Summations Only

Please identify that formation, the folded part and the upper part. Thanks.

Oddly enough, I suppose, I don't start with any such premise, I am truly starting from observation of all those diagrams and pictures I've seen and they fit that scenario. The only real challenge to my conclusions is the angular unconformity and of course I dispute the usual idea of how those form. Eroding the lumpy surface flat enough for deposition to lay down neat horizontal layers that don't have to fill in the valleys is already beyond the possible (and if you can't see valleys in that diagram there's something wrong with your eyes), and such deposition could only happen by water anyway and where is that going to come from? Oh I know: in millions of years we can count on ANYTHING we need to satisfy the theory.Meanwhile we've got, in four diagrams so far (GC-GS, Great Britain cross section, Percy's of the Gulf of Mexico, and this one of Utah) what I've been calling the Geologic Column, all those layers that would have originally been stacked neatly and horizontally, obviously to a great depth in all those examples, probably in all cases even up to the Holocene level though that isn't apparent on this latest one or the one of Great Britain (just because they aren't labeled), still probably very close because that's a LOT of layers represented there. Anyway, four places where there was this original stack of horizontal layers that do customarily get labeled with time periods in the hundreds of millions, and after they are all laid down then and only then are they distorted: eroded, folded, sagging into a salt layer and so on. Four such examples so far. There must be more out there. And you all just blithely imagine more layers getting laid down on top of this formation. I find that eyepoppingly ludicrous and don't see why you don't.

Edited by Admin, : Fix image so it isn't a link to PhotoBucket.

I'm about to start on my second large mug. Right, you aren't going to get an angular unconformity here noway nohow. Yup. No angular unconformity noway nohow.

Yes, any deposition SHOULD fill in the gaps but as a matter of fact angular unconformities do not fill in the gaps and dips and valleys. They are shown and interpreted to be deposited on surfaces that have eroded down almost completely flat -- with the exception of a bump or two perhaps such as the Shinumo quartzite. That's true of the Great Unconformity and it's true of Siccar Point and I can't think of an exception. You show the Utah diagram completely flattened for the completely flat horizontal layers you imagine being deposited there in some millions of years. I'm told over and over again that erosion can flatten a surface like that, even with upended strata of various hardnesses, and over and over again I am boggled at such an idea. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The principle would of course be that the layers were laid down in the Flood, after which tectonic, volcanic and other disturbances eroded and distorted the strata. What else? There should be differences in how different regions were affected but there should be some evidence to show this pattern everywhere.However, I'm focusing on finding EXAMPLES of where this has in fact occurred. Four so far. So far you've disputed it but haven't shown anything that contradicts it in reality.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No need in this case, you did it for me.

Once horizontal though, then distorted.

The diagram doesn't represent anything I see in the photograph.

Oh well, if you don't see why the ORIGINAL top is where the column has to continue building I guess all I can do is laugh.

Afraid the photograph is illegible, don't know what I'm looking at.The greywacke section would have eroded because it's upended, exposing broken-off parts to the friction with the upper layer, the red sandstone, and that section isn't eroded, or is less eroded, because it would have presented a flat smooth surface to the lower layers.

I know and it's irrelevant to my point. What I meant was that it is not continuing upward from the Geo Column. Where it "goes" is not the point. It has to continue the Geologic Column and it can't do that except where the Geo Column exists AS a column. This is silly, this is gobbledygook. The Geologic Column IS a stack of horizontal strata, that is what it IS. If you want to say the Time Scale can continue anywhere that would be more reasonable because at least time doesn't stop (although it's so closely tied to the physical strata it really can't be separated), but physical formations can stop and the Geo Column has stopped wherever it is no longer a horizontal stack of layers but is eroded, buckled and so on.

For one thing there aren't any of those little nubbin holes available except on the true original horizontal surface.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

They'll fall off the curves, end up in the dips.