The Story in the Rocks - Southwestern U.S.

There is exactly zero evidence to support this.

You're right, we've been over this before and I don't see any reason to continue it.Except to say, what you call a religious reason I call caring about the truth, and I've certainly learned that you guys do not have the truth despite all your posturing about the superiority of Science. I am totally convinced of my argument, I know it's right, it's far from some kind of "religious" position.

This whole "buckled section after the overlying layers were deposited thing" is something you made up.You are the only one who claims the contact surface of the Grand Canyon unconformity is flat. It may look that way if you are viewing it from miles away, but up close it is quite irregular.Edge has shown you examples of this irregular surface and it has been pointed out to you numerous times in the past. The flatness is an illusion cased by viewing distance.And just how many are you calling a "majority of cases?" How many unconformities have you actually visited and analyzed?

Of COURSE I "made it up," it's MY THEORY for cryin out loud. And it's a fantastically good theory, it answers a lot of the blithering nonsense of OE geology. I posted pictures demonstrating the flatness, and I added a link to that post in Message 44 that you missed because you were answering it already. The pictures show the contact to be flat both close up and at a distance.Again, we've done this to death and there is no reason to continue.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Right, despite being shown countless pieces of evidence that prove you wrong, and never having conducted a single second of scientific research, and having an argument that violates the laws of physics, that is based on a biblical myth, you still know you are right.You have said in past discussions that no matter how much evidence there is against you the bible is still correct. Sounds exactly like religion and/or cognitive dissonance to me.

I do not argue from the Bible. I argue the physical facts.I've answered your "evidence" many times over. The thing is this is all a war of interpretations but you think it's about evidence. It's not. We all have the same facts, we interpret them differently.And your tactics are deceitful. You pull rank instead of thinking about my argument. My argument doesn't need the kind of research you demand. It's just a way for you to beat your chest and claim superiority, it has nothing to do with the facts being discussed.THIS CONVERSATION IS OVER.

Yep, you posted a bunch of photos, but subsequent posts blew your interpretation out of the water.After all this time your argument has not gained a single convert, Geology must be a powerful argument.

Subsequent posts all aimed at finding a surface some where flat enough to justify the Party Line. Eventually one was found. But it blew nothing out of the water because getting a flat surface from mere erosion on top of a stack of angled slabs of rock isn't going to happen. In fact I think it probably occurred the way I keep postulating. The angled rock was sheared by the friction between it and a previously present very deep stack of horizontal sediments when tectonic force caused the buckling of the lower section.There is no reason whatever for erosion to choose a level to flatten out a bunch of broken upright slabs of rock. Doesn't happen. Nothing but OE Geo fantasy.

When you know your postion is right and not subject to being changed based on the evidence it IS a religious position.

Typical twisting. The usual definitional gameplaying.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

However, the only reason to do so is because of adherence to a religious text.Therefore it is a religious viewpoint. Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

Except when it does. You have been shown a number of examples. You have also seen where the pre-Tapeats surface was irregular.You ignore all of it.That's actually kind of insulting, you know. Faith, it is kind of axiomatic that when rocks are deformed the have to go someplace because volumes are changed at any location. Where do you think the rocks go? Reality says that the 'room problem' is taken up by moving vertically. In other words if you take a substance like a marshmallow and squeeze it or stretch it, the upper surface has to move. This would deform the rocks above the deformation.There is no other way to accommodate the strain.Moreover that vertical movement is unlikely to be even. The very best case would be a strongly faulted upper layer. And that is not what we have.When we combine that with a lack of shearing along the unconformity boundary, it's pretty clear that your model is dead on arrival.We have plenty of cases where there was plastic flow beneath a section of sedimentary rock and guess what ... the upper rocks are severely deformed.You can stamp your feet and cry all you want, but it isn't going to make a difference to anyone else on the planet. These are direct observations and logical reasoning. Sure there is: erosion to base level, a resistant layer, glacial friction, etc., etc.

Here is an image of deformed sediments in a compression. And here is one in tension. In both cases, you can see that the uppermost layers are deformed, even more so than the lower layers. Some vertical deformation is required to take up strain.

+additional cheers.

Try it with compacted semi-hardened sediments, and be sure you have different kinds or at least two different kinds, and apply the pressure to the LOWER HALF of the stack. Then you'll be getting somewhere near what I'm talking about. But I've worked on a model for this problem for a long time and there really isn't a set-up that would fairly represent it. Yours certainly doesn't. It's just the usual OE flimflam, just a way to delude yourself and others like Tanypteryx.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.