That is difficult enough to prove, maybe even impossible to prove for the many truncated columns/ time scales, though I've made some inroads there with cross sections in my opinion, but anyway this is why I point to the two examples where it is obviously true:
The Grand Canyon-Grand Staircase area where the whole range of time periods is represented from Precambrian to Recent, except for the Silurian, the strata all laid down without any real sign of erosion or tectonic deformation until they were all in place, at which time we get the major erosion that carved both the canyon and the staircase.
(..)
Here's the usual cross section where I first noticed this fact:
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.
I'd expect to see visible erosion between layers, in the contact lines, and in fact very irregular contacts to the point of gullies and dips that cut into lower strata to some depth, all kinds of deformation and erosion that simply is not there.
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.