Summations Only

Yes. Those would be the bits that aren't unconformities. Do we have to explain again why unconformities don't propagate up and down through the stack of rocks, or do you suppose you can remember it this time? No, Faith. 'Cos of impossible things not happening.In any case, however much magic you invoke to misinterpret the channels, they are there to misinterpret. There are whacking great 100 meter incisions in the top of the Redwall Limestone, whether they were eroded by real processes or magicked into place in contravention of the laws of nature. So will you stop pretending all the layers are flat, and concentrate on pretending you can explain why they aren't?

A glimmer of common sense. So, how long would that take?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You'd be amazed how infrequently subaerial erosion happens underground. And if it did, Faith, then the erosion would have propagated upwards through the overlying layers of rock (or left a hundred meter hole, one or the other).

But you're not going to show your working?

The rain falling on the limestone, the rivulets running over it.Why do you suppose you can't see this erosion happening today? It still rains, doesn't it?Also, please consider that what overlies the Redwall Limestone is in fact more limestone. How does this fit into your scheme? The fuck, dude?

No, that's a whooping great lie of a magnitude so enormous and stinking that it would leave Satan the Father of Lies shaking his head and wondering if he'd gone too far.

So, no working. And apparently no understanding of the concept of erosion.

Content removed due to software bug. --AdminEdited by Admin, : See above.

Something went so wrong with my previous post that I can't even edit it. Let's try again.--- Faith, I thought you said you'd seen the Grand Canyon. One would have hoped at least that you'd have formed some impression of how big it is. Let me help you out here. You see the four formations above the Redwall Limestone, from the Watahomigi Formation to the Esplanade Sandstone inclusive? Collectively they are known as the Supai Group, and have a thickness of 300 meters.This gives us the scale. So, what is the magnitude of the irregularities on the erosional surface of the Redwall limestone?Let me give you a hint. That is quite big, isn't it?---At NosyNed's suggestion, let me add that a meter is a few inches more than a yard. Therefore 120 meters is a bit more than a football field stood on its end.Which is deeper than this. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

But it doesn't, because the OE view does not consist of the proposition that everywhere is undergoing orogeny all the time. Perhaps we should have mentioned this earlier.

So now you're going to move the goalposts.A few hours ago, you were showing us this picture: ... and telling us that something that big is what we'd see if erosion had occurred.Now I convince you that the layers show erosional features a hundred times bigger than that, and so suddenly you change your ideas of what erosion would have achieved by more than two orders of magnitude, in order to ignore the evidence I've presented.You realize this makes you look ridiculous, right?Also, it's not gonna work. Read on ... Apart from the Surprise Canyon Formation, the Temple Butte Formation, everything above the Kaibab Limestone, the formations of the Grand Canyon Supergroup, and maybe lots of other layers which we don't know about because they were entirely destroyed by erosion. You have no way of saying how many of those there were. If you mean that strata were only eroded after they were deposited, you may for once be telling the truth. This is entirely congruent with geological theory, which does not allow time to run backwards or a surface to be eroded before it's formed.If you mean something else, it's probably wrong.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Faith, just as there are lots of places without mountain-forming going on, so there are lots of places without active volcanoes. In fact, nearly all places have no active volcanoes. I have traveled in three continents and never seen an active volcano or set foot on an ongoing orogeny. Vast geological areas are tectonically placid for enormous periods of time. No. I should think somewhat less for an average spot on the Earth's crust.How many orogenies do you have evidence for in the Grand Canyon region? I count two.

This is obviously untrue, as we can see that there was no "general upheaval", but that the irregularity is confined to the erosional surface and the conforming surface in contact with it. And as it turned out to be a hundred times less than the erosion that actually exists between the layers, this would be a great time to admit that you were wrong. How can you go on lying about this, Faith. How is it even possible? 120 METERS IS BIGGER THAN A FOOT, FAITH.Are we ... are we having this sort of conversation?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

If that was true, then I guess that would explain the two orogenies and the Uinkaret Volcanic Field and the sills and the dikes and the Cardenas Basalt.