Summations Only

I thought it was what he said, then I was corrected and now understand it's what the journalist said. But I am not going to assume she got it all that wrong anyway since from what Percy said she has a good reputation as a science writer.. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There is nothing about that diagram that changes anything I've said. Tilting on the surface usually reflects something going on underneath that isn't obvious. Siccar Point for instance, according to Lyell, shows that the strata that on the surface appear tilted are actually buckled in folds. In this case something else is going on, but it does not change the4 basic fact that the strata were laid down first and THEN deformed. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Happens to me probably dozens of times more often than it happens to you. Not just denials and unsupported assertions but really really stupid straw man arguments. Even when I've given a good argument too. And I don't necessarily mean you but you too seem to have resorted to mostly one liners.ABE: As a matter of fact I remember you from way way back just answering me with a couple of words, often "Why not?" or "Says you"
and so on.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

There is nothing about that diagram that changes anything I've said.

---

It shows that the Smith diagram is misleading and that the real situation does not support your claim. But since you’re outright lying about the other diagram I’m not surprised that you chose dishonesty here, too.

quote:

---

Siccar Point for instance, according to Lyell, shows that the strata that on the surface appear tilted are actually buckled in folds. In this case something else is going on, but it does not change the4 basic fact that the strata we

---

More importantly a fuller picture will give you a better understanding of what has occurred. And that fuller picture shows no sign that all the tectonic events occurred at the same time.

quote:

---

In this case something else is going on, but it does not change the4 basic fact that the strata were laid down first and THEN deformed.

---

Other than demolishing the evidence for your fact. But obviously that won’t stop you calling it a fact. To take the most obvious points.First rather than continuing straight down, as would be expected if all the strata were tilted as a block, the most steeply tilted strata level out and continue to the East. Except where they pinch out (also unexpected if they were tilted as a block).Second there is a buried peak at the right end, which you claim you can’t see while seeing the strata. How you can see the strata rise and fall without seeing the peak I have no idea. Anyway the older strata instead of continuing down rise up. On top of them we see strata which are not present to the immediate west (whether they are continuations of strata that might be found further west or different rocks of similar age I can’t tell). The strata immediately on top of the peak are not deformed by the rise of the peak(And that’s not mentioning the fact that there are a number of strata that appear to have been deposited on irregular surfaces - not following the surface but filling in the depressions. Whatever the cause of the irregularities that’s evidence that they were already there)In short the idea that the real cross section can be explained by the strata all tilting as a block is absurd. Just look at it.

quote:

---

ABE: As a matter of fact I remember you from way way back just answering me with a couple of words, often "Why not?" or "Says you" and so on.

---

I can’t help noticing that those responses can’t really be characterised as unsupported assertions. They are, however, commonly responses to unsupported assertions.

Tilting is the appearance on surface and the fact remains that they are at an angle to the horizontal position of the4 original deposit, showing that the deformation occurred after all the strata were laid down, which is my main point;. That hasn't changed. Now that we can see the underground situation it remains true that they were all DEFORMED after they were laid down.I can now "see" the right end but I can't make any sense of it. Whatever it is I'm sure it occurred after all the strata were laid down.

quote:

---

Tilting is the appearance on surface and the fact remains that they are at an angle to the horizontal position of the4 original deposit, showing that the deformation occurred after all the strata were laid down, which is my main point;

---

The fact remains that the cross-section shows clear evidence of deformation before all the strata were deposited. So your main point is contrary to the evidence from both the locations you chose as your main examples.

quote:

---

Now that we can see the underground situation it remains true that they were all DEFORMED after they were laid down.

---

That’s what you say. The evidence says otherwise.Let us note that I made arguments that you haven’t dealt with at all.
You’re just assuming that you’re right.

quote:

---

I can now "see" the right end but I can't make any sense of it. Whatever it is I'm sure it occurred after all the strata were laid down.

---

It makes sense if you drop that assumption.

It certainly does not. This kind of irrational assertion should be beneath you but obviously it's not. The strata were laid down and then they all sagged as you see, as a whole unit, leaving some ends at the sur4face from which no doubt much sediment was broken off and washed away. Enough nonsense. Cut it out.

quote:

---

It certainly does not. This kind of irrational assertion should be beneath you but obviously it's not

---

Telling the truth maybe irrational in your mind and you may consider it to be beneath you. I disagree.

quote:

---

The strata were laid down and then they all sagged as you see, as a whole unit, leaving some ends at the sur4face from which no doubt much sediment was broken off and washed away.

---

Don’t be silly. That is obviously untrue. If they sagged between the two peaks (Snowdon and the buried peak at the East) then the slopes should be in opposite directions at the two ends - but they aren’t. If you have the centre of the sag somewhere off to the East of the cross-section then the buried peak has to be due to something else. Either way, your vague description doesn’t come close to accounting for the diagram.

quote:

---

Enough nonsense. Cut it out.

---

You’re the one posting nonsense. Feel free to stop, any time.

Yes. And erosion causes other things. Such as flat plains where the material is deposited.

No wonder you're impossible to keep up with. You just replied to a 332 word post with 36 words.Don't faults qualify, in your lingo, as a disturbance? The Hurricane Fault along the western perimeter of the Kaibab Uplift, and the Toroweap Fault along the eastern, occurred during the uplift.In your Flood scenario the Supergroup strata and the Paleozoic strata were originally part of the same block of strata.
You say that strata tilt as a block. If this were true (and it is if there aren't additional factors) then if the Supergroup and Paleozoic strata were all present at the time of the tilt then they would have tilted together.In the vicinity of the canyon the column of strata from the Vishnu Schist up through the tilted Supergroup and up through the Paleozoic layers to the Kaibab are all uplifted as a unit. The forces of uplift came from deeper within the Earth, pushing up entire column as a whole.As PaulK notes in the context of your Flood scenario, where the Supergroup unit on the right should have exerted the greatest upward pressure (its rightmost portion) the Kaibab lining the North Rim is actually lower in elevation than further north (further left). Here's the diagram for reference: A couple points from my post that you ignored that are worth noting:

• 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.
  ​
• 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. Any comments?

And a correction. Though I looked it up at a couple sites, apparently they both incompletely defined the word deformation. Both Moose and Edge believe tilting is a form of deformation, and a bit more extensive poking around the Internet agrees, so I will of course adopt the correct terminology.--Percy

Paul is correct. There are two major points where rocks below an unconformity are more deformed than the ones above. And that does not include the Great Unconformity at the base of the Cambrian rocks. This only refers to the layered sedimentary rocks. The first one is below the Old Red Sandstone where older Cambrian and Silurian rocks are eroded before the Old Red was deposited. You can tell by how bedding in the older rocks is truncated by the unconformity. This is the principle of cross-cutting features at work. If a structural element (such as a bedding plane) is cut by another feature (such as a fault or an unconformity) then the second feature is younger. Note that this unconformity does not cross-cut the Old Red Sandstone and is, therefor younger than the unconformity, and younger than the deformation that caused folding of the older rocks.There is a second such feature at the base of the New Red Sandstone. Once again the unconformity cuts bedding planes in the older rock, but not the younger ones. Simply put, the unconformity is younger than the lower rocks, but older than the upper ones. Since the older rocks are deformed (as at Siccar Point), then they have undergone deformation prior to the upper layers.I am not going to address the rest of your post as it consists solely of negative insinuations and demands.

One way to look at this is to do what we call a 'palinspastic reconstruction' in which deformation is removed from the diagram by graphically restoring the Old Red Sandstone (for instance) to its original, flat-lying geometry. This essentially removes deformation younger than the Old Red.But we also keep the current geometric relationships of the lower plate of rocks to the Old Red.If we did so, we would see that by removing the deformation of the Old Red, there is still folding in the rocks below. This is probably beyond Faith's comprehension, but it is an instructive exercise that I'm sure she will have no trouble misapprehending.

Edge didn't reply to this one, so I'll attempt a reply. This is yet another bald declaration with no evidence or reasoning.Assuming by arch Edge meant the Colorado Plateau and the Kaibab Uplift, why do you think tectonic forces incapable of creating it?Edge tends toward brevity and I don't always catch his meaning, presumably Edge will correct me if I have this wrong, but I think he is saying the same thing everyone else has been saying. Briefly summarizing in list form:

• The Supergroup layers were deposited in marine environments atop the Vishnu Schist.
• The region was uplifted and stretched, turning the Supergroup layers into a terretrial basin and range region, breaking the strata into large blocks and tilting them.
• The forces of erosion then wore away most of the tilted Supergroup strata.
• A couple hundred million years later the region experienced uplifts and subsidences that in turn caused sea transgressions and regressions that deposited the Paleozoic layers.
• The region was again uplifted, I'm guessing around the Middle Cretaceous.
• Erosion wore away the layers down to the Kaibab. Rivers and streams created incisions that eventually became the canyons of the Colorado River.
• The region was uplifted further (the Great Plains, then even more with the Colorado Plateau and Kaibab Uplift) and ancestral rivers downcut into the rising landscape creating deep canyons, in particular Marble Canyon and the Grand Canyon.
• At some point the ancestral rivers became the Colorado River, but it's hard to tell exactly when. Around 6 million years ago probably isn't too bad a guess.

This brief little video that I've linked to a couple times shows the Supergroup strata tilting, then being eroded flat: Tilting, Faulting and Eroding of the Grand Canyon Supergroup.The video doesn't include the detail that the Shinumo Quartize is very resistant to erosion and so eroded at a slower rate than other strata of the Supergroup. Hills and cliffs of Shinumo Quarztite rose above the surrounding plains. The sea transgression that deposited the Tapeats encountered and eroded these Shinumo Quartzite hills and cliffs, explaining why boulders and other detritus of the Shinumo Quartzite can be found embedded in the Tapeats.It is widely believed that some parts of the canyons of the Colorado River are as much as 70 million years old, which is much older than the 40 million year old (at most) Claron Formation, so the Claron is unlikely to have ever overlain the Grand Canyon region.So what layers did overlie the Kaibab in the Grand Canyon region before being eroded away? My guess is that all the layers from the Moekopi to the Carmel Formation overlay the Kaibab, but not the layers now overlying the Carmel because there is a significant unconformity atop it that dates to the Middle Jurassic. The Dakota Formation overlies the Carmel Formation and is much younger, Late Cretaceous, about 90 million years younger, so it likely never existed in the Grand Canyon region. There must have been other layers above the Carmel that once overlay it. They would have formed between the Middle Jurassic and the Middle Cretaceous then eroded away and are now forever lost to geologic history.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

The diagram shows the deformation of the strata below the usual baseline. It had to have deformed since being horizontally laid down, that is, AFTER it was deposited, which is the only point I'm making.Can't beat the authoritative-sounding willful assertion of total absurdities so I guess there's nothing more for me to say. Y'all win, enjoy your victory.