Summations Only

You go on to deny that this is evidence. Hard to have a discussion with someone who denies that, makes the whole conversation futile. The "unconformities" are merely missing strata, time gaps only on your theory but not mine, and missing layers are more consistent with the Flood than with the Time Scale.I was saying that there should be visible erosion between layers all over the place if the Time Scale were correct, not just here and there in small amounts, and the erosion should be very apparent, cutting into strata to some depth, making obviously visibly irregular contact lines. The few examples of erosion between layers that have been posted over the years are minuscule compared to what should be there, and easily enough explained as occurring after the strata were laid down, due to water running between the layers, or even tectonic disturbance that displaces them to a small extent, especially down near the GU where such erosion is most evident, according to my scenario. PaulK asked me to produce evidence of this and it's a fair request but it would take more time and energy than I've got right now. You refuse to accept this but I refuse to accept your refusal.. Same with evidence against the Time Scale (that the strata were all laid down without time gaps, meaning evidence of millions of years, Your faith is touching, but no, the Geological Time Scale is an artificial invention of Historical Geology based on the Geological Column with its fossils, it has no reality, it marks no real time, it came to an end when the column came to an end, at the end of the Flood which is marked by all that tectonic moving and shaking. And besides, the "missing" periods are more consistent with the Flood than the Time Scale anyway. Well, first, your four billion years are imaginary and not real, second, your missing periods are imaginary and not real, all that's missing is some sedimentary layers your theory says should be there. But my theory says there's no reason to expect sediments to be consistently deposited by the Flood. And the point I'm trying to make doesn't require the whole time scale to be there anyway, just the "oldest" and the "youngest" so that any deformation or erosion that occurred can be shown to have occurred to the entire range of strata all at once as a block or unit and not to individual layers.Partial stacks make it harder to make this point, but the whole range shows that all such disturbances occurred after all the strata were laid down. And as a matter of fact even the partial stacks show the same thing to whatever level they happen to reach, which I'll say more about farther down. I'm so far from forgetting that it's a major point I've been making all along. It's the laying down of the strata that is over and done with, all of them in place from Precambrian to Recent is over and done with, and THEN all the disturbances occurred, the erosion, the deformation etc. The whole point has been that the erosion and deformation have all occurred AFTER that, so of course they are still going on. But the laying down is over and done with. I've answered this but let me answer it again. The rest of the world has only partial columns, the GS and Smith's cross section of England being the only columns that cover the entire range of time periods that I know of (the state of Tennessee has all of them but I can't find a cross section, just the map) It's just that it's harder to prove my point with a partial column.But even in those there is also no evidence of disturbance until after the entire partial stack is in place, there is no disturbance between layers, but onlyl at the top, even if the top is somewhere down in the middle of the Time Scale. You (and Geology) merely interpret the disturbance at what is now the top as having occurred in that time period whatever it happens to be, but there is no reason to do that. All that's happened is that the strata above that point were eroded away, washed away in the Flood no doubt, leaving the partial column.What is left nevertheless shows the same pattern: no disturbance until the whole stack was laid down, whole in this case being only a partial Time Scale. If it goes only up to the Permian it is still true that all the layers up to that point were laid down without any disturbance: the disturbance occurred at the Permian level but not in any Permian "time period." If up to the Triassic, no disturbance until the Triassic level, not time period, then it occurred at that level. If only up to the Devonian, then no disturbance until the Devonian level not time period. Etc. The principle I'm claiming holds in all these cases you see, it's just that I can make the case more clearly with the couple of examples where the whole range of the Time Scale is represented, which happens to be only the Smith cross section and the Grand Staircase area as far as I know.

The Kaibab uplift is not "gently sloping land," it's rather steep, so it isn't going to form meanders. And your fault line doesn't seem to be in the right place for the Colorado to follow, AND without something like a fault line to follow there is no way the river is getting over that uplift. But I admit I'm not taking the time to read it all through so I could be missing your point.ABE: Just noticed your statement in an earlier post that I "expect" you to accept my argument and yet I don't spend time on your posts. Ha ha, hardly. I've long long since given up on anybody even really getting the argument let alone accepting it. So if I give short shrift to any particular post it's just that it's not what I'm thinking about at the moment or it's covering territory I'd have to spend too much time thinking about. or that sort of thing. Sorry, truly, there's just way too much stuff here for one person to deal with.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You want me to support my claim that the erosion in the GC is very little and very ambiguous compared to what it should be if the Time Scale were correct, and I think that is a fair request but I'm not up to it at the moment, sorry. I do think this has been covered enough times over the years to be familiar to anyone who has been following this discussion, however. But that's not my argument, I'm just not up to the research right now, sorry.

I didn't say any such thing. What I said was that I think the Kaibab Uplift was caused by the tilting of the Supergroup, period, which seems to me to be consistent with the idea that it was caused by folded rocks. That's it, that's all I said. I know you all delight in misrepresenting me so you can call me crazy and dismiss me. It does get hard to take. Perhaps that's your aim.

The comparison is loose but both are rocks deformed by tectonic pressure.So if the article got it wrong, what DID Dickinson say anyway and why are you keeping it a secret? Comparing it to what, the article which you say got Dickinson's view wrong, or Dickinson's view itself, which you haven't yet disclosed? Unless I missed it.

Has anybody ever reported seeing this dry and crumbly rock that you are talking about? Odd that you are so certain of your own wild guess against my far ore reasonable guess.And you are also forgetting that I've clearly said that the sediments would be softer and more malleable at the top, and increasingly harderhe farther down you go in the stack. AND compaction, which happens to the sediments under pressure, does not make wet sediments dry and crumbly, it causes them to stick together. You can go read about the processes that make rock to see this written by somebody you would take more seriously than you take me.'You've never folded and pulled apart a ball of dough or clay?: I get cracks when I do that.And I've never said anything about a meandering pattern, where are you getting that? It looks to me like the canyon/river cut through the uplift below the apex of the uplift but not around the bottom on the south where you would expect it to cut since it can't climb the uplift. A fracture in the rise would provide that channel which wouldn't otherwise occur on any scenario that I can see.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Um, the curve of the canyon/river does not look like a meander, RAZD, meanders are quite smooth and rounded or horseshoe shaped, the river here is very irregular and not at all nicely horseshoe shaped. There is some question it seems to me who has the cracked idea if you are trying to turn that wobbly river path into a meander.I'm not sure that a fault is the best model for what i'm trying to talk about anyway. That's all very clever except that the course of the river there is not shaped at all like a meander, and it appears to be coming at the uplift from the east only to veer abruptly south right at its edge as if it's encountered a barrier there, then flows south following lower levels. Only it doesn't go all the way south for some reason where presumably it would find the best path around the uplift, it cuts through it where it would still have to climb it if there weren't some kind of channel there to direct its course -- such as perhaps some handy cracks that had formed as a result of its rising. How it turns back north again to follow its original east-west oath is a bit of a puzzle, but it's probably just the usual seeking of the lower level directing it. You lose me here. Seems to me a lot of people here are good at making up stuff to serve their particular scenario. We're just battling imaginations basically.

You seem to be doing your best to make sure it becomes a secret if it wasn't already. I had the impression you thought the article completely misrepresented Dickinson and now you are saying there's a quote that got it right but you can't be bothered to quote it here for some reason. Well, I'm not going to make the uphill slog to go find it myself so you can keep it a secret since you seem to prefer that.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

OK, thanks for the explanation, but it's very odd that a journalist would put words in a geologist's mouth like that. Mistakes in understanding, sure, that wouldn't be unexpected from a journalist, but this sounds like a complete fabrication for which he could even be sued.

Well, I've got the GC meander and the Yakima meander from RAZD's video, plus countless demonstrations I've seen of how meanders are formed. and they are all neatly rounded, so how did this one get to be an exception? At least there should be another similar example somewhere else.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Look at the cross section. The entire column of strata all rise over the Supergroup without being disturbed. No, they were not laid down over the rise, they were lifted as a block by the rise.

Obviously not since that would mean the strata were laid down over the rise which is impossible.

Thanks for this post.

There is no way for that arch to have occurred on your scenario.

Can be but that example didn't look anything like the strata in the GC, it was an extremely steep deposition, quite odd really, and generally speaking, no it doesn't happen. The GC strata are like all the other strata everywhere that are part of the Geo Column, all laid down horizontally and then subjected to erosion or deformation. The rise over the Supergroup is how the GC strata were deformed after being laid down all the way to the top.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.