Summations Only

Well, considering that the previous lowlands have been filled with sediment. it should be easy to visualize. Then new sediments are deposited on top and they have younger fossils. The surrounding areas are likewise covered be renewed sedimentation.By this point in time, small fluctuations in sea level over a larger area, result in extensive sedimentary layers.I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand. But feel free to ask.

So, did the Shinumo also force itself up from the Hakatai and the Dox formations above and below it?In other words, why does the Shinumo form a topographic high compared to the formations above and below it? Some kind of weird tectonics? Or why do the Hakatai and the Dox not also 'penetrate into the overlying strata'?Please describe this phenomenon if it's not due to prior erosion of the GC Supergroup erosion.

So then we should see evidence of shearing not only along the unconformity but also along the Shinumo contacts with over and underlying formations, yes?The point being that you have never provided evidence for shearing along the unconformity.ABE: Let me try to clarify here. First you say that the Great Unconformity is actually a fault caused by movement of the lower rocks (Vishnu) that did not affect the upper plate of rocks. Not only is this mechanically unstable, there is no evidence for shearing between the upper and lower blocks.Now you are saying the the Shinumo monadnocks were thrust up across the Great Unconformity into the Tapeats so that they now look like buried hills?So, why do the Dox and Hakatai not also penetrate across the Great Unconformity? In order to do this you need the Shinumo to act independently of the other two formations. That means they should show relative motion (fault contacts) with the Shinumo. But there is no such evidence. Do I read you correctly?Edited by edge, : No reason given.Edited by edge, : No reason given.

There is no evidence of faulting or shearing fabric on the Great Unconformity. Not for boulders in a wash. I see it almost every day. They do not show breakage or deformation due to faulting. THere is no pathway for the boulder to reach it's present position due to tectonism. No, I'm saying that if the Shinumo was thrust up into the Tapeats while the softer formations are not then there should be additional tectonic contact of them with the Shinumo. In other words the Shinumo moved (according to you) but the Hakatai and the Dox did not. You have shown us no evidence. So this fault of yours has to climb up and over the Shinumo high points and leave no evidence it happened.Sorry Faith, but in all such cases of faulting there is evidence for movement.And in soft sediments, even more so.And of course the Tapeats was soft. It was just being deposited. Much of the sand grains were derived from the Shinumo.

Why? Why wouldn't flat lying sediments produce flat lying rocks?

Not only do I have an explanation, I've seen it happen.The boulder is derived from a Shinumo highland and basically rolled, slipped and washed out on the Tapeats beach (yes, still wet) and was eventually buried. But there is no abrasion.And the geometry of the supergroup sediments does not imply a 'strong force from the side'. That would create folds and fractures in the supergroup's rocks which do not exist. I thought you said that the Paleozoic sediments were 'straight and flat'. Now you are saying that they are all 'mounded'.You will need to make up your mind on this. So, they are not just 'mounded' but they are 'bent' also. Again, there is no evidence for abrasion. Of course you are. It is your precious little doubt that allows you to cling to an ancient myth. That is a bond that cannot be broken.But it may cause some abrasion.

I get it: so it's not a problem. Right: not a problem. Ah, I see: not a problem. So, you are saying that it's not a problem. Okay, not a problem. Flood tend to mix things up.Thank you for verifying that there is no problem with mainstream geology and the evidence.

Well, there are times when soft sediments get mixed such as in debris flows, or in the situation where we have clastic dikes.The problem Faith faces is that we are pretty good at identifying such occurrences.

Actually, there are a lot of places in North America where the Tapeats or its equivalents are not deposited. The Monadnocks are just an example, but if you look carefully, the sands are all derived from local land masses.And flat? I'd like some kind of verification for that. What do you mean by 'built up'?And how do you know this? What doesn't happen, and why? You are making simple assertions now. So you say.

Sorry, but I see it exactly opposite.Rapid loading of unconsolidated sediments should produce all kinds of soft sediment deformation and disrupted bedding planes.Two reasons: one is that all of the sediments would still be weak, and two, you would have to be incredibly precise to load the underlying layers evenly. And then, in order to keep all of your sediments suspended in water, the currents would have to be fantastic so that erosion and scouring of unconsolidated sediments would have to occur.We don't see these things in the GC strata as you freely admit.

Amazingly enough, some muds can be stronger than sand deposits. Some clays are thixotropic and create bonds with nearby particles giving them some structure and, hence, strength. If you load the clays slowly with sand you can make a sand bed that essentially floats on clay. If the clay is disrupted, the structure can break down and you've got soup. However, I've driven trucks on such beds and, if the sand is thick enough, you don't sink into the mud. You literally create a sand wave.

Sure, they create sedimentary drape folds along the sides of the pre-existing high points due to compaction.But there is no abrasion. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

The problem you have is that a lot of other things would happen, too. Things that we don't see.For instance, we should see deformation of the Shinumo related to an inclined stress field (the one the forced the Shinumo up into the Paleozoic sequence, for example).But the real deal killer is that you expect to have all of this commotion in the lower block of rocks folding the Vishnu Schist and forcing the Shinumo upward, all without deforming the Paleozoic section that is supposedly still unlithified and therefor of low strength. This is exceedingly fantastic.In the meantime, we don't see a tectonic fabric in the Vishnu rocks that suggest a late deformation of the GC Supergroup rocks. If you have one, I'd love to see it.

This post goes a ways back, but I thought I'd respond because there are a few substantial misunderstandings that should be corrected. First of all the ages of the older granite and the younger lavas are completely different and certainly not derived from the same magma.Other than that, there is no evidence of a 'volcano under the Grand Canyon' that I know of. There are obviously volcanoes in the area, but they do not create large volumes of metamorphic rocks.And no, schists are not necessarily made up of 'many different kinds of rocks and minerals'. The can have a variety of compositions and derived from various rock types, but this statement is too broad. The commonality of all schist is that they have platy minerals aligned so as to form a pronounced parting. And the platy grains should be of a visible size. Well, a schist is a dynamothermal rock type. It is not just heated by a volcano.It takes a certain amount of shearing strain to orient the mineral grains that form a schist.I can just see Faith saying "Aha!" but the main point is that the schistosity ('platyness', if you will) would have some relationship to the deformation, but that is not the case with the Vishnu schists. Their schistosity has no relationship to any kind of shearing that Faith calls upon whether from the 'Great Unconformity' fault, or upthrusting of the GC Supergroup into the Tapeats Sandstone.

My 'speculation', however is constrained by evidence. There is a way to fix that ...I suppose that virtually every professional geologist could be wrong and you are right, but I think I'll go with the odds. Of course. For you, it's a religion. For me it's a journey in learning. Well, then maybe it's not what you think. Maybe you are forcing the data into your own narrow interpretation. Then your observation is wrong since the Cardenas Basalt is clearly of different age than the more recent volcanism, and once again, neither have any direct relationship to the old granites.