Again I look at the road cut and see a layer that was deformed in the damp state where you all insist it was deposited that way.
You've been corrected about this many times now, including just a few messages ago. No one ever insisted it was deposited on a slope. As has been explained, there are multiple ways the layers could have taken on their current orientation, and there is no way tell from the images which it was.
It's been proved possible for a layer to deposit evenly on a slope but as I see it (according to my hypothesis) there is simply no way that's how that layer formed or any of the layers of the geologic column.
You're declaring that you will ignore the results of the experiments demonstrating that sediments can indeed deposit upon a sloped surface, and I've already ruled that you can't do that in this thread. If nothing else the experiments should tell you that your intuition about geologic processes in general is leading you seriously astray, but if you'd like to discuss sedimentation upon a slope further then please propose a new thread.
I think that's obvious just by looking at it, and that I've described well enough how it's obvious -- the appearance of the sagged layer, the fact that layers above also were slightly tilted downward to the left above it, the narrowing of the layers to the right and the rough rock where the droop to the left apparently originated, which may in fact be the result of the upward thrust of the gneiss to the right; but beyond that I can't prove it.
For this thread you will have to accept the possibility that the "layers above" are "slightly tilted downward to the left" because of sedimentation upon a slope.
That I've described many times and described it at my blog as well. There should be no doubt about my hypothesis in this case.
You've never described it in a way that made any sense to anyone. Please try again.
I still think you're all mad to think strata could have formed that way. I think the dismissal of the formerly trusted Steno's principle of original horizontality (gollygee, science PROGRESSES ya know) is just too too convenient and basically a fraud.
Your own experiment proved sedimentation on a slope possible. You have to stop arguing this point.
You may certainly be able to show that they are the same kind of rock in different forms, but the idea that the layer eroded from the mountain rock is pure conjecture.
This is a legitimate objection, and Edge should provide the evidence trail that leads to the conclusion that the rocks actually come from the Ancestral Rockies and are not just rocks of the same type as the Ancestral Rockies.
How about the possibility that the Pennsylvanian deposits were lithified when the mountains were uplifted?
Just to clarify, the question Edge asked wasn't about when they lithified. The question was how a single flood could create a stack of alluvial fans eroded from the Ancestral Rockies.
What Faith is saying is essentially, that this cannot be done.
That what can't be done?
Edge thinks you're saying that it isn't possible to trace a specific age of strata across a broad region. That wasn't my interpretation, which is that what you said is too ambiguous to know what you actually meant, so some clarification from you would be helpful.
I, obviously disagree. Here is an outline of the Paradox Basin in between the Grand Canyon on the lower left and the Uncompahgre Uplift in the upper right.
Unfortunately that diagram is totally invisible to me. I put it in Paint and expanded it so I now can at least see the blue patch in the center and basic outlines but can't make out the words.
Yes, the lettering in Edge's diagram can't be made out:
But here's the same region as Edge's map, but from Google Earth. It should help you locate the region:
And here is Edge's diagram showing the Cutler fans:
I wouldn't doubt that there is some relation between the uplifting of the mountains and the rocks at their base but of course I have to put the timing off to the end of the Flood, the mountainbuilding disrupting the already-deposited strata, not during the laying down of one of the buried layers. So in my hypothesis it would be the mountain-building itself that caused the rubble or conglomerate fans, also lithified or even metamorphosed the sedimentary rock where the tectonic pressure occurred. ... Again I don't have a problem with the idea that the erosion of the mountains could have created the conglomerate fans or rubble, only with the timing, so that the raising of the mountains itself could have created the rubble. That tectonic action would have compressed the strata it was pushing upward, and erosion of chunks off its rising surface would make sense.
First you say you can accept that erosion could create the fans, but deeply buried fans exist where erosion could never take place in your scenario. That mountain building could create fans of alluvial sediments in deeply buried strata without ever exposing them to erosive forces at the surface seems impossible. You (or someone) have to explain how this is actually possible, otherwise I have to to disallow this argument.
Edited by Admin, : Minor clarification in last para.
Here again is the last image from my experiment showing how sediments accumulate on a slope just as easily as on the level. Notice the cloudy water, which became cloudy from the bottom layer of sand which was just ordinary play box sand:
I kept the experiment sitting on my desk and gradually the water cleared, and while it's a little hard to tell, a new and very thin layer of sediment has formed from the tiny particles that gradually fell out of suspension:
This new layer is more easily seen from above. It is thinnest where the water column was most shallow and therefore contained the least sediment, and it is thickest where the water column was deepest and therefore contained the most sediment. This new layer of sediment had no trouble accumulating on the sloped portion:
I thought you were talking about how the Pennsylvanian layer was the result of the erosion which implied the same kind of rock in different forms, to which I reply that the Pennsylvanian sediments, not yet lithified, GOT lithified by the tectonic force that raised the mountains and turned them into solid rock, shedding chunks in the process that built up into the fans.
I made a drawing that I'll post despite your snarky attitude:
I figure the contacts between layers could have been opened up by the abrasion to admit the chunks abraded off the mountain side and ends of the strata. That's how I can imagine a fan shape being formed.
Alluvial fans are sedimentary deposits. Sediments can only be deposited on land surfaces or upon lake and sea floors - in other words, sediments can only deposit upon exposed surfaces, be they on land or under water. Unless you can explain how alluvial fans can form within deeply buried strata, I'm disallowing this argument. This problem with your scenario has been called to your attention in a number of messages, so please do not raise this point again without providing the requested explanation.
This is a statement, not evidence and an explanation. If what the evidence tells us are the sedimentary deposits of rivers and streams are actually something else, then you need to explain the evidence that leads you to believe this.
All you are doing is ruling in favor of the arguments of my opposition.
This is, of course, untrue. I am ruling against claims that have no evidence and make no sense (that in fact appear to run counter to the facts and be impossible), unless you can provide the evidence and rationale for your position.
That ought to disqualify you from playing moderator on this thread. Or anywhere for that matter.
I am disallowing all your disallowings. You can suspend me of course. Fire away.
If you continue to ignore moderation you *do* risk suspension. As I have explained many times, the goal is to prevent discussion from bogging down on points not germane to the main topic. In this case you are asserting that mountains while being uplifted force broken off material into adjacent strata that precisely resemble alluvial fan sedimentary deposits. Naturally a diversion onto this subtopic is fine, but only if you can provide evidence and explanation. Simply declaring it so is disallowed.
Points should be supported with evidence and reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
I'm granting your wish and suspending you for 24 hours.
Asking for evidence for something I've been acquainted with for all of a few hours is rather beyond beyond.
Edge first described the Cutler fan formations in his Message 1886 five days ago, but anyway, nowhere in the Forum Guidelines does it say it's okay to argue without evidence if you've had insufficient time to research the subject, and nowhere is any time limit mentioned. Take all the time you need, but don't argue without evidence.
Reintroducing the point Edge was making, you had said that your hypothesis was that the Flood had deposited all strata, including the supergroup. Edge replied by pointing out that the vertical stack of alluvial fans in the Cutler formation consisted of material derived from an adjacent uplift and major fault, and he asked how a single flood could possibly have done that.
You responded with a couple different claims. One was difficult to understand but clearly involved erosion of deeply buried strata taking place somehow followed by deposition amidst deeply buried strata, all of which seems impossible, and since you had no evidence that any such thing could ever happen I disallowed it. Your other claim was that the Cutler strata had been misidentified as alluvial fans, but you had no evidence for that position, either, so I disallowed this also. You can resume discussion of this subtopic once you've gathered your evidence.
In the meantime I suggest resuming discussion of the main topic, namely how the Great Unconformity was formed. Your position is that the layers of the Grand Canyon Supergroup were tilted only after all the layers were deposited on top of it. This seems impossible, and you have as yet offered no evidence that any such thing has happened or could happen.
Re: looking for Faith's model, method, procedure, mechanism, process
She fails to see the painstaking and detailed work that has gone into determining depositional environments and how conclusions are built upon that work, not just pulled out of thin air (which is what petrophysics has pointed out in a couple posts recently).
A couple or three or four decades ago James Burke wrote Connections, and it became a PBS TV series by the same name. The book is still in print, I see he wrote a new preface in 2007, and the shows appear to be on YouTube, here's episode 1:
Burke traces how one scientific discovery led to another through vastly different fields of science. The overarching theme is how science is an interconnected whole where the theories and laws of one field cohere with and bolster other fields, and how facts and evidence are tightly intertwined with their implications that lead eventually to theory.
Faith doesn't view the world as interconnected, which is why her scenarios often explain the facts in only the most superficial ways. To her the facts about a stratum, its mineral composition, grain size and fossils, have little to do with how and when the stratum formed. Deep sediments of fine grained limestone sediments require quiet water and long time periods, but Faith has no problem believing the Flood did it in less than a year. Anyone pushing a pile of plywood up from below expects the whole stack to be affected, but Faith must believe that the bottom layers of plywood can tilt without affecting the above layers since she believes the Grand Canyon supergroup did just that. And Faith apparently still believes that sediments cannot accumulate on a slope, despite that every beach in the world is proof she's wrong.