacted no doubt, quite hard, but not necessarily straight and flat, no..Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, we are talking about that colorfully stratified hill and edge said they were limestone and volcanic ash. Most of them. To say the GC was "caused by a divine flood" is to miss everything I've said about it. As for Valles Marineris the latest theory is that it was caused by tectonic movement.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.