Summations Only

Still, no evidence of folding. Dickinson is a well-known geologist. He would not speak so carelessly. Seriously? Please explain. Do you think that he calls the Great Unconformity a fault? Or that there was no deformation or volcanism prior to the topmost layers of sedimentary rocks? That's plain crazy.

Neverthelss, the contacts are not straight and flat, nor is the GU; even if you took out the deformation. In that case, the block was getting bigger (thicker) with time. There are at least three major unconformities shown in the section.

The point is that all of the geological processes in the record are still going on today. So, why would sedimentation stop?

That is not what Dickinson said. And actually, the tilting may not have anything to do with folding. I'm sorry, but comparing your story, saying that it's 'very similar' with Dickinson's explanation is crazy in my book.

Please explain this tectonic pressure for us. What he said is in quotes. And it's not secret.Do you have some specific question? You missed it because it's not there. But you tried to create credibility for your position by making a comparison.

So, the meandering pattern is not perfect enough for Faith. Why did we not predict that?However, the basic pattern of the main channel of the Colorado River in the GC is meandering, inherited from a pattern set millions of years ago when the river flowed across a flat surface (oh, wait, those don't exist!), and has subsequently downcut into more competent rocks as the region has been uplifted multiple times. The stream has been rejuvenated.

Actually, he didn't say anything about the origin of the Kaibab uplift. He was only refuting the catastrophic lake drainage hypothesis for the origin of the canyon. The "underground folding" was invention by the journalist. Consequently, you cannot compare your explanation of the uplift to any geologist's explanation.AFAIK, Dickinson's explanation of the Kaibab uplift is no different from the mainstream and it probably isn't 'folding'; and particularly not folding of the GC Supergroup.

Because they are entrenched. Here are some other examples: How many do you need?Here is a diagram showing how rejuvenation of a meandering stream happens. In the case of the GC, the canyon retains the original meandering pattern because it is in solid bedrock (the Kaibab Limestone). It is curious to me how you can be so hyper-skeptical of modern science and yet accept an ancient myth without question. Edited by Admin, : Changed the links to images into images in the message.

And the Supergroup rocks were obviously tilted earlier.

No. They were tilted then eroded to a 'flat' surface. The arch occurred (much) later. This is evidenced by faulting along which the tilting occurred and which do not extend into the overlying Paleozoic rocks (i.e. they are cross-cut by the GU).I doubt that they were folded as per our other discussion.

Well, I'm not sure. I'm kind of guessing based on my own idea of structural blocks, but could be way off considering Faith's mangling of terminology.The closest I can come to Faith's terminology is tectonostratigraphy. But according to her, this does not happen (i.e., only one deformational event) even though various tectonostratigraphic terranes have been successfully mapped and used for decades. As you look at the cross sections, usually one side of the Supergroup is bound by a fault. When there is offset along a fault such as these, you often get tilting, particularly of the downdropped side. If you look up the term 'lystric faulting', you will get a good explanation. These types of faults are common in extensional terranes. Exactly so. The only difference is that some layers have been added between deformational events.And yes, in the pure sense, simple uplift is a type of deformation, in this case it is 'translational deformation'.

It was easier than I thought to extract this from Faith. It shows that there is no overcoming the revealed 'facts' of a religious myth.This is the reason that I no longer respond to all of Faith's posts. It's really annoying to be be dismissed so easily with denials and unsupported assertions.

All of these are intermediate products. The ultimate product of erosion is a coastal plain.Admittedly, this could be exceedingly slow. Nevertheless, it will happen given enough time and erosive processes. And some rock will erode faster than others, depending on climate. We will not see this in our lifetimes, but that does not mean that it isn't happening and hasn't happened in the past.

My first blush is that most people see mountains as forming by compression, and when that happens, you end up distorting the layers of a rock body. Consequently when you talk about an uplift, they think more in terms of alpine orogenies where tectonic plates collide. I believe the word used in the article was 'pinching', just as you get a bump when you pinch your skin. This isn't the only way to get uplift.In fact, my guess is that the deformation causing the Kaibab uplift was caused more by tension rather than compression, and related to thermal effects in the asthenosphere. Keeping in mind, of course, that there can be local compression adjacent to faults even in an overall extensional environment. Also, I once referenced a paper in this forum in which the East Kaibab fold was referred to as a monocline which is a kind of 'drape fold'. When you combine that with the fact that the nearby Great Basin was created in an extensional environment sometime after the Laramide Orogeny, I think this is the best explanation."Underground folding", as a compressive event, just doesn't really make sense and is dynamically problematic. Extension, however can result in simple tilting that we see all over the Colorado Plateau. Even in very large 'blocks'.

That doesn't seem to have stopped you from telling us what he said.