Summations Only

Which word do you have a problem with?An intrusive contact is also an unconformity. I'm trying to be precise. Yes, which I explain in my post. Would 'clasts' or 'cobbles' help? Yes. I explain this in the quotation that I presented. I am interested in showing how much you don't know.I'm not so sure about that. So, you admit that you do not understand? You know, you could just as nicely... I add explanations frequently. Well, it IS a debate, not a bible discussion group. Maybe that's why you miss my explanations. I can see why you are frustrated. That could be overcome, you know.Oh, was this a discussion or a complaint session?Why not try asking nicely what a fragment is or what a conglomerate is, or 'rounded'?

You do realize, of course, that there are a number of marine sedimentary environments, right?Okay, so the GC Supergroup has limestone in it, so where do we see limestone or metamorphosed limestone in the Vishnu?On the other hand, we do see rounded Vishnu pebbles in the GC Supergroup. That would mean that the Vishnu is older...Weird, eh? Hmm, okay pelites... where do they occur in the GC Supergroup?ETA: Oh, yeah, and the volcanic rocks, too...Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Strange how it's only you who has such problem understanding my posts, isn't it? Just remember, there is a reason that you are frustrated and it can be fixed with some reading and some learning about geology.

And? I don't remember saying any such thing. If you don't want to learn any facts contrary to your opinions, there isn't much that I can help you with.

It's a case of apparent dip. https://www.google.com/#q=apparent+dip Edited by edge, : No reason given.Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Which is what we've been saying all along. There is a conglomerate at the base of the Tapeats, largely composed of the underlying material that has been eroded and now forms gravel and cobbles.I think you are massively confused. As I have stated before erosion occurs at the land surface. It consists of weathering and transport of the bedrock material.What you are proposing is not really erosion. It is abrasion or 'cataclasis', if you will. This type of deposit is entirely different from a conglomerate.Your own referece video proves you wrong.By the way, did you notice that the lecture provided evidence for exactly the kind of bedding relationships that you say do not exist at the GC. Lower beds of the Tapeats DO pinch out in a 'contouring' effect that you labor so hard to describe.You have refuted yourself...

No, that is not the point. The point is that you are wrong in attributing this 'erosional material' to some kind of teconism. No. No one is denying that it is erosional. They are denying that it is tectonic. And I am sure that your interpretation is equally valid. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Faith fatigue, I'm sure...

I'm having a hard time seeing where he says that the contact is actually a tectonic surface.Please provide the exact time. You mean the erosion that we all know about?

You do realize that this is the definition of a the verb, don't you? Are you saying that the contact is parallel to itself? That is what we have said all along, particularly at a large scale. Okay good, so they are not perfectly parallel and there are unconformities at various levels.Moving on... Okay, the water receded... Correct, but we do have this phenomenon as shown by your video. Correct. During the Paleozoic, in the immediate GC area; nothing major.Is this a problem? Yes, in the GC area. Up until the Claron deposition.We know that there were other events such as the rise of the ancestral Rockies and the Laramide orogeny in western North America that affected sedimentation on the Colorado Plateau. Okay, I'll give you the Claron.I've also circled the rise up and over the Grand Canyon because that shows that the strata all remained parallel to each other over that rise, not butting into the rise which would have happened if the rise had occurred before they were all laid down. So this is another piece of evidence that the strata were all in place before any serious disturbances occurred to them,But of course you all object that each layer shows erosion and other evidences of disturbance.[/qs] But you do agree that there was erosion, right? Sure, after the plateau was uplifted I would expect severe erosion. Okay, so erosion increased after uplift of the CP. If minor erosion is unimportant to you, then go ahead and ignore it. That's not my point. So the Muav is an intrusive rock? Pardon me while I make an emergency call to the USGS. They think it's a limestone. If you confine yourself to the Phanerozoic, yes, it was relatively quiet. If you confine yourself to the Phanerozoic it is a comparatively quiet period, thought there is evidence of some warping and changes in relative sea level.You still evade, however. As I remember, you said up until the actual carving of the Grand Canyon. That came even later, so you would be quite wrong since that post-dated the major uplift of the CP and the Kaibab Plateau.Are you now confining yourself to the Phanerozoic? [qs] ... but also suggests that the strata were still malleable and not lithified when the land rose, ... [/quote] So, why did they fracture upon uplift and warping? How did they maintain plasticity after being buried up to three miles?You cannot say this because, after all, you are the one who says there was no tectonism during this period. How would you prove your statement? Why is that? Why could it not be a long period of time?

I'm sure you would know.But, why does it not look like surface erosion? You mean kind of like how land fills in the space around and under a lake?Yeah, that's weird. But no limestone or conglomerates in the Vishnu, and no volcanics in the Supergroup. And they are separated by (gasp!) another unconformity! With fragments of Vishnu in the base of the Supergroup.Sure, despite all of that, they're probably the same rock since that's what Faith wants.

Let me get this straight. You don't want to discuss the unconformity, but you present to us a video about the Great Unconformity.That makes sense... All I'm saying is that, farther east, the ancestral Rockies rose up and later on the Laramide Orogeny occurred. The world did no consist of just the Grand Staircase and the Colorado Plateau. Well, when we have rocks of, say Pennsylvanian age (right in the middle of your undisturbed period) showing uplift and formation of the Uncompahgre Uplift along with conglomerates and evaporite deposits, it's kind of indicative. Do you want more?In this diagram note the uplift on the right side showing a major fault zone along with sediments being shed off the highlands and formation of salt playas in the Paradox Basin. http://higheredbcs.wiley.com/...hap_tut/images/nw0224-nn.jpg That would be hard to say. We know there was pretty severe erosion of the Vishnu and possibly of the GC Supergroup before the Phanerozoic quiet period. So, limestones are intrusive rocks now? Sorry, but I've seen intrusive carbonates and they don't look like channel fill. I would say the Temple Butte overlies the Mauv in erosional unconformity. Of course I know this. It is my principal beef with your whole scenario. It's outlandish. Why would that follow? Give me some principle that says you can't have long periods of sedimentation in the geological record. No. Clearly wrong. The Grand Canyon morphology shows that there were at least two phases of formation. One phase cut meandering stream channels prior to uplift of the Kaibab Plateau. Another one occurred during and after the uplift, creating the steep canyon that we see today. Actually, I would say the opposite. I would say that it took millions of years of erosion at a lower elevation to remove the post-Permian rocks. The last few million years of uplift simply accelerated the erosion. And, under arid conditions the Kaibab was relatively resistant. Then you should look for evidence of that. Why couldn't the upper sequence just erode away as the uplift occurred. How would that look any different? Excuse me, I'm trying to imagine the strain that would lead to meander loops in the course of the Colorado River... If they were soft, why would that support them maintaining parallelism? Why would they not maintain stratigraphic relationships if they were undeformed? If there was no tectonic activity, why would they necessarily break up? You are contradicting yourself here again. If they were so soft, how could they form cliffs and deep canyons? If they were so soft, why did brittle faults form such as the Bright Angel Fault? If they were so soft, they would flow rather than break and they would show evidence of flow. Where is it written that an active planet has to be active everywhere? How dos that follow? What principle says that lack of deformation means young ages? If you don't regret it, I can try harder next time. Learning is not easy. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Heh, heh...That's funny. Heh, heh...That's funny again. Especially coming from an old lady who despises, despises, despises!, old ages. Hunh? When you violate common sense, and centuries of geological progress, and insult generations of geologists, it isn't silly at all. Coming from somone so easily offended, I'll take this with a grain of salt. Aren't you getting a little carried away here? Actually, it doesn't offend me at all. It's kind of interesting.And you know what they are talking about when they say that something being repeated enough becomes believable, don't you? You mean that you haven't been there? All these pages of expounding authoritatively about the GC and you haven't seen it?First of all, I'm sorry about that.Second, that explains a lot... (and the mercury, too) ...Third, to me, it is sad that a person with such obvious intelligence would allow herself to be so completely deceived, seeing the world from inside a tiny religious box. Now, I really am depressed.

Makes no difference to me. Then you should have said it was not relevant rather than posting the video. But it is relevant to what I was posting, which is that there was plenty of tectonism going on at the same time as deposition of all those Paleozoic and Mesozoic sediments. The Colorado Plateau area just happened to be a quiet zone. This is a typical YEC response for when they can't explain things.

The diagram given shows that this is not the case. During the Pennsyvanian Period, the Uncompahgre uplift was occurring and coarse sediments were being deposited at that time, which is during your 'quiet' period of GC sedimentation. Yes, in the Grand Canyon area. However, the diagram shows that there were plenty of events occurring elsewhere ... nearby, in fact. No. The diagram clearly shows a fault zone raising the Uncompahgre Uplift, and sediments being contemporaneously deposited. I doubt that any diagrams in existence would be able to do that. Uncertain. This diagram is intended to only show the rocks of Pennsylvanian age and their relationship to the underlying Mississippian rocks. And the straight line is what we would call a datum. It depicts the surface of the earth at one single point in time. It is show flat in order to emphasize the thickness of the sediments below it. Actually, this is not a true cross-section. It only shows the Pennsylvanian rocks. No. the diagram clearly shows that the salt is interbedded with both the coarse conglomerates and other sediments of the same age.So, your thoughts about salt are irrelevant to this discussion. So, if I say anything here, you will complain. Start another thread.