The rocks were deposited when the area was at a much lower elevation. The area has undergone a lot of uplift (and that is why we have a very deep canyon there).
I would add that as I understand it, the topographical variations we see on the Earth's surface don't really make a big difference to the size of the planet. The diameter of the Earth is 12,756 km, so a 100 km increase would be less than 1% of that..
Gramite is an igneous rock - it's formed directly from magma. From the posted diagram it intrudes into the Vishnu schist. So veins of magma have worked their way through the schist (or, IMHO more likely, the rocks that became the schist).
This must hav e happened after the rocks that became the Vishnu Schist were deposited. From the diagram, it looks as if it happened before the fault, and I would guess before the Bass limestone was deposited (but that latter is just a guess). If the magma reached the surface it has been eroded away.
THe intruison of igneous rck is probably part of the event - or one of the events - that produced the metamorphism that transformed the surrounding rock to schist.
To answer yor questions directly.
1) Schist is matamorphic and grantie is igneous - they are very different rocks
2) The granite was formed from magma that welled up underneath, and broke through, the schist.
3) The granite has to be younger thna the schist- and we know that because it intrudes into the schist.e
This message has been edited by PaulK, 03-15-2006 02:56 AM
Going back to the diagram in Message 8 it looks to me as if the intrusive dykes shown have been cut off at the top of the picture by erosion. That is, the schist and the intrusive dykes were "levelled off" before the deposition of the Bass limestone. Can the geologists among us confirm that this reading is correct ?m
quote: Of course it's just an animal running from the Flood waters about 4500 years ago and eventually overtaken and buried in that particular layer...
Good luck coming up with a Flood geology scenario that explains how footprints can be found at many levels of the geological column.
quote: ...which of course isn't a time period hundreds of millions of years old.
Nobody thinks that a rock layer is a time period, Faith. That’s just something you made up. You would think that somebody who boasts of being honest and rational would avoid repeating crazy falsehoods. But here we are.
I hope that in future you will stop accusing other people of “misreading” since your “rocks are time periods” misreading is the craziest misreading that I have ever seen and you keep on repeating it even after being corrected again and again.
As for something “leaving slicks” that really doesn’t help you explain how the trackway - or the many other trackways from different periods - fit with the Biblical description of the Flood.
It may have been argued a lot but we still haven’t seen any reason to think that it’s plausible from either a scriptural or an evidential point of view.
So how long do you have dry land between these conjectured waves? How many times do they need to inundate the land to account for all the fossil footprints?
Then when you’ve dealt with those you can get on to difficult questions like what could possibly cause them and what evidence is there for them aside from your need to explain terrestrial features in the fossil record.