Summations Only

I have never heard of such a term.

I don't divide anything, I find them deformed in blocks, meaning whole segments of strata deformed or eroded together as a unit, not as separate strata. The whole Grand Staircase was eroded into its cliffs all at one time, all the strata being there as a unit.It is difficult to talk to you because you don't understand the simplest things and you always blame me for the problem. I'm sure there are ways I could say it clearer if I knew what they were, but what you find unclear isn't all that unclear, it's just that you somehow manage to misread it.And I can't deal with your very long posts. I can only touch on parts of this one but maybe because it's about a lot of important issues and full of your bizarre misreadings and absurd accusations, I'll come back to it later.For now I'll skip down to Smith's cross section. Smith observed the land in order to make his cross section and what he left out is not important to the point. He obviously saw all the strata he drew and saw them all tilted as he drew them. That's the only point that matters. It shows that all the time periods were represented, all laid down originally horizontally and then tilted AS A BLOCK, meaning all together, not one here and one there, not one before another was laid on top of it, but ALL TOGETHER. And that IS evidence even though you are linquistically challenged about such things.And yes you are right I can't see your chart. I can barely see Smith's, but I remember it from before. I strained my eyes to make out the word "granite" at the far left to show that it does represent some Precambrian rocks, and I had to search to find a copy of it that has the eras on it, Paleozoic, Mesozoic and Cenozoic, because that confirms that all the time periods are represented.I really do have to stop posting at this point, but I really do want to come back to this.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well it's very simple English that conveys something easy to visualize it seems to me. We know what folded rocks are, and we know what "underground" means. The journalist characterizes Dickinson as saying that folded rocks deep underground are the cause of the uplift.

Of course this does not apply to the Grand Canyon block, right?As you allege, the rocks above and below the GU deformed separately even though they are in the same block at the same time.

That's the point. Except that there is no evidence that the rocks are folded due to the Kaibab uplift. Except that he characterizes wrongly.To prove my point. I'll ask you how this uplift happened. In other words, what is the dynamic interpretation?

The big problem with relying on diagrams is that they can be misleading. That is especially true if the diagrams are based on early work, and quite possibly get things wrong.The reality is rather more complicated: A diagram published in 1910 showing a cross-section from Snowdon to Harwich.Even if it is hard to read the fold of older rock at the right should be very obvious. This diagram certainly doesn’t suggest that everything happened at once.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Inserted the image from the link into the message.

It's the most boneheaded thing Faith has said....recently.I was in Iceland before and after the Eyjafjallajkull volcano blew up. The ash was many feet deep in places and covered a huge area. Volcanic ash now on top of sedement. There's also now an island just off the coast that wasn't there before. Seems to me that's an addition to the record.Ash cloud coverage. It changed the landscape. Upper: Ash covers the Thrsmrk valley in early June 2010, immediately after the eruption Lower: The same area, in September 2011I note that the valley is flat...

Look how 'straight and flat' the contacts are! And the Great Unconformity, too! This will show those dumb geologists!Edited by Admin, : Inserted image from the link in [msg396] into this post.

I don't really see how you can make an argument that there is no sign of tectonic disturbance prior to all sedimentary strata being in place by looking at only two examples. If every other pile of rocks in the world looks difference, this isn't much of a basis on which to make statements about the entire globe.But I see a bigger problem with your examples. Smith's diagram is a very schematic (and old) representation of a huge area. I don't know a great deal about what the geology of southern England really looks like, but I wouldn't assume this is accurate enough to use as the basis for grand sweeping statements about the world's geology. You said later in a reply to Percy that it doesn't matter if Smith left bits out of his diagram, but of course it does. If the bits left out are full of strata at irregular angles to one another then your entire point is falsified.But more to the point, the other diagram contains a big problem for your argument - it includes an angular unconformity! The bit at the bottom right just next to the grand canyon shows strata that have clearly been tilted independently to those above.I know you believe you have your own interpretation of this. That interpretation makes no sense to me, but that's not the point. One of your preferred examples to demonstrate the claim that there is no sign anywhere of strata being deformed and tilted independently of the strata above them contains exactly that. The evidence clearly does exist, so I am baffled how you can present the absence of such evidence as the central support for your position.

quote:

---

It's not even a requirement of mine, it's the conclusion I came to fairly recently after pondering the order of events as I've been seeing it on these various cross sections. And the point about the cross section of England is that it alone demonstrates that the standard timing of the splitting of the continents can't be correct because there is no disturbance in the laying down of the strata at the Jurassic period, it just continues up through Recent time without a hitch, and THEN they all are suddenly deformed into their tilted form. So that's one EVIDENCE for the timing of the splitting of the continents after all the strata were laid down. As is the erosion of the Grand Staircase-Grand Canyon area after all the strata were laid down.

---

This doesn't follow at all. If I understand correct, you're saying that the splitting apart of Pangaea should be accompanied by signs of massive tectonic upheaval, with sedimentary layers being tilted all over the place. But why?In standard geology, the splitting apart of continents is not a sudden, catastrophic upheaval that churns the seas and shatters the land. Continental drift is a slow, gradual process. Continents are splitting apart today. The Great Rift Valley running through Ethiopia and Kenya is a live example of the African continental plate splitting in two - over the next ten millions the Horn of Africa is expected to break away. This is not causing rocks across Africa to tilt on their ends. But such signs are all over the place. A lot of the photos I found in a quick search I opted not to use, because it's very hard to distinguish separate layers of rocks. But then that's the point really. Areas where rocks form clear, distinct and separate layers are great for photographs; but they're not really representatives of how most rocks I've seen in real life look.

I hope Faith read your post.--Percy

I'm only talking about strata as eroding and deforming in blocks, not granite and schist, and I include all the strata from Tapeats in the GC to Claron in the GS, but as you also know I do consider the tectonic action beneath the GU to have been the cause of the Kaibab uplift which was the cause of the canyon itself, and also the cause of all the erosion above the GC and through the GS, all happening at the same time after all strata were laid down and the Flood was starting to drain.. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Other way around: Uplift due to folding of rocks. One might ask why you didn't mention this when Percy posted it.All I know is what Percy posted about Dickensen's work. He's a geologist I believe. All I know is what Dickensen said, which happens to be very similar to my own explanation based on what I see in the GS cross section.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Still, no evidence of folding. Dickinson is a well-known geologist. He would not speak so carelessly. Seriously? Please explain. Do you think that he calls the Great Unconformity a fault? Or that there was no deformation or volcanism prior to the topmost layers of sedimentary rocks? That's plain crazy.

I don't see the fold you are talking about. And if it's at the very far right it would only confirm my point anyway.Of course diagrams can be untrustworthy but this point is so very simple and the diagram also so very simple it really doesn't matter how many other things got left out. Really.

Holding my breath I am not.Enjoy