Summations Only

Explained it many times. See Message 419 The Grand Canyon itself. Various layered formations. The Monument Valley buttes, the hoodoos, the Grand Staircase etc etc etc.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So, is a 'block' the same as a 'unit'?

So erosion as a unit just means exposed cross-sections getting eroded? That’s really not evidence for anything significant.

Yes

And your blocks are unchanging as far as size and composition?

No.

​

Oops, depends on what you mean by "unchanging." They are what they are, they don't change. So if that's what you mean the answser is yes they are unchanging. Realized I don't know what you mean by "unchanging." I'm sure they will go on eroding but that's the only change I can think of.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Fine.All I mean is that they change in time. In size or composition, etc.Just trying to figure out how someone could be so confused.So when the GC Supergroup was deformed (faulted and tilted), they were still part of the block that contained the Paleozoic rocks above, right?

I interpret "landscape" to be the sums of all the "solid surfaces" of a given time. By "solid surfaces", I mean the top of geologic materials, below the atmosphere or whatever body of water. Topography and Bathymetry.Topography - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Topography is the study of the shape and features of the surface of the Earth and other observable astronomical objects including planets, moons, and asteroids. The topography of an area could refer to the surface shapes and features themselves, or a description (especially their depiction in maps).

---

Bathymetry - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Bathymetry is the study of underwater depth of lake or ocean floors. In other words, bathymetry is the underwater equivalent to hypsometry or topography.

---

Now, per your "created according to the principles of Walther's Law". I still resist invoking Walther's Law as being a process. Recently I discovered a better terminology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deposition_(geology)#Null-point_hypothesis

quote:

---

The null-point hypothesis explains how sediment is deposited throughout a shore profile according to its grain size. This is due to the influence of hydraulic energy, resulting in a seaward-fining of sediment particle size, or where fluid forcing equals gravity for each grain size.[2] The concept can also be explained as "sediment of a particular size may move across the profile to a position where it is in equilibrium with the wave and flows acting on that sediment grain".[3] This sorting mechanism combines the influence of the down-slope gravitational force of the profile and forces due to flow asymmetry; the position where there is zero net transport is known as the null point and was first proposed by Cornaglia in 1889.[3] Figure 1 illustrates this relationship between sediment grain size and the depth of the marine environment.

---

quote:

---

The Null-point hypothesis has been quantitatively proven in Akaroa Harbour, New Zealand, The Wash, U.K., Bohai Bay and West Huang Sera, Mainland China, and in numerous other studies; Ippen and Eagleson (1955), Eagleson and Dean (1959, 1961) and Miller and Zeigler (1958, 1964).

---

Now, Faith's muddled scenario apparently involves sediment being eroded off the continents and being deposited at ocean shorelines. While I envision that the results of the Faith variation of the mainstream concept would look substantially different from the above graphic, I think that Walther's Law would still be valid. It's still a migrating environment.Faith also invokes large sediment amounts being stirred up in the ocean basins and somehow being washed up into the near shore environment. While there are all sorts of problems with this scenario, I visualize that such might result in a sediment size distribution that goes from coarse to fine from seaward to landward (the opposite order of the "Walther's Law" model). I see this because of the sediment deposition fining as you get further from the ocean basin sediment source.So, the final stratigraphy might be some sort of hybrid of the land sourced sediment model and the ocean basin sourced sediment model. I would expect that even such hybrid would still result in a Walther's Law relationship.Now about a bit of Percy statement from message 556: As I understand it, the great sea transgressions and regressions in geologic history were indeed largely caused by ocean floor rises and falls. This is the reality that ties into the "catastrophic plate tectonics" fantasy. Over the years I've tried and failed to find good (or even mediocre) internet literature on this process. Perhaps to be discussed further in later messages.MooseEdited by Minnemooseus, : Failure of proofreading.

Yes that is my theory/hypothesis of how angular unconformities are formed: that tectonic pressure buckles or tilts a lower section of strata beneath the strata above which remain horizontal, which in the case of the GC remained intact up to the Permian/Kaibab level, while strata above that level broke up and washed away; though in other cases they got broken up at a much lower level, such as at Siccar Point. I think this was a worldwide event, this tectonic pressure and it caused all the angular unconformities everywhere and most of the deformation of strata everywhere and even the major erosion events that left isolated buttes standing. Because it occurred at the same time as the receding of the Flood water. It's a nice theory really. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I think for me it's more a sense of incredulity that views so obviously wrong could be so persistently resistant to facts from reality. My concerns are based upon the effect of such thinking on science education. I agree that Faith's impact on science education is minimal to non-existent - even creationists can detect those parts of her ideas that are wildly impossible. The benefit of discussion with Faith is the honing of ones skills at countering fantasy-based thinking with reality-based evidence and reasoning, and the recognition that even that has only mild chances of success. You can send a flat-earther to the moon and back but he'll still believe the Earth is flat.--Percy

The fallacy there is that if the upper and lower parts of the block are deformed separately, are they still a block? I thought that you said they deformed and eroded as a unit, but your narrative here rejects that. Perhaps you can describe this 'tectonic pressure'. What mechanism would cause a 'global scale' deformation? A cute theory, perhaps. Something fit for a 'nice' science fantasy novel, but not a theory grounded in reality.

This is true and demonstrably so. We know that the oceanic crust slowly subsides away from the mid-ocean ridges based on depth of the abyssal plains and the subsidence of the Hawaii-Emperor seamount chain. So the principle of isostatic adjustments due to cooling and thickening of the oceanic crust is established.It isn't hard to imagine that increasing the temperatures of the upper mantle over time will cause a rise in the elevation of the oceanic crust thereby displacing seawater across the continents (or cooling for the reverse effect).This is probably the cause of the stratigraphic mega-sequences recognized in the geological record. These are global events even though the may not show up on all continents (as per Pressie).I think what Percy was envisioning was a catastrophic collapse of the sea floor after flood waters were supposedly vented violently to the surface. Of course, this doesn't work. You can't just leave a vacuum where the water had resided ... the seafloor must collapse.But this is an interesting topic even outside of the biblical flood debate. So many things come together with with grand theories such as mega-sequences.

Obviously you don't. They don't suddenly pop into existence. That is the end of the formation process.They start as a little wiggle, one of many. Rivers are wiggly.Dunning-Kruger. You haven't any knowledge of hydrodynamics, just enough of a cursory knowledge to think you are an expert. Which is a BIG surprise seeing as this is your modus operandi in all sciences.Enjoy

No, I've specifically said that angular unconformities are NOT a block, specifically said that more than once. Angular unconformities are the ONLY exception to the rule I keep talking about, that LLhe strata were laid down before being eroded or deformed as a whole block or unit; said that many times, I guess you missed it. Angular unconformities are an exception. NOT a block/unit. ONLY exception. The splitting of the ocntinents was a worldwide event, that's what I'm talking about. A lot of tectonic bashing and crashing going on. The breaking up must have been fairly jolting, but then there was the subduction on the west side of the Americas that pushed up mountains etc. I happen to think it occurred in conjunction with the beginning of the receding of the Flood, because of the effects like the cutting of the Grand Canyon and Grand Staircase and the other massive erosion events in that area; and the dramatically deformed rocks in other places would be a natural result of such a tectonic bashing.Yes a very nice theory. Puts together a lot of phenomena in one nice neat elegant package. Yes, cute.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Why on earth would I think I'm an expert, I merely know the basics of how meanders form from reading descriptions and watching videos and animations. It's not rocket science. I certainly said nothing about them "popping into existence" for pete's sake. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.