Summations Only

the validity of one's ideas is their power to convince others.

Consistent with observations should be considered. By that measure her ideas have no validity.

She can't see that the model is of a moment in time (and the zones move without changing what's already deposited) and it's not all that happens (uplift, subsidence, erosion). She sees an order in the model that is not exactly duplicated in the GC and can't see how the GC strata are explained by the model AND other processes.

So, a transgression followed by a major regression followed by a transgression followed by layers that are now lost to erosion.

Not at all "all jumbled up", there's a clear pattern.

Edited by JonF, : Match RAZD's edit

I think you may have inadvertently included the Hermit Shale in your revised version of the Coconino Sandstone, however.

I think so too. The interesting thing is that, if the Hermit Shale were slid to the left, there would be an obvious discontinuity. We'd see deep water deposition "suddenly" (in geologic terms) change to aeolian deposition. So between the Hermit and Coconino would be an obvious place to look for evidence of "intermediate" layers that transitioned between deep and shallow water but are no longer there because of erosion. Or maybe evidence of a "sudden" uplift or something.

Faith has explicitly stated that she is infallible on thematters on which she has declared herself infallible. Hubris, much?

I don't know how to find where she says that

Message 1255

You *are* wrong about this and you *would* see it if you would just think.

Faith is using 'just" in the sense of the last part of "4. simply; only; no more than".. I.e "just thinking" means siting in a darkened windowless room and relying only on your imagination to produce ideas and theories.

The "assertion" is a description of another model altogether, that's the point. The model with all its parts is coherent and explanatory. I haven't laid out all its parts in this thread, only some of it, trying to get just enough of it described to explain my interest in the topic of the thread, the sea transgression/regression model for how the depositions were laid down.

I.e. an assertion with no support.

I've supported it many times elsewhere

Which just goes to show that you don't understand the meaning of the word "support".

You've made lots of assertions, but provided almost no support.

I wonder if there are any courageous EvCers here, who know that what I've illustrated is in fact a solid definition of "parallel," who would step out of the shadows and say so.

No, that would be promulgating your error. Parallel is clearly and precisely defined. You are incapable of being precise, so you are using the wrong words.

Things that are made up are sometimes called theories

Not in a scientific setting, unless they have a lot of evidentiary support.

You aren't going to communicate accurately in English with someone who doesn't speak English.

You aren't going to communicate accurately about geology without using established geological terms, the meaning of which is easily found with insignificant effort.

Edge is doing the best that he can to describe things accurately to you, and you are refusing to put any effort at all into learning anything at all about what has been found and measured and described.

You just sit in your darkened room and make up ludicrous fantasies without any reference to the real world.

The fault is exclusively yours. You could easily remedy it. But even what's easy is too hard for you. Feh!

I've spent hours and hours and hours reading up on geology over the years.

Obviously untrue. If you really had you would know the lingo and know something of mainstream geology. You know neither.

Perhaps you meant to say you have spent hours gazing uncomprehendingly at geology books and we sites?

Listen again. Percy did overstate the case; often there is a very little of the eroded material remaining at the erosional surface. But the vast majority of it is "no longer there, carried away by wind and water."

All I said was that it is commonly understood by establishment GEOLOGY that there is a band of erosion between the different levels of an angular unconformity. That remains true.

Yes. So what? Percy's main point was that the vast majority of eroded stuff winds up somewhere else. You've ignored that entirely. And it wasn't contradicted by your video.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.