Summations Only

I think the Supergroup strata were laid down at the same time as the Paleozoic strata, but they were in the line of the tectonic force that uptilted them and separated them from the upper block, becoming the cause of the lifting of the upper block. And it was all part of the general upheaval that cut the canyon, scoured off the Kaibab limestone and formed the cliffs of the Grand Staircase.It's a depressing idea trying to explain how I use the terms "block" and "unit" to you, since your misunderstanding them suggests a frame of mind I have little hope of communicating with. I really would like to avoid getting into another discussion like the one about the weird "half inch" between the Cocohino and the Hermit formations that you took to be part of the Coconino.But anyway. A block and a unit are synonymous as I've been using them, yes. They refer to any part of a stack of strata that is subjected to the same forces all together rather than separately, meaning erosion or tectonic deformtation at least, and (usually but not always) where no other strata from the same stack are present, just the one block or unit. The pictures I posted in Message 419 of blocks of strata that were eroded and deformed as a unit were meant to be examples of what I mean. The point is to demonstrate that it s a rule that the strata were not eroded or deformed until they were all in place, which even partial blocks demonstrate. They are all pictures of blocks of strata either eroded as a block or deformed as a block. I hope this is explanatory but I guess I shouldb't hold my breath.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

As I explained, it's the RANGE that matters to the point I'm making, not inclusiveness. Though in the case of that cross section all the eras are represented in any case.Of course you are missing the point as usual. It demonstrates that the strata were tilted as one block which demonstrates that tectonic deformation occurred after they were all in place. That's the whole point of this. But I think I should stop trying to make such simple obvfious points to you.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Percy, it's certain KINDS of pictures and diagrams I can't see well. I can't see thin line writing, which is harder if it's also small, and fine line graphics too; white is a glare that makes me squint, also many pale colors. Charts that distinguish between kinds of sediments with tiny little dots and dashes on white are impossible to decipher. Strong contrasts help me see especially if the outlies are bold. I see strong lines and strong colors fine. Thick black lines are great. The dark colors of the Smith diagram make it easy to see all the strata. What I can't see is the writing so I give up on that. I also can't make out what PaulK says is a fold at the far right. I seem to be able to see the strata there well enough but I can't make out what he means by the fold.Geo column/strat column, the distinction is trivial to me.The whole idea that current sedimentation has anything to do with the geological column, or any stratigraphic column, is so foreign to me that even trying to remember to mention it may be impossible. But now that you've made an issue of it I hope I can make the effort if it really clarifies things.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I understand the basics of meander formation, RAZD. I just went looking at You Tube films of meanders, both actual and animations, and still have the same impression: they make smooth loops, they don't look to me anything like the course of the Colorado over the Kaibab plateau.

I posted a bunch of partial examples Message 419 besides the two complete ones, and the case holds up. I'm sure I can dig up more if necessary. Tou are comparing apples and oranges here. The proper comparison with the Smith diagram is the block of Paleozoic strata in the GC plus the strata in the GS. But your evidence about the Supergroup is more than matched by mine which shows an entirely different history.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But they are both true. You are the one who is wrong.

My "errors" in this case consist of (1) my calling something a "mountain" that looks like a mountain and is identified at Google Image as a mountain; and (2) my neglecting to say that the sheet of water had to become streams in order to form a meander, in one description, which you quoted, although I say meanders form from streams in other quotes. I know how meanders form, it's hardly rocket science, I was talking about an earlier stage in the receding of the water before it got to the meander stage, but for some reason you enjoy misrepresenting me.

Don't talk about images you are not producing yourself as evidence. I've made my point, you are just trying to sound like you know something you don't.

Perhaps it's you who misjudge the Word of God as an "ancient myth." If it ever hits you what it really is you may find yourself riveted to the floor in amazement as I did when I first discovered that God is real and no myth.

You are being purposely vague it seems to me. You talk about a "1910" something or other without bothering to be clear what you mean and I have no reason to think you know anything worth tracking down. I told you I can't see any fold in the Smith diagram. If you want me to see it you have to do something to make it possible.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No idea what you are referring to, you're still being vague. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I looked at all your links, which was a lot to ask of me since I had to move them to a Word document and zoom them to be able to see them, but anyway. Also keep looking at the diagram. While the pictures show something more irregular than most of the examples I've seen they are still nowhere near the irregularity of the Kaibab curve and I'm still unable to see it as a meander. Itg just looks like a river that is running through an area of tributaries and something like small side canyons, nothing like the meanders in your pictures or the diagram, except the overall curve. But the terrain could cause the curve; meanders form where the land is flat.The diagram looks like any diagram of meanders and I'm not sure what I'm supposed to get out of it. It doesn't suggest anything like the Kaibab curve to me.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Erosion carves canyons and cliffs and monuments and hoodoos and gullies and valleys and so on and so forth..

Irrelevant. I'm saying one simple thing:Erosion carves canyons and cliffs and monuments and hoodoos and gullies and valleys and so on and so forth. The statement is true, all these things exist and they are caused by erosion.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

My guess is that the author of the article knew what she was talking about even if she didn't get it exactly right, and there's no reason to be trying to second-guess her anyway. She wrote: (As quoted in my Message 215)Neither your guesses nor Percy's -- and his understanding is often weirdly wrong anyway -- is going to tell us either what Dickinson actually said or what the author intended by her description.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.