Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why is evolution so controversial?
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 361 of 969 (724549)
04-18-2014 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 359 by Faith
04-18-2014 1:01 AM


Re: The "Geologic Timescale" does not exist
Yes, obviously you've missed all the voluminous previous discussions of these things. The material for the strata must have come from the washing off of the land mass in the torrential forty days and nights of rain. It got sorted in the currents and layers of the ocean water and redeposited as strata.
Ah, good. Then you can explain how limestones were deposited in a turbid flow regime environment, and why we see multiple sorting events with sandstones and shales scattered throughout. Just \[b\]where\[b\] did those limestones wash in from and maintain their purity?
And then you can let us know how tetrapod tracks were preserved in such a 'washing off' of the continents. Oh, and don't forget the burrow fossils. How did they form in the middle of such a catastrophic event?
And then I'd like to know how you fit in the tilting of the GC Group of sediments followed by their erosion.
Why is there a beach sand in the middle of all this torrent?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 359 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 1:01 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 6:21 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 362 of 969 (724550)
04-18-2014 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 358 by Faith
04-18-2014 12:57 AM


But you said there have been previous periods of erosion and uplift in the Grand Canyon area, and I'm wondering where you see the evidence for that on this diagram: ...
On the far right, there are two of them. One clear disconformity and another angular unconformity.
Seems to me pretty clear that all the large-scale erosion I was talking about occurred above the Kaibab ...
Oops! Well, there you go! That's another one!
quote:
... at the same time the GC area was uplifted into that mounded shape and the canyons and cliffs were cut ...
Unlikely. The Kaibab plain was probably formed near sea level during a long period of coastal plain erosion where meandering streams eventually cut into the Kaibab itself and set the general trend of the future Colorado River. Uplift occurred after that.
quote:
... and the magma intrusions occurred in the GS area and the faultings too and the Great Unconformity beneath the GC as well. All at one time.
Hunh? You have the Great Unconformity occurring after all of the rocks were deposited?
Now that's plain weird.
Even the Great Unconformity. Yes.
Even that had to occur during the fludde. Yes (well, according to you).
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 12:57 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 378 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 5:37 PM edge has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 363 of 969 (724551)
04-18-2014 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 360 by edge
04-18-2014 1:02 AM


I've discussed all that to death on former threads and I'm a bit worn out from this thread at the moment but let me give it a once-over.
First the stack of sediments was all laid down to a depth of three or more miles, some of them extending horizontally all the way across the continent, certainly extending in that immediate vicinity for thousands of square miles.
After they were all laid down we got tectonic disturbance that released magma beneath the area where the GC now is, the force of the tectonic movement and possibly the accumulation of magma as well causing the lower strata to tilt up against the Tapeats. Slippage between the tilting strata and the Tapeats caused it to slide some distance. There is a fifteen-foot quartzite boulder buried in the Tapeats sandstone above the contact line that was broken off the Shinumo layer about a quarter of a mile away from its current location. That movement accounts for that and all the rest of the broken/eroded stuff we find in the sandstone. The sandstone was no doubt highly compressed by the three miles of sediment stacked above it but not completely lithified at the time.
So the force exerted beneath the canyon lifted the whole stack but it remained more or less horizontal from the Tapeats on up, at least all the stack remained parallel from there up and mostly still horizontal. I figure the contact between the Tapeats and the tilted unconformity is the point where the forces balanced each other out, the tectonic and volcanic forces from beneath and the weight of the stack of sediments above. The stack was uplifted but not distorted from the Tapeats on up.
All this uplifted the whole stack, and the uplifting cracked the uppermost strata which at that time were more than another mile higher than the current rim of the GC. I figure this tectonic disturbance was all part of the period of the end of the Flood when the waters were starting to recede, or somewhere in that time frame, so that there was still a lot of water to rush into those cracks and begin the process of cutting the canyon. An enormous amount of sediment had to be broken up of course, some of which washed into the cracks as an abrasive element that widened the canyon. At the same time there was a magma eruption beneath the north end of what is now the Grand Staircase, and an earthquake forming the Hurricane Fault, to the south of which the land was pushed up while to the north of it the land tilted and dropped. All this shaking up plus the huge quantity of water now looking for passages of exit broke off all those cliffs and denuded the Kaibab plateau etc etc etc.\
I'm sure I've forgotten a bunch of stuff but I need to take a rest from all this. Since you no doubt find all this objectionable I'll probably see you here later or tomorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by edge, posted 04-18-2014 1:02 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 365 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 1:26 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 367 by edge, posted 04-18-2014 1:42 AM Faith has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 364 of 969 (724552)
04-18-2014 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 335 by Faith
04-17-2014 5:40 PM


Re: The "Geologic Timescale" does not exist
Adding new layers to the uppermost Recent Time periods with very very modern fossils in them? Kindly show me any such thing.
Sure. In the Chesapeake Bay estuary, I have see all kinds of shells in the modern sediment. I've also seen shells buried in beach sands, very similar to Cretaceous beach sands in Colorado. I have seen trees covered in volcanic ash in Hawaii just as they occur in Tertiary volcanics of Nevada. And what about coral reefs? Is the Great Barrier Reef just going to disappear in the future geological record? If you think that fossilization has stopped, you are truly in error.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by Faith, posted 04-17-2014 5:40 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 1:29 AM edge has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 365 of 969 (724553)
04-18-2014 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 363 by Faith
04-18-2014 1:21 AM


Oh and the magma is what created the granite and the schist at the bottom of the GC too, taking not nearly as long as Geology requires but Geology does tend to overestimate time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 1:21 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 369 by edge, posted 04-18-2014 1:58 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 366 of 969 (724554)
04-18-2014 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 364 by edge
04-18-2014 1:25 AM


Re: The "Geologic Timescale" does not exist
The deposition of shells is not the Geologic Timescale. Your Recent Time period on that Timescale has mammals and stuff, oh maybe some marine stuff, but it's not the Recent Time period if it only has shells. We are plotting the sequence of evolution up the time periods are we not? And the time periods do stack one on top of another do they not? That is, they do not decide to continue elsewhere, they build where they are. Current smallscale sedimentation and deposition of fossils is simply NOT the Geologic Timescale, it's just willy-nilly sedimentation and fossilization.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by edge, posted 04-18-2014 1:25 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 368 by edge, posted 04-18-2014 1:53 AM Faith has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 367 of 969 (724555)
04-18-2014 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 363 by Faith
04-18-2014 1:21 AM


After they were all laid down we got tectonic disturbance that released magma beneath the area where the GC now is, ...
Tell us about this 'disturbance'. What caused it?
... the force of the tectonic movement and possibly the accumulation of magma as well causing the lower strata to tilt up against the Tapeats. Slippage between the tilting strata and the Tapeats caused it to slide some distance.
Without disturbing the Tapeats. Excellent.
So what is the evidence for a dislocation at the base of the Tapeats?
There is a fifteen-foot quartzite boulder buried in the Tapeats sandstone above the contact line that was broken off the Shinumo layer about a quarter of a mile away from its current location.
Hmmm, classic evidence for an erosional unconformity...
I don't suppose you'd consider... nah....
That movement accounts for that and all the rest of the broken/eroded stuff we find in the sandstone.
Sure. Couldn't be erosional.
The sandstone was no doubt highly compressed by the three miles of sediment stacked above it but not completely lithified at the time
Right. Sure.
So the force exerted beneath the canyon lifted the whole stack but it remained more or less horizontal from the Tapeats on up, at least all the stack remained parallel from there up and mostly still horizontal. I figure the contact between the Tapeats and the tilted unconformity is the point where the forces balanced each other out, the tectonic and volcanic forces from beneath and the weight of the stack of sediments above. The stack was uplifted but not distorted from the Tapeats on up.
Right. And all of this happened during the fludde.
And no doubt, you have evidence.
I'm sure I've forgotten a bunch of stuff but I need to take a rest from all this. Since you no doubt find all this objectionable I'll probably see you here later or tomorrow.
I'm sure that I have forgotten a lot too, but evidently not quite enough.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 1:21 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 377 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 4:45 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 368 of 969 (724556)
04-18-2014 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 366 by Faith
04-18-2014 1:29 AM


Re: The "Geologic Timescale" does not exist
The deposition of shells is not the Geologic Timescale.
I never said so. I was describing the very very modern fossils.
Your Recent Time period on that Timescale has mammals and stuff, oh maybe some marine stuff, but it's not the Recent Time period if it only has shells.
In some locations it is.
But then, you would know better...
We are plotting the sequence of evolution up the time periods are we not? And the time periods do stack one on top of another do they not?
I guess. Well, some time periods may not have sediments deposited. Do you have a point?
That is, they do not decide to continue elsewhere, they build where they are.
True, sediments do not decide anything. They are not sentient. Do you think that sediments continue depositing where they are being eroded?
Are you saying that as they erode, the new sediments just disappear and never reach a depositional center?
Now you are getting weird again.
Current smallscale sedimentation and deposition of fossils is simply NOT the Geologic Timescale, ...
Of course not. The geological time scale is something else completely.
... it's just willy-nilly sedimentation and fossilization.
Of course. But it is part of the local geological column. Do you think that the geological column is the same everywhere?
I think you've forgotten a few more things about geology than you thought you did.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 366 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 1:29 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 376 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 4:05 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 369 of 969 (724557)
04-18-2014 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 365 by Faith
04-18-2014 1:26 AM


Oh and the magma is what created the granite and the schist at the bottom of the GC too, ...
I'm sure you are correct. Of course, I'd like to see the evidence that the Zoroaster Granite is the same as the younger basalts.
ETA: oh, yes... schist implies a pre-existing rock, so how do you know that it all happened quickly?
... taking not nearly as long as Geology requires ...
Why is that? Are you debating by assertion again? What does anything you've said have to do with the time it takes a granite pluton to cool?
Oh, that's right, it has to be that way to maintain your religious myth.
... but Geology does tend to overestimate time.
Actually geology does not estimate at all.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 1:26 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 375 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 2:49 PM edge has replied

  
saab93f
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 265
From: Finland
Joined: 12-17-2009


(3)
Message 370 of 969 (724562)
04-18-2014 5:58 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by Faith
04-16-2014 5:56 PM


And for NN: I've always been considered to have a good scientific mind. From before I became a Christian. The ToE is not science, it's fantasy and to think scientifically about fantasy simply requires recognizing that it is fantasy and answering it as the mental construction it is.
The only reason you claim this, Faith, is because the ToE smacks right in the face of your religion. You do not have even the slightest interest in doing honest research and while you are no doubt intelligent and hard-working, you are willing to distort anything and everything to support your dogma.
Have you ever allowed yourself to think that maybe those thousands of scientists in which ever area they might be working are indeed doing their job well and that there is no worldwide conspiracy to discredit creationism? Have you ever thought about the fact that every single honest scientist is in disagreement with the worldviwe you propose - and that they are not deluded or denied information to come to agreement?
I can quite safely say that no-one on this forum is denying you your faith or your view on the world but to basically going out saying that 99,999% of the worlds geologists and biologists are wrong and bad at their job is bound to cause strong opposition. About your claim of having a good scientific mind - well you are a polar opposite of that. You do not have the curiosity, honesty or open mind to do scientific research.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Faith, posted 04-16-2014 5:56 PM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 371 of 969 (724571)
04-18-2014 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 327 by Faith
04-17-2014 4:09 PM


Re: Geo Timescale no longer telling time
Of course there are reasons for it, but the differences make the ocean floor sediments unrelated to the Geologic Timetable, as so many other things about them make them irrelevant. This is not the Geologic Timetable, for the many reasons I've already listed.
As usual, you have not listed any reasons. You've just asserted that there is no relationship.
Marine fossils of course, what else, but not even of the complexity of the marine fossils in the lower levels of the Geo Column. Certainly no addition to the Holocene or whatever the most recent time period in the Geo Timetable is supposed to be, with its mammals and other creatures supposedly evolved through the whole sequence of "time periods" from the Precambrian on up.
You didn't look at my whale fall link, of course. Whale fossils are forming now. Mammals, big mothers.
Of course you have no clue about how many fossils and what type we expect to see with our knowledge of the sea floor. How much of it do you think we've seen? Not much at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by Faith, posted 04-17-2014 4:09 PM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 372 of 969 (724572)
04-18-2014 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by Faith
04-16-2014 5:56 PM


And for NN: I've always been considered to have a good scientific mind.
A person with a scientific mind who cannot read a scientific paper? Please. You give yourself a B grade for your knowledge of geology. That's evidence of your pee-poor standards for what constitutes scientific knowledge. Not believing what other real geologists think is no excuse for not understanding it. But you play that card all the time.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Faith, posted 04-16-2014 5:56 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 373 of 969 (724578)
04-18-2014 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 350 by Faith
04-18-2014 12:21 AM


Faith writes:
This is not the work of normal everyday erosive conditions over millions of years.
A centimeter per year can erode 3 miles in a half million years. For soil this is "normal everyday erosion," it's observed in many places all around the world. A hundredth of a centimeter per year can erode 3 miles in 50 million years, and this is "normal everyday erosion" for rock, also observed in many places all around the world. You're being idiotic to waste time denying the possibility of processes that we can actually see happening.
Your planet is very dynamic indeed, risings and fallings of seas and land areas galore, and yet you all accept your ridiculous version of geology and scorn mine.
Views like yours can only exist in a vacuum of ignorance. Your views ignore scores of simple facts. They not only deserve scorn, such overt and determined ignorance invites it.
No reason whatever to expect the Kaibab plateau to sink or the Grand Canyon or the Grand Staircase.
You're as dishonest and obvious as a used car dealer. Tectonic forces, uplift, subsidence and changing sea levels do not come into play only when Faith requires them, but rather when the evidence says they occurred. We have evidence for what we believe happened, you have none. Because what you believe never happened.
But I didn't mention any of that at all on this thread.
Could you please take a break from your "You're misrepresenting what I said" stuff? You said it, I replied to it.
I merely observed that the formation of the strata, which is the basis for the Geologic Timetable, has clearly come to a halt. It is not continuing to form above the Grand Staircase which is where it should continue to lay down more and more Recent Time layers,...
Of course there's no net deposition in the region around the Grand Staircase - it's an uplifted region. How many times has this been explained to you? Why on earth do you think geology believes there should be more strata being deposited in an uplifted region? Can you not remember any geological fact that is actually true for more than a microsecond?
Erosion and deposition are taking place everywhere all around the world. High regions experience net erosion, low regions net deposition. You can't be ignorant of simple facts like this and still hold views with any validity.
And don't you dare accuse me of misrepresenting you. Display some integrity for once.
And since it has come to a halt, not only in that area but everywhere the Geo Column exists (you say not but I'm sure you're wrong) this is why you've removed the strata-building processes to newer and much much smaller-scale basins and the ocean floor. Where what is actually seen isn't comparable in scale or sedimentary structure and composition to the Geo Column anyway.
Well, this is just incredibly vapid. You're denying decades of mountains of data from all around the world, including what can be seen with the naked eye. The oceans are greater in area than all the continents put together, an enormous scale, and all oceans are regions of net deposition.
The deposition rate in remote ocean regions can be as low as 2-3 cm per thousand years, but after a hundred million years that still comes out to more than a mile. Deposition rates where there is a great deal of life or that are closer to continents are far, far higher, even as great as centimeters per year where rivers meet oceans. Sediment thickness off the Louisiana coast reaches 30,000 feet and more, and growing thicker all the time.
Here's a map of the sediment thickness in the world's oceans (click to enlarge):
In your silly flood scenario where the ocean basins only recently opened 4500 years ago you would need sedimentation rates of 20 cm/year just to get a mere 1000 meters of sediment thickness. To get the 20,000 meter thickness of some regions near continental coastlines would require 4 meters/year (13 feet/year). Nothing like that has ever been observed to happen on any consistent basis (certainly large storms and tsunamis can cause significant deposition events), and the evidence from oceanic cores says that the normal deposition rates we see today were also taking place in the past. See Larni's posts that included pictures of many cores. You can see that the layers from thousands of years ago are the same as layers from hundreds of years ago.
Which is of course a statement of the principle of Uniformitarianism, which of course is why I'm always butting heads with it.
Except that uniformitarian principles regarding the forces and processes in play in the past derive from evidence, while your views are made up.
all it takes for net deposition is depression below the surrounding region.
That's your theory. No evidence for it of course, just pure theory based on the principle of uniformitarianism.
You are truly daft. That sediments collect in the lowest regions is not only scientifically established beyond any doubt, it's just common sense. Water and sediments always seek the lowest levels. At heart it's just gravity at work.
There's no such thing as a special kind of era that permits planet shaping erosion and deposition and where with its end such change ceases.
Again, I OBSERVED that the building of the strata HAS ceased. It's an observed FACT, not the product of theory. And you all tacitly acknowledge this fact by relocating the continued strata-building to the ocean floor and newer small-scale basins.
About the only thing you're not terribly confused about is that new strata are not being deposited in the Grand Canyon region. Most of the layers in this region (and any region, actually) are marine layers. Marine regions dominate the planet, a truly massive scale. The Grand Canyon region was once sea bottom, and that's where its layers formed. Marine layers can only form on sea bottom. At some point in the past the Grand Canyon region was uplifted above sea level and now it is part of the North American continent.
Seems to me that once you understand that the Flood did in fact occur then it takes a peculiar blindness NOT to see its effects, exactly where science is making up the scientifically impossible silly and ridiculous fantastic stuff.
There's no evidence that a flood ever occurred, your ideas are full of impossibilities, your ignorance is on a vast scale, and your determination to maintain that ignorance seems to know no bounds.
The science of geology, on the other hand, presents views that are fully supported by evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 12:21 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 374 of 969 (724588)
04-18-2014 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 359 by Faith
04-18-2014 1:01 AM


Re: The "Geologic Timescale" does not exist
Faith writes:
The material for the strata must have come from the washing off of the land mass in the forty days and nights of torrential rain. It got sorted in the currents and layers of the ocean water and redeposited as strata.
How did all the marine sedimentary material come to cover the antediluvian land mass so it could be washed away?
How did hundreds of millions of years of sedimentary deposits come to be anywhere on a landscape only a couple thousand years old?
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 359 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 1:01 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 5:43 PM Percy has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 375 of 969 (724607)
04-18-2014 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 369 by edge
04-18-2014 1:58 AM


granite schist and basalt
Oh and the magma is what created the granite and the schist at the bottom of the GC too, ...
I'm sure you are correct. Of course, I'd like to see the evidence that the Zoroaster Granite is the same as the younger basalts.
Am I right that you mean "same age as" rather than "same as?" If not, I have to ask "same how?"
I'm aware that there is an age discrepancy for my view of all this according to Geology, but I also don't take much of the dating claims seriously. I figure they are open to reinterpretation. Anyway for the Cardenas Basalt, which I assume is what you are talking about, Wikipedia has:
Geologists have attempted to date the Cardenas Basalt for many years. On the basis of other geologic criteria, geologists have found that the dates, which range from 700 to 1,000 million years ago, obtained for the age of the Cardenas Basalt and upper age of the Unkar Group were too young and something was clearly perturbing the dating systematics. The current interpretation is that the deposition of the overlying Chuar Group in a marine setting disrupted the potassium-argon (K-Ar) radiometric system. Apparently, fluids associated with the deposition of the Chuar Group have altered the older Cardenas Basalt, partially degraded the minerals, and therefore disrupted the K-Ar systematics. Using newer dating techniques and approaches not available to earlier geologists, the Cardenas Basalt and intrusive sills have been re-dated. New data acquired using newer dating techniques and approaches, indicate that the Cardenas Basalt erupted about 1,104 million years ago. This date marks the end of Unkar time.[7][9]
Of course this is very interesting to me because it is an admission that there can be problems with radiometric dating, even that "deposition in a marine setting" can "disrupt" the system (and a marine setting is exactly what the Flood would have been). In discussions at EvC one normally finds radiometric dating treated as perfection itself.
So now with newer methods they are sure they have it right. Fraid I don't have the same certainty myself. About the basalt or anything else dated by these methods.
I also have found it difficult to get a clear idea of just what the Cardenas Basalt is. Sometimes it is presented as a layer in the Supergroup, but in this diagram it's presented as an intrusion through the Supergroup which makes more sense:
Of course on my view of the Grand Canyon the magma eruption would have formed all of it in roughly the same time period: the basalt and the granite and the schist.
ETA: oh, yes... schist implies a pre-existing rock, so how do you know that it all happened quickly?
It only needs to have happened over the last 4300 years, from the time of the magma eruption to the time it was recognized as schist. It doesn't need to have happened instantaneously. The pre-existing rock of the schist is probably partly rubble from the tilting and displacement of the Supergroup.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by edge, posted 04-18-2014 1:58 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 385 by edge, posted 04-18-2014 7:38 PM Faith has replied
 Message 403 by Percy, posted 04-19-2014 10:49 AM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024