Summations Only

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.

Because they are entrenched. Here are some other examples: How many do you need?Here is a diagram showing how rejuvenation of a meandering stream happens. In the case of the GC, the canyon retains the original meandering pattern because it is in solid bedrock (the Kaibab Limestone). It is curious to me how you can be so hyper-skeptical of modern science and yet accept an ancient myth without question. Edited by Admin, : Changed the links to images into images in the message.

Here's a link to the article you quoted above: Grand Canyon Carved by Flood? Geologist Says NoSo now you once again ask: The explanation for how the Colorado River passed through the Kaibab Plateau is the same explanation we've repeated to you literally dozens of times. It hasn't changed. The ancestral Colorado already flowed through the region before the Colorado Plateau was uplifted or the Kaibab Uplift occurred. It downcut into the region as the landscape was uplifted. Yes, we know, it is the great and powerful Flood, capable of all things. Since some Supergroup exposures lie outside the Kaibab uplift, we know the Supergroup didn't cause it. For example, Nanoweap and Unkar group strata are exposed well to the west of the Kaibab Uplift, see Figure 5.1 on page 77 of GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE OF THE GRAND CANYON - one of the authors is Dr. Karl Karlstrom from Mod's video. The phrase "swell up" is the reporter's, not Dickinson's. If you look at Dickinson's paper (Rejection of the lake spillover model for initial incision of the Grand Canyon, and discussion of alternatives) you won't find the word "swell", let alone the phrase "swell up." There's no folding in the Supergroup. The article is not referring to the Supergroup. Your ideas about the Supergroup tilting only after the Paleozoic layers were in place while not affecting them are impossible. Here's a link to a page that has an animation of the tilting and eroding of the Supergroup that should help you visualize geology's views: Tilting, Faulting and Eroding of the Grand Canyon Supergroup. Just click anywhere on the diagram, or click on the little "Play" button beneath the diagram. It's a very short video, maybe only 10 seconds. He doesn't name the Supergroup because it is not responsible for the Kaibab Plateau, and tilted layers are not a "species of folded rocks". If you look at your favorite diagram you'll see that the Supergroup was uplifted along with everything else. The forces of uplift came from deeper within the Earth: --Percy

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.

quote:

---

Look at the cross section. The entire column of strata all rise over the Supergroup without being disturbed.

---

As is quite clear on the cross section - and as I have pointed out before - this is not true. At the Canyon rim the upper strata are slowing down, where the Supergroup is still tilted upwards.The uplift is clearly a separate event from the tilting of the Supergroup.

And the Supergroup rocks were obviously tilted earlier.

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

Thanks for this post.

quote:

---

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

---

Wrong on both counts.If the rise was caused after the tilting of the Supergroup then why would it have to come before the later strata were in place ?Don’t you remember that the flume experiments convinced you that sediment could be deposited on a slope ?

No. They were tilted then eroded to a 'flat' surface. The arch occurred (much) later. This is evidenced by faulting along which the tilting occurred and which do not extend into the overlying Paleozoic rocks (i.e. they are cross-cut by the GU).I doubt that they were folded as per our other discussion.

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.

But you defined "block" as a "unit of neatly demarcated strata". I don't know what that is, and I don't think you do either. This is not a good definition. Let me describe just one problem with it. According to this definition the strata in the walls of the Grand Canyon would be a "block" because they've eroded together. But the strata exposed to erosion in the canyon vary according to where you are in the canyon. In some places the Tapeats is exposed to erosion, so then it's a part of the block, but in other places it's not exposed, so then it's not part of the block. So which is it? Is the Tapeats part of the block or not? Because ambiguity is inherent in your definition, it is not useful. No, it wasn't. Why do you think so? Are you using unit as a synonym for block?Anyway, are all strata that are exposed to erosion anywhere in the Grand Staircase part of the block? If so, then would it be correct to say the strata from the Tapeats up to the Claron is a block? But if we're only considering the Grand Canyon region then would it be correct to say that the strata from the Tapeats only up to the Kaibab is a block?Why not just use the term stratigraphic column? Then you can talk about the units that make up the stratigraphic column, such as supergroups (a sequence of groups), groups (a sequence of formations), and formations (a sequence of strata). In other words, what is wrong with standard geological terminology? I can understand it can be difficult when asked to define terms that you're making up. Probably not even you have a clear idea what they mean. Well, yes, since you're the one making up terminology, who else would one blame?I don't think you're safe in assuming that just because I tend to be the one questioning what you mean that everyone else understands what you're saying. If you recall, one of your frequent complaints is that people don't make enough effort to understand what you mean. Obviously even you're aware that people frequently don't get your meaning. I think describing reality would be much more clear than a fantasy world where anything is possible. What you mean is often unclear because there is no connection to reality. Each paragraph that I post addresses one of your incorrect claims. The length of my posts is a function of how many incorrect claims you make. Oh, I am so blessed. Since you're claiming that Smith's diagram represents a stratigraphic column that completely represents the geologic timescale from the Cambrian to the present, I'd say that "what he left out" is pretty important to your claim. If he left anything out then your claim is automatically false. That's impossible, just look at the diagram and count the number of Paleozoic strata: He shows only five Paleozoic strata and there are six time periods, so all the time periods couldn't possibly be represented. Asking again, why do you think all the time periods were represented? The diagram isn't clear enough that you would have been able to make much out, so you just made it up, right? Not sure why you felt the need to say this. I again urge you to quote what I say that you're replying to so you don't run off the rails like this. Anyway, what you say is true, which is why no one, including me, ever said anything different. Mostly you just make bald declarations, but when you do mention evidence it's rarely anything that has any relationship to your claims. They're all Smith diagrams. Why are you assuming the granite is Precambrian? Paleozoic, Mesozoic and Cenozoic are not time periods, they're eras. You never follow through.--Percy

There's two parts of this I don't understand. First, I don't know what Faith is referring to when she says "block," so I'm surprised that you do. The reason for my uncertainty is what she's said over the past few messages using the word "block", like this: For me when she says strata are "eroded as blocks" it makes her use of the word "block" very ambiguous. Does "eroded as blocks" have some clear meaning? Also, somewhere else she says different tilting defines a distinct block.Second, Faith does not consider the Supergroup to be part of the same block as the block from the Tapeats to the Kaibab, and it isn't clear whether her definition of "block" would place the Vishnu Schist as part of either block, but let's call them three separate blocks in Faith-land. What were the separate deformations these three blocks experienced? Are you considering the tilting of the Supergroup to be a deformation, because that would surprise me since it isn't how a couple sites I checked define it - bends, folds and faults seem to be considered types of deformation, but not tilting. And Isn't the uplift of the Colorado Plateau a deformation experienced by all three blocks together rather than separately?--Percy