Summations Only

So, what do you think about evolution and the fossils?

No, that would be incorrect. Here's the diagram again: The tilting of the Supergroup layers, and the faults between the two sets of Supergroup layers making them into separate blocks, and the unconformity with the Paleozoic layers, all indicate that tectonic forces were at work before the Paleozoic layers were deposited. You didn't mention any evidence. What "photo after photo"? You haven't posted a single photo in this entire thread. It's not possible to tell what you're referring to. The implication of what? You haven't presented evidence or argument so far, and your position is contradicted by all the evidence and argument people have presented. Which you've ignored. You just keep declaring your position from scratch while ignoring what people say. By "whole stack" you mean from the Supergroup up to the Kaibab? The Supergroup was quite obviously "disturbed" (tilted and faulted) before the Paleozoic layers were deposited. You can't generalize what happened geologically in the Grand Staircase region to the entire planet. But people have described which Grand Canyon layers were eroded causing unconformities. Here's a list, including Supergroup layers, of some of the unconformities. I say "some" because I'm not sure I found them all:

• Kaibab Formation (unconformity between it and the overlying Moenkopi, which isn't present at the Grand Canyon)
• Toroweap Formation (unconformity between it and the overlying Kaibab Formation)
• Coconino Sandstone (unconformity between it and the overlying Toroweap Formation)
• Hermit Shale (unconformity between it and the overlying Coconino Sandstone)
• Supai Group (consists of four subgroups with a disconformity between each and with the overlying Hermit Shale)
• Redwall Formation (disconformity between it and the overlying Supai Group)
• Surprise Canyon Formation (disconformity between it and the overlying Supai Group and sometimes Surprise Canyon Formation)
• Temple Butte Limestone (disconformity between it and the overlying Redwall Limestone)
• Muav Limestone (disconformity between it and the overlying Temple Butte Limestone)
• Grand Canyon Supergroup (unconformity between it and the overlying Tapeats Sandstone)
• Nankoweap (disconformity between it and the overlying Chuar Group)

It seems that many strata in the Grand Canyon are topped by an unconformity. Maybe Edge can restore it. Which message was it? Erosion tends to flatten and even out a landscape, the exception being channeled water such as happens with streams and rivers, which are also recorded in the geological strata. What is it that you think erosion would do to the strata that isn't present at the Grand Canyon? I think you're saying that erosion wouldn't do whatever is in that Photobucket image that you don't describe. You need to provide more information.The layers of the Grand Staircase above the Kaibab are:

• Claron Formation (formerly called Wasatch) - sandstone, siltstone, claystone, shale
• Kaiparowits Formation - floodplains
• Waheap Formation - coastal sandstone
• Straight Lines Formation - rivers, swamps, lagoons, shorelines
• Tropic Shale - marine shale
• Dakota - marine sandstone
• Carmel - limestone
• Temple Cap - sandstone, siltstone, limestone, desert
• Navajo - sandstone
• Kayenta - sandstone, shale, limestone and floodplain
• Moenave - river, lake, floodplain
• Chinle - rivered land, wetland and eolian
• Moenkopi - marine sandstone

They're all coastal or marine. Coastal regions tend to be flat, like this shot of the New Hampshire coast: The strata vary in thickness, and the closer one looks the less straight and flat they look, but they are pretty straight and flat, just like most coastal regions and sea floors. First correct thing you've said. Also correct. Correct again, though "disturbed" isn't the right term. The region was uplifted and tilted.By the way, look at the extreme left of the diagram beneath Cedar City at the layer that has a big Roman Numeral V in it. That's the Claron layer. If you let your eyes roam upwards and to the right you can see the continuation of the Claron layer at Cedar Breaks. Note how the portion of the Claron layer on the left lies atop an angular unconformity where the layers below are tilted, while the portion of the Claron layer on the right lies atop the Kaiparowits Formation. The portion of the Claron layer on the left was deposited only after the underlying layers had been tilted and eroded flat.Question for Edge: How did it happen that layers on opposite sides of the Hurricane Fault are tilted in opposite directions? When you say "tectonic movement," are you referring only to the left side of the diagram or the whole diagram?And how do you figure simultaneity of the "tectonic movement" with "the splitting of the continents"? Assuming "it" refers to "tectonic movement," I'm again not sure if you're referring to the left side of the diagram or the whole diagram.Why do you think the "tectonic movement" was responsible for volcanism (of which there is not very much, at least not on the diagram), or even that they happened anywhere near the same point in time?And why do think it deformed strata "everywhere" rather than just in the areas where strata appear deformed?And why do you think the diagram represents a single period of tectonic movement rather than multiple ones? Again, why a single tectonic movement instead of multiple ones?And one more time, buried strata cannot be tilted without also tilting all the layers above.--Percy

Not quite what one would expect, yes?Well, I'm not sure, but here is an idea.The upthrust side, which should have drag faulting downward to the west is actually opposite because of some original tilt in the strata. In other words, they are tilted to the east because of an earlier uplift event and then faulting has chopped them off. Possibly the drag faulted part has eroded away where exposed. I do not think it wouldn't be a very thick zone.On the other hand (the downfaulted hand), the drag folds are preserved because they do not erode away so rapidly.This kind of fits what we know about rifting. Usually, uplift occurs before a rift valley forms. In this case the uplfted area would be somewhere to the west of the Hurricane Fault. A modern example would be the East African Rift zone, which, interestingly enough, brings us back to human evolution. I believe there may be a connection...That's about the only thing I can think of. Possibly it has something to do with isostatic rebound as material is eroded away. But I haven't made up a story about that yet. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

The fossils are well-ordered, and in the order we would expect from the various methods of dating.And creationists have yet to produce any evidence that scientific dating is grossly in error.It is an old earth and that's about all there is to it. No need to argue about silly rocks when elegant and well-ordered fossils and clever and fully-agreed dating techniques settle the issue completely.Edited by Coyote, : No reason given.

Here is a better copy of the geo column that Faith was referring to.http://www.kgs.ku.edu/...eldtrips/guidebooks/NEKS/NEKS2.html The point here is the number of channels cut into the different parts of the formation. These are clearly terrestrial deposits in the late Paleozoic in Kansas.

Nope. I know you like the establishment interpretation but the evidence shows that the tectonic disturbance occurred after the strata were all laid down and that they were laid down rapidly and not millions of years apart. The tilting was not there first because the strata are pushed up by the Supergroup and would not deposit evenly over that curve, as I already said.If you're just going to repeat the standard interpretation I'm done here.

quote:

---

Nope. I know you like the establishment interpretation but the evidence shows that the tectonic disturbance occurred after the strata were all laid down and that they were laid down rapidly and not millions of years apart.

---

Your version of the evidence which is either cherry picked, misrepresented or completely invented may show that. The real evidence says otherwise.

quote:

---

The tilting was not there first because the strata are pushed up by the Supergroup and would not deposit evenly over that curve, as I already said.

---

And that is just an example of misrepresentation. The evidence indicates that the tilting came before the curve - it’s very obvious that the curve doesn’t follow the direction of the tilt. At the right hand side of the diagram the curve goes down where the tile points up. If you can’t see that you are blind.

quote:

---

If you're just going to repeat the standard interpretation I'm done here.

---

If you can’t tolerate the truth then run away. It’s a stupid threat. There is no way we are going to agree to accept obvious falsehoods or even let them go unchallenged just because you demand it.

The tilting can't have come before the curve, as I've explained. You need another eplanation for the supposed problem you find.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The tilting can't have come before the curve, as I've explained

---

As I explained your reasoning is obviously incorrect. The tilt had to come first, since the curve does not follow the tilt.. The curve may be related to the fault - but that certainly came after the tilting as can be seen from the fact that the tilt is at the same angle on each side of the fault.You’ve got no valid reason why the tilt can’t have occurred before the curve, so I don’t have to accept it.

Yes I got your reasoning. My guess would be that the even curve has more to do with the distribution of the weight above than the shape of the Supergroup.Sorry, it violates Steno's principle of original horizontality to have the tilt come before the Paleozoic strata. Some here are willing to violate that principle but I'm not. The strata would not lie down evenly over the rise.This curve is the main piece of evidence I point to for the order of events that puts the tectonic disturbance after the strata were all laid down. an order which can be seen in many places, not just the Grand Canyon area. In the GC area, however, this is most obviously the case for all the deformed strata above the Permian, including the Grand Canyon itself, but since the strata wouldn't climb that rise it's also true for the basement rocks. Order is: quiet laying down of horizontal strata up to three miles deep, after which the tectonic shaking starts and the Flood begins to recede, pushing up the northern end of the Grand Staircase, tilting that whole area downward toward the Grand Canyon, which causes the formation of the cliffs of the "stairs" as well as breaking up the strata above the Permian in the GC area. The Supergroup is tilted and pushed up at the same time, causing the rise in the strata. That in turn causes cracking in the uppermost layers and the layers start to break up. Chunks of strata widen the crack and along with the receding water carve out the Grand Canyon.And besides, how do you get that rise over the Supergroup on the establishment interpretation that the Supergroup was the remains of a mountain range that eroded down to its current level? It's been argued here many times that erosion would produce a flat surface, not a curved hill. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Yes I got your reasoning. My guess would be that the even curve has more to do with the distribution of the weight above than the shape of the Supergroup.

---

Obviously you don’t get my reasoning. Since the curve is going down at that point it can’t be formed by an event that would push it up.

quote:

---

Sorry, it violates Steno's principle of original horizontality to have the tilt come before the Paleozoic strata. Some here are willing to violate that principle but I'm not. The strata would not lie down evenly over the rise.

---

That’s an argument that the strata were deposited before the curve - that’s the rise you mean.. It’s got nothing to do with when the tilt happened.
(I think you are wrong also, you can get deposits up to the angle of repose and the curve is very gentle, if you remember that the vertical distances are exaggerated with respect to the horizontal.)

quote:

---

This curve is the main piece of evidence I point to for the order of events that puts the tectonic disturbance after the strata were all laid down.

---

And one example - if it is an example - is nowhere near good evidence. That is just cherry-picking.

quote:

---

And besides, how do you get that rise over the Supergroup on the establishment interpretation that the Supergroup was the remains of a mountain range that eroded down to its current level?

---

Which rise? What we’ve been calling the curve ? A later uplift event. That’s easy.

quote:

---

It's been argued here many times that erosion would produce a flat surface, not a curved hill.

---

Eventually. But subtracting the curve the surface is pretty flat (monadnocks and other erosional features aside). In fact the downward slope of the curve looks like the steepest portion. The left end edge of the supergroup is near the top of the curve.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Yes it can if that upthrust corner was getting filed down as it were during the pushing up, and the weight above resisted it. Oh right, we don't need a reason for the rise, it just decided to rise there without anything to rise over. Come on!Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Yes it can if that upthrust corner was getting filed down as it were during the pushing up, and the weight above resisted it.

---

An upward push is not going to file it down. And the material doesn’t look any thicker there, while leverage would tend to maximise the upward force there.So the evidence is still against you. Implausible ad hoc speculations don’t make a convincing case.(Answering material added by edit)

quote:

---

Oh right, we don't need a reason for the rise, it just decided to rise there without anything to rise over. Come on!

---

You are making zero sense. The reason for the rise is the uplift event. And I have no idea what you mean by without anything to rise over. It makes no sense.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Are you willing to violate the principle of cross-cutting features?It looks pretty clear the the Great Unconformity is offset along with the overlying layers by the upwarp of the Kaibab uplift. That would mean that the Kaibab uplift is younger than the unconformity.Likewise, the unconformity cuts the fauting of the Supergroup rocks and is therefor younger than that faulting.In turn, the faulting cuts through the Supergroup rocks and is therefor younger than deposition of the Supergroup sedimentary rocks.Then the unconformity below the Supergroup cuts across the older granites and is therefor younger than the granite.And since the granite intrudes the Vishnu, it is also younger than the Vishnu Schist.This sets up an order of events that contradicts Faith's scenario of one event.But I guess we can dispense with a principle or two if it disagrees with Faith.

Sorry, no matter what problems you can find, the fact remains that the rise or hill over the Supergroup occurred after all the strata were in place and pushed up the entire stack.Yes I didn't answer you very clearly but you need to be asked where the tilted Supergroup went if it wasn't the reason for the rise over it. If there was only, say, schist there, how did the Supergroup get there?:Edited by Faith, : No reason given.