|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1705 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Motley Flood Thread (formerly Historical Science Mystification of Public) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1705 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Nothing about this shape suggests it is following fractures in the rock. Can't imagine what you think would be suggested at this level two miles below the initial cracking of the uppermost strata.
And if the Kaibab Uplift caused these supposed fractures, how did water continue to flow through the uplifted area? The cracks deepened and widened as the water receded and they became a channel for it. By the time you get down to the level of the Kaibab they are pretty deep channels.
Why would these wet and malleable (your words) upper strata develop fractures? The uplift would have stretched them and put a lot of strain on them.
Why did none of these fractures propagate down to the Kaibab and below so they'd be included in the diagram? If the canyon was the result there would be no more fractures/cracks to demonstrate.
And didn't you finally decide the top strata were still loose sediments? I figure they couldn't have been very consolidated at the very top, yes.
How would a thin sheet of water only a few inches thick and water levels lowering at a rate of an inch and half per minute be enough to carry chunks of strata? How big are chunks of strata anyway? You are confusing different stages of the flood as I've tried to describe it. The thin sheet of water running across the plateau that I picture being the cause of the meander doesn't occur until after the water and the strata two miles above that level have washed away, and that washing away would have had stages too, depending on how steep the exits were that opened up as the water level decreased. Some damming probably occurred in places and then broke and so on. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9583 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 6.7
|
Faith writes: You get pressed-in creases and crumples. A bit like Edge's image then? Flat layers with flttened creases and crumples?
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1705 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
If the etching of the Grand Canyon began in layers above the Claron, then why didn't the widening canyon drain all the water off the plateau and halt the erosion? I can't picture what you are talking about here. I'm sure it drained a lot of water off the surrounding areas, but not all of it. Water would have run off in many other directions than the canyon itself. The water off the Grand Staircase took a lot of material off the cliffs and probably didn't get anywhere near the Grand Canyon.
You have to account for those extra miles of strata in your scenario too. We do. The plain was at one time much lower in elevation and filled with rivers and streams snaking back and forth across it that gradually eroded the upper layers away. This is something we see taking place around the world today. Can't decipher this at all I'm afraid. Are you talking about a plain two miles over the Grand Canyon area? Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1705 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You get pressed-in creases and crumples. A bit like Edge's image then? Flat layers with flttened creases and crumples? They do look crumpled but not flattened, so no.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9583 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 6.7 |
Faith writes: They do look crumpled but not flattened, so no. So no straight falt lines in there then? No flat contacts? No flattened ridges and no infills? Are we looking at the same photo? What do you think a photo of that section of rock would look like from the distance? Maybe like horizontal flat lines?Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 245 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Where do all the tons come from Mountains, dead animals/plants, volcanoes....
what are they made of Bits of rock, animals/plants and rock.
where do they go when the rock is a layer in that hill? On top.
Which it won't be in any case because edge said those layers are limestone and volcanic ash. So the volcanic ash goes on top of the ground which is the current top layer. Same with the bits of dead organisms.
And yes I don't see how it's going to make anything as flat as the strata in that hill. How flat is the strata in that hill? How much weight is squashing down on it?
And no, I have no evidence. Ah.
And neither do you Hey, I'm just trying to understand things. I'm not pontificating so much as trying to figure out how these straight lines form in your opinion and how that differs from geologists.
or anybody else. I dunno, the geologists seem to have quite a bit.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1705 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
But I think true nevertheless, and in fact probably the main evidence that the geological column is over and done with. It has been explained to you many times that this is definitionally impossible. And you've been wrong all those many times you've explained it.
Though I think there's pretty good evidence for it already, just not complete.
What evidence would that be? The Grand Canyon area and the Smith cross section of England but lots of other cross sections where what strata are present are present in blocks and eroded as blocks and deformed as blocks.
That is, we've got all kinds of interestingly stratified geological objects out there from mountains to buttes to hoodoos to the Grand Canyon, all carved by erosion out of what was originally a great expanse of stacked sediments, and it just seems that the layers are mostly all neat and parallel and tight and eroded ONLY, carved ONLY, shaped ONLY after they were all laid down originally horizontally. None of that has anything to do with the geologic column being "over and done with." Oh yes it does. Everywhere the erosion or deformation is shown to have occurred to a block or unit of neatly demarcated strata is evidence of rapid deposition of the strata, lack of erosion or deformation until all were laid down, is evidence, though the areas where the whole range of the time scale is present are the best evidence.
there are many partial stacks in many places, that my favorite Grand Canyon / Grand Staircase is really the only area I know of where they are ALL there,. The Grand Staircase region is not an area where "they are ALL there." There were layers above the Claron that are now gone. There are unconformities, i.e., gaps in representation of the geologic column. There is the Great Unconformity representing about a couple hundred million years of the geologic column. The Claron is Holocene or Eocene, recent anyway, and that's probably the best we get anywhere because strata above that would have been too unconsolidated to withstand the receding flood water. Unconformities and gaps are irrelevant to the point I'm making. Rocks below the GU in both the Smith cross section and the GC/GS cross section are included on the cross sections but also not particularly relevant to the point. It all got stacked up and then was eroded and deformed AS A STACK, everywhere it occurred. It's all over and done with.
You've got the wrong reason that the geologic column is conceptual. It isn't because it doesn't exist exactly the same in any one place. It is conceptual because it doesn't exist in any place. It is a framework within which stratigraphic columns can be interpreted. All I care about is the time scale attached to the rocks really, and it is partial in most places,
...but nevertheless they... There you go with pronouns again. By "they" do you mean stratigraphic columns? I'll assume you do. Usually pronouns refer back to the nearest or at least grammatically nearest antecedent but I'll try to be aware of the problem. yes I think I was referring to the strata in the various stratigraphic columns.
...are always (with the one exception of angular unconformities) found in these straight or at least parallel tight layers whether stacked horizontally or tilted or twisted into a pretzel, layers obviously originally stacked up one on top of another before being eroded into shapes or twisted into pretzels. Not bad, but it isn't clear what you're excepting angular unconformities from, and strata do not always have "tight contacts" (the correct term is sharp contacts). What I'm saying is that the strata in all the columns everywhere, even the most incomplete ones as far as the time scale goes, are always found in blocks of originally horizontal strata, eroded as blocks, deformed as blocks, except for the angular unconformities which put two blocks at different angles to each other. I can use "sharp" if it's really the official term but I've followed other advice about my terminology only to find out I was using it correctly enough already.
This is all evidence... It's a description of some of the things that can happen to strata, not evidence. Of course it's evidence, don't be silly.
...that the strata were all there before being disturbed in any way, which is evidence for rapid deposition,... What is your evidence for rapid deposition? That the strata were all laid down one on top of another without being eroded or deformed until they were all laid down. That suggests there were no time gaps between layers. abe: I mean VISIBLE time gaps, spaces where erosion should have occurred and didnt'; I'm not talking about the supposed missing layers or unconformities. /abe
...for the Flood,...
What is your evidence for the flood? That the strata were all laid down rapidly without time gaps as stated above. abe: and again: I mean VISIBLE time gaps, spaces where erosion should have occurred and didnt'; I'm not talking about the supposed missing layers or unconformities. /abe.
...and against the Time Scale. What is your evidence against the geologic timescale? That the strata were all laid down rapidly without gaps (I'm not talking about what you call "unconformities, I'm talking about visible gaps where erosion would have occurred; please don't nitpick this, that would miss the point) and eroded or deformed all together after they were all laid down.
Even where partial... I doubt there's any place in the world where there's a stratigraphic column that fully represents the geologic column. I bet every stratigraphic column is partial OK then let me here say I always have the Geollogical Time Scale in mind and that's what can be partial, not including all the different periods. But as long as we've got a stack that climbs from Cambrian to Holocene or Eocene or close enough, whether or not there are some missing periods, that's what I mean by complete because it spans the entire Geological Time Scale. And that is over and done with, the sedimentary tocks that represent it are over and done with. And the evidence is that the whole stack was eroded or deformed after it was all laid down and not during the laying down. There are areas that are wrongly interpreted that way, that are just partial stacks where the upper strata washed away so that the erosion or deformation did not occur in the time period associated with the highest remaining strata but simply after all the upper strata were gone. Nothing to do with the exposed "time period" rocks in other words.
Faith writes: ...they must all originally have represented the whole Geological Time Scale but lost a lot of upper strata in the Big Continent-splitting Tectonic Bash. Yes that is what I just explained again above.
Percy writes: Stratigraphic columns have lost their upper strata to erosion in all periods of world geologic history, not just whenever you think your "Big Continent-splitting Tectonic Bash" happened. I disagree, I think it all happened as a result of that tectonic jolt. Not that there haven't been plenty of jolts since, but the big one did the major work. As I explain above,. Consider it my hypothesis at least.
World history has seen the breakup of multiple supercontinents, such as Pangaea, Gondwana and Rodinia. I disagree with that history. I believe there was only the one supercontinent that broke up into the continents we see today, there was one great tectonic splitting of the continents and that was that. And one piece of evidence I have for that is that the standard interpretation has Pangaea breaking up somewhere around the Jurassic period IIRC, but William Smith's cross section of England shows all the time periods from Precambrian through Recent as having been laid down and then tilted together as a block which would certainly not have happened so completely and neatly if the continents split in the Juirassic period. I conclude that the split occurred after all the strata/time periods were laid down. And it was that tectonic action that caused all the major erosion and deformation, including the tilting of the rock layers in Smith's cross section, and most of the volcanism as well. Not that there hasn't been plenty of all three since then of course. But not before.
Yes I know you explain this differently and my evidence is lacking because of the incomplete columns in spite of the complete ones.
Yes, your evidence is lacking - completely lacking. And again, I very much doubt there are any complete stratigraphic columns.
And again I remind you it's the Time Scale that I have primarily in mind, that happens to be attached to all the difrerent sedimentary columns around the world, making the sediments themselves unimportant.
Smith's cross section of England is one complete one, the entire column all laid down and then tilted. If you're trying to say that Smith drew a stratigraphic column for England where the full geologic column was represented, then that would be wrong. Are you thinking of something like this? This particular image puts Smith's stratigraphic column on the left and modern data on the right. It only seems to go back as far as the Jurassic: As I say above, Smith's cross section proves the Jurassic breakup of the continents is wrong because the strata would not have been laid down to the present in England in that case. I can't read your chart, sorry. My eyes are much worse and it is a severe strain to be writing this at all.
I know you explain all this differently but to me it's all evidence... You haven't described any evidence - not any. None. Zilch. Nada. Zero. Diddly-squat. Zippo. Sorry, you are SO very wrong about that.
Why are you claiming now that you've described evidence when in other very recent posts from the past few days you've conceded that you have no evidence while hoping it will be found soon. You've obviously misread something and I have no way of finding out what.
...that the geo column couldn't possibly be explained by time periods of millions of years..... But anyway.... Are you perhaps trying to say that you've presenting some reasoning for why the geologic column can't be millions of years old? I could understand you thinking that more than I could understand how you think you've presented any evidence. But while you have managed to say some things that are true, they don't argue against the geologic column, they don't seem to support a young Earth, and they don't seem to support a global flood 4500 years that was responsible for all the world's geology that we see today.
Well, I disagree, as I've explained above. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1705 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I never said ALL the strata were flat, just most and that those in that picture I kept posting are extremely flat and straight; let's not stray too far from that example.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 245 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Yes it is considerably flatter, you can see it with your eyes. I can't. I'm going to need some measurements to confirm.
Actually not. You are just doing the usual tit for tat that is so popular here without bothering to understand what I meant when I used those terms. Sorry, I thought you were arguing that points were being made as if they were fact without explaining how the conclusion was reached.
Depends on what's being squashed and what's doing the squashing. FlattER, but not necessarily really flat. Well we're talking wet sediments being squashed by tonnes of other wet sediments. I'm pretty sure I can make wet clay pretty flat with just the pressure from my hands.
Depends on the distribution of weight. It could make depressions and lumps rather than flatness, highly compacted no doubt, quite hard, but not necessarily straight and flat, no.. Not necessarily, but certainly sometimes. And the weight distribution would be even.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 245 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
No, we are talking about that colorfully stratified hill and edge said they were limestone and volcanic ash. I'm responding to your claim about lakebeds. Whether those lakebeds would go on to form limestone rock or whatever seems immaterial to the point.
Most of them. How have you concluded this?
To say the GC was "caused by a divine flood" is to miss everything I've said about it. Wow. OK. The Grand Canyon wasn't caused by the flood. We agree!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22955 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
Faith writes: Talking still about this whatever it is: If it's not a mountain I want to call it a formation but that word is used for something else so what should it be called? Anyway, you interpret the layers in this whatever-it-is as lakebeds:
I think the word formation is fine, or landform. It's still a relatively low feature of a badlands region probably somewhere in the neighborhood of a hundred feet high. Here's some people walking around on one of these things. They're not that big:
Or maybe this image will give you a better idea of how small these things are compared to mountains:
Those are eroded continental lakebeds composed mostly of volcanic ash. They are not laterally extensive and are not mountains, they are badlands. I want to avoid terms like "absurd" if possible because I know it doesn't accomplish anything. When I started using it I didn't intend it as namecalling but that's how it gets taken. I actually think it conveys something about the image to call the usual interpretations absurd but if it's only heard as namecalling it doesn't convey much. If you have good evidence and reasons that it is absurd then by all means call it absurd, then provide your evidence and reasoning. Just keep in mind that if you have no evidence and reasons then calling it absurd won't go over well. And given all the evidence and reasoning from the other side, most of which you ignore or deny without explanation, you then open yourself up to ridicule and derision. I've read ahead in the thread and you seem to say several times that you're making an effort not to be insulting, but you ignore most of what people say, and most people find being ignored more than a little insulting. You've replied to less than 50% of the posts to you, and when you do respond you usually ignore most of what was said. You instead repeat yet again your own account of events while declaring that you have no obligation to provide any evidence or reasoning of your own. So if those strata can't be lakebeds, explain why they can't be lakebeds using evidence that is true because everyone can see it and understand it, instead of trying to browbeat people into submission with repeated declarations about things you know nothing about and that you have no evidence for.
What I keep saying: The contacts are too sharp, the lines are too straight and flat, no lakebed is that flat, no it is not, please don't act is if you think it is. If no lakebed is flat, then why is the lakebed of this drained lake flat:
Why are the Bonneville Salt Flats, which is the lakebed of a dried up lake, flat, so flat that world land speed record aspirants go there to test their 600 mph vehicles. The Black Rock Desert is another very flat lakebed used for setting land speed records. If sediments in lakes don't generally accumulate flat and horizontally according to Steno's Principle of Horizontality, then why do you claim sediments in your flood accumulate flat and horizontally? Isn't that contradictory?
Like Percy's pictures of fields and plains, no no no, the strata are way too straight and flat, no no no, those don't work and really it should be easy enough to see that, I keep being amazed that it isn't. Here are a couple images of flat plains again. What do you want people to see that will make it apparent to them that these are not as flat as strata:
(You're also ignoring that it was also explained, at length, why these fields and plains are unlikely to become strata, but that's a separate topic.) Here's a 49 second video on the abyssal plains confirming that they are among the flattest places on Earth:
And what have you got to rebut the evidence before our eyes, and the reasoning that sediments tend to accumulate flat and horizontally, first filling in low areas to create flatness where it didn't previously exist, such as stream beds filling in. All you've got in rebuttal is, "No no no, the strata are way too straight and flat, no no no, those don't work and really it should be easy enough to see that, I keep being amazed that it isn't." That isn't evidence or reasoning. It is incredulity. If that's all you've got then you've got nothing.
Everything I say becomes an insult but I can't figure out how to prevent that,... Stop ignoring what people say, which is very insulting
I just want you to see that those straight flat layers with their very uniform-looking sedimentary content cannot possibly be lakebeds. This has got to be some spell they put geologists under in graduate school. They teach this stuff and you have to believe it and you earnestly learn it. Of course the teachers are under the spell in the first place. I don't think arguing that geology professors put their students under a spell is going to fly. A much more likely explanation is that you're a religious fanatic who has been seduced into believing that facts should be subordinated to a book written by ancient nomads. You need evidence and reasoning if you're going to prevail.
Whatever this object is,...the strata cannot possibly be lakebeds,... Again, no evidence or reasoning, just a bald declaration.
...but also I have to note again that the fact that these various objects are made of strata and then eroded into their shapes is evidence against the Time Scale, for rapid deposition of the strata and for the argument I keep trying to make about how the Geological Column is over and done with. You keep making the declaration that the geologic column is "over and done with," but you never provide any reasoning for how that could be true, and you've ignored the explanations for why definitionally it must be false.
They are evidence... There's that use of pronouns again that you like so much. What does "they" refer to? You've presented no evidence, just expressed incredulity and made bald declarations. That's not evidence, so "they" certainly couldn't be evidence.
...that the strata were all laid down before the erosion occurred, or the tectonic deformation in other cases and so on. More bald declarations, no evidence.
I know you want to point to the short versions of the column to refute me but don't just jump on that yet please. All stratigraphic columns are incomplete representations of the geologic column, something that wouldn't be true had the Flood created the strata in a process of continuous deposition.
There's the Grand Canyon and Grand Staircase together to make up the entire column,... No, they don't make up the entire geologic column. The Great Unconformity all by itself represents a missing 200 million years. Why are you offering obviously incomplete stratigraphic columns as if they were complete? Why do you even think there are stratigraphic columns somewhere in the world that fully represent the geologic column? More generally, why do you think so many things that are so obviously false.
...and the William Smith cross section of England too, which I mention in Message 284. No, the William Smith cross section is not a complete stratigraphic column. There are no complete stratigraphic columns. The Smith cross section I presented only goes back to the Jurassic, and there are unconformities that represent missing time periods (you didn't respond to the message where I originally posted this image - if you'd read the information posted to you then you could avoid repeating the same simple errors over and over again, which would be most refreshing for everyone else since we wouldn't have to keep reposting and reposting the same rebuttals of your repeated and obviously false claims):
Getting this across is usually futile too because you have your different interpretations that you are so used to, and it's all official Geology so nothing I say can make much of a dent in it. Of course you haven't made a dent in geology's views. You haven't done anything but express incredulity and make bald declarations. You've presented no evidence, you've made no rational arguments for your viewpoint.
Just want to post a couple other pictures of similar "formations" made of strata: From Message 2833:Picture of Entrada beneath Curtis formation, showing straightness/flatness and tight contact: But if you look at the Entrada Sandstone a bit closer up it doesn't look like a sharp contact at all. In fact it has a lot of gradations and crossbedding:
Picture below: Carmel formation shows nice straight layers eroded into monuments in Goblin Valley. "Tight contact" is not a term of geology. You mean sharp contact. You keep mentioning sharp contacts and seem to think they are evidence against geological views. Everyone agrees sharp contacts exist and that contacts between strata tend to be flat (though that hoodoo topped butte in the foreground has a bunch of wavy strata), but if they're evidence supporting your viewpoint then you're going to have to explain how that is. Just declaring that there's nothing as flat in the current world is not going to fly because there are so many examples showing you're obviously wrong. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9583 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 6.7 |
Faith writes: I never said ALL the strata were flat, just most and that those in that picture I kept posting are extremely flat and straight; let's not stray too far from that example. Yes, flat and straight. You know, like we keep saying they generally are. Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1666 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
It's impossible to conclude a crack model from this diagram. It shows just a tiny part of the canyon. As Edge says, the canyon's shape is sinuous - here's a Google Map view of it:
Nothing about this shape suggests it is following fractures in the rock. And if the Kaibab Uplift caused these supposed fractures, how did water continue to flow through the uplifted area? Please note the tributary stream that runs approximately from the "m" end of where it says "North Rim" in a SSW-is direction to approximately where the "P" is where it says "National Park" -- note that it is a straight line: this follows a fault line, the only one in the canyon I am aware of that does this. The straightness is due to following the fault line. Fault lines do not meander the way all the other parts of the canyon does. There is no part of the main canyon that is a straight as this north rim tributary, which is evidence contrary to Faith's crack model. There is another place that shows a fault line capturing a river flow. See at about minute 1:55 the black lines perpendicular to the rivers, and again at about minute 2:39, where he talks about the fractures --
Again, where rivers follow fault lines they are straight, and where they flow naturally over gently sloping land they form meanders. There is also another place that shows braided flow, and that is the scab lands flow at it's western end. See at about minute 1:19 --
So we have straight rivers following fault lines, meandering rivers flowing over gentle sloped landscapes, and braided rivers where high flows spread out over relatively flat landscapes. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1666 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The concept came from this cross section See Message 358 Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22955 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
Faith writes: The only reason that the Coconino Plateau exists is because the Grand Canyon cuts the Kaibab Uplilft into two parts.
Does that mean the Coconino Plateau is not Coconino sandstone as I'd thought? More evidence that you don't read posts, and the ones you read you don't remember. Way back in Message 203 we had this exchange:
Percy in Message 203 writes: Incidentally on the south side the Kaibab limestone was washed away leaving the Coconino sandstone called the Coconino plateau.
Kaibab limestone is the top layer throughout most of the Coconino Plateau. And Edge reiterated this in the very next message:
Edge in Message 204 writes: Just for reference here's a satellite image of the area showing the Kaibab plateau on the north side of the canyon. Incidentally on the south side the Kaibab limestone was washed away leaving the Coconino sandstone called the Coconino plateau. Actually, the Kaibab crops out abundantly south of the canyon extending into the Coconino Plateau and south of Flagstaff. You even acknowledged this information in your Message 208, saying, "OK but that is not shown on the photo." RAZD then reiterates this in his Message 287:
RAZD in Message 287 writes: The Coconino plateau is the same as the Kaibab, just cut off by the canyon. Yet here you are asking the same question all over again. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024