Summations Only

It is thought that the major deformation of the Grand Canyon area was during the Laramide orogeny which began about 80 mya. But between 600 mya and 80 mya, the area was part of the stable continental core.

Well, the GC itself is located in the Colorado Plateau which did not see a lot of deformation during the Laramide. Most of the tectonism occurred afterward with the formation of the Basin and Range Province which surrounds the Colorado Plateau on the north, west and south sides. This action was mostly tensional, resulting in abundant normal faults, but the plateau retained its identity.

Now, if you want to see real deformation, look at the Precambrian rocks of the Grand Canyon. These, of course are hard for Faith to explain because they are obviously older mountain building event(s) which are overlain by flat-lying sedimentary systems, which are, themselves folded elsewhere.

What do you think 'upthrust strata' are but folded sequences?

Originally, yes, as I recall Lyell illustrating, but if they've lost their rounded folds they are going to erode differently. The Rockies show straight flat strata, at least where I've seen them, in Canada, while the Alps and the Appalachians show folds. Wouldn't they erode differently?

Originally, yes, as I recall Lyell illustrating, but if they've lost their rounded folds they are going to erode differently. The Rockies show straight flat strata, at least where I've seen them, in Canada, while the Alps and the Appalachians show folds. Wouldn't they erode differently?

You are only seeing part of the Rockies. I suggest you google 'the grand hogback' or 'garden of the gods'.

Know also that the Rockies have actually been uplifted three times in the last 400my or so.

Now, if you want to see real deformation, look at the Precambrian rocks of the Grand Canyon. These, of course are hard for Faith to explain because they are obviously older mountain building event(s)

I happen to think that angular unconformities such as the Great Unconformity, even if located deep under flat-lying strata, were formed after all the strata above were laid down, and were not ever mountains. The weight of the overhead strata, two miles deep over the Supergroup, would have resisted the force that tilted the Supergroup so that it formed there, from the tectonic force and perhaps also the volcanic force which was exerted at the same time and made the granite and the schist basement rocks.

Seems to me that Siccar Point was formed the same way, by lower strata being folded and eroded against a great depth of horizontal strata above, which all eroded away since then. There's even a dike there too to show volcanism beneath that formation as well, which again seems most likely related to the formation.

Then there's also the north side of the Hurricane Fault which can be seen on the cross section so often posted here,

...where strata that had been continuous with the strata on the South side of the fault tilted and fell a great distance, but keeping the layer of the Claron Formation horizontal on top of the tilted layers. That certainly was not laid down after the tilting, it was already there and fell with the whole block. And again there's a magma dike paralleling the fault.

which are overlain by flat-lying sedimentary systems, which are, themselves folded elsewhere.

I'd guess they were probably folded elsewhere as a block though, just as they were bent as a block in the GC, showing that the strata were all in place before the tectonic force occurred. Too bad it's usually just a small block that happens to though.

You are only seeing part of the Rockies. I suggest you google 'the grand hogback' or 'garden of the gods'.

All that's important here is whether there is evidence of different degrees of erosion between the different parts. Is there? I mean I thought my guess was pretty good that different kinds of mountains would erode differently. I don't care if the Rockies are consistently one kind or another, the question is whether you get different degrees of erosion from different ways mountains were formed. You do, don't you?

Know also that the Rockies have actually been uplifted three times in the last 400my or so.

No doubt this is one of those interpretations that is based on particular kinds of evidence, but we never get the evidence, just the interpretation. And why would this matter in this discussion anyway?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What a bunch of evasive crap. The time periods are dated from the ROCKS, right? Who cares about the exact time frame DURING that period in which they MIGHT have been deposited? The point is that the WHOLE period is dated from the ROCKS.

Whatever. Nothing evasive about what I said.

And stop accusing me of this that and the other,

What did I accuse you of????

which you do even without quoting me to prove anything about it. You are just making up crap like all the rest of them. Such as my conclusions don't follow my observations. This has got to be YOUR stupid misreading, idiot. PROVE IT or shut up.

What? I most certainly did just that. Here's the exact quote from Message 1812

Faith writes: The implication of this is that there were no tectonic changes before they were all in place so that during their laying down over those however many hundreds of millions of years there were no tectonic disturbances at all, HBD writes: OK. Yes this would be the implication of the strata being affected as a whole block. Faith writes: which really means there wree no hundreds of millions of years. HBD writes: Now hold on, here's the major problem. This conclusion does not follow from the previous observation / implication. This would be like saying "HBD did not post on this forum in 2013, so that really means there was no 2013." The conclusion does not follow the premise.

You're nuts.

HBD

Well, the GC itself is located in the Colorado Plateau which did not see a lot of deformation during the Laramide.

I realize this. The point is that the area was stable for several hundred million years, and although that is rather unusual, it does not contradict an old earth.

Now, if you want to see real deformation, look at the Precambrian rocks of the Grand Canyon. These, of course are hard for Faith to explain because they are obviously older mountain building event(s) which are overlain by flat-lying sedimentary systems, which are, themselves folded elsewhere.

Nah, she explained that with ease.

HBD

Faith focuses on different types of mountains just enough to relax the tension in her mind about different rates of erosion as though any significant erosion could take place in 4,000 years time. Perhaps we should focus on the Hawaiian islands and the fact that they were all created by the same general process over the same hot spot. Her theory requires the time between island creation to be rather narrow. Ignoring the radiometric dating as she does, which also disproves her theory, let's just consider the difference in erosion between the islands themselves. How could there be any significant difference there? They were created essentially at the same time in Faith's model. Big tectonic movement and coasting to a stop although the stop has not been realized, conveniently.

Unfortunately for Faith's model the rate of island formation alone doesn't seem to occur fast enough, let alone the time required for erosion. Loihi is the nail in the coffin but I'm sure Faith will put that "silly putty" of hers to work somehow.

quote:

---

QUESTION

I heard that a new Hawaiian island called Loihi is forming. When can I go there?

ANSWER

You can plan a vacation on the island of Loihi in 50,000 years.

---

http://www.mauihawaii.org/maui-questions/loihi.htm

Edited by shalamabobbi, : No reason given.

I happen to think that angular unconformities such as the Great Unconformity, even if located deep under flat-lying strata, were formed after all the strata above were laid down, and were not ever mountains. The weight of the overhead strata, two miles deep over the Supergroup, would have resisted the force that tilted the Supergroup

How is that? Why would the overlying rocks not deform while the ones underneath do so, assuming both were present at the same time?

This doesn't really make sense even in a rheological model. Do you have experiments showing this phenomenon?

... so that it formed there, from the tectonic force and perhaps also the volcanic force which was exerted at the same time and made the granite and the schist basement rocks.

No. That much disruption will not leave the superjacent rocks unaffected.

If the underlying rocks were that mobile, they would contain fragments of the rigid rock above.

Instead, we have the opposite effect where rounded fragments of the underlying unit are found in the upper. In fact, they are found in troughs within the underlying unit. These things are not possible in the scenario that you attempt to develop.

Seems to me that Siccar Point was formed the same way, by lower strata being folded and eroded against a great depth of horizontal strata above, which all eroded away since then.

Now, you contradict yourself. if the upper strata are eroded away then there is a new depositional regime which is exactly what we see. Is this what you are saying?

There's even a dike there too to show volcanism beneath that formation as well, which again seems most likely related to the formation.

Volcanism can occur at any point after. If you ask me, all of these events militate against a young earth.

Then there's also the north side of the Hurricane Fault which can be seen on the cross section so often posted here, ...where strata that had been continuous with the strata on the South side of the fault tilted and fell a great distance, but keeping the layer of the Claron Formation horizontal on top of the tilted layers. That certainly was not laid down after the tilting, ...

Why is that?

...it was already there and fell with the whole block.

How do you know this?

quote:

---

And again there's a magma dike paralleling the fault.

---

And?

I'd guess they were probably folded elsewhere as a block though, just as they were bent as a block in the GC, showing that the strata were all in place before the tectonic force occurred. Too bad it's usually just a small block that happens to though.

I have no idea what your point is here. There are a lot of observations that really have nothing to do with the timing of faulting.

All that's important here is whether there is evidence of different degrees of erosion between the different parts. Is there?

Of course there are, but time is one of the factors. Otherwise, we should see highly variable landforms within a single mountain range that traverses through multiple climatic zones.

I mean I thought my guess was pretty good that different kinds of mountains would erode differently.

That does not mean that time is not a factor. For instance, the Alps and the Appalachians were formed in the same way with the same kinds of rocks. Why do they look so differently?

I don't care if the Rockies are consistently one kind or another, the question is whether you get different degrees of erosion from different ways mountains were formed. You do, don't you?

Volcanic ranges erode differently from continental collisions. However, you cannot dismiss different degrees of erosion as simply climatic. I think you labor to make an insignificant point.

There is little doubt that mountain ranges are of different ages. For instance, we have deformed Cretaceous rocks related to subduction along the west coast of North America. So, where are the deformed Cretaceous rocks on the east coast?

No doubt this is one of those interpretations that is based on particular kinds of evidence, but we never get the evidence, just the interpretation.

That is because you do not read the primary literature, or even a textbook. If you are really interested the information is available.

And why would this matter in this discussion anyway?

Just pointing out that things are not really as simple as one might be led to believe... such as having one mountain building event in the history of the earth.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.

A layer represents millions of years according to OE thinking. Not exactly. A layer represents a period of time in which a specific depositional environment existed. A geological layer could very well represent a very short period of time or a very long period of time. What a bunch of evasive crap. The time periods are dated from the ROCKS, right? Who cares about the exact time frame DURING that period in which they MIGHT have been deposited? The point is that the WHOLE period is dated from the ROCKS.

Curiously this response has very little to do with the factual correction that Herebedreagons gave you of your simplistic misunderstanding.

You blow up because you can't even stand being wrong about your misimpressions of what science actually says.

And stop accusing me of this that and the other, which you do even without quoting me to prove anything about it. You are just making up crap like all the rest of them. Such as my conclusions don't follow my observations. This has got to be YOUR stupid misreading, idiot. PROVE IT or shut up.

All Herebedragons said there was a correction of your misimpressions, that's not accusing you of anything, Faith, it is just one more instance of telling you where you are very simply wrong.

We use various methods to date the rocks and that tells us that a "layer represents a period of time in which a specific depositional environment existed. A geological layer could very well represent a very short period of time or a very long period of time" ... which may or may not be millions of years.

It's not a difficult concept. The problem/s you have stem from getting information from unreliable sources.

I happen to think that angular unconformities such as the Great Unconformity, even if located deep under flat-lying strata, were formed after all the strata above were laid down, and were not ever mountains. The weight of the overhead strata, two miles deep over the Supergroup, would have resisted the force that tilted the Supergroup How is that? Why would the overlying rocks not deform while the ones underneath do so, assuming both were present at the same time? This doesn't really make sense even in a rheological model. Do you have experiments showing this phenomenon? ... so that it formed there, from the tectonic force and perhaps also the volcanic force which was exerted at the same time and made the granite and the schist basement rocks. No. That much disruption will not leave the superjacent rocks unaffected. If the underlying rocks were that mobile, they would contain fragments of the rigid rock above. Instead, we have the opposite effect where rounded fragments of the underlying unit are found in the upper. In fact, they are found in troughs within the underlying unit. These things are not possible in the scenario that you attempt to develop.

Amazing isn't it? The supergroup just rolls over way down deep in the earth, and still ends up with a sheared off, fairly level top, but no rubble from the rocks around it to allow it to turn over.

Bind Moggling fantasy.

quote:

---

How is that? Why would the overlying rocks not deform while the ones underneath do so, assuming both were present at the same time?

---

I asked Faith that, a while back. She replied with an illustration (from Lyell, IIRC) using layers of cloth topped by a book. She insists that the upper layers were "rigid enough" to avoid deformation without really being rigid. Which looks like a contradiction to me.

quote:

---

Instead, we have the opposite effect where rounded fragments of the underlying unit are found in the upper. In fact, they are found in troughs within the underlying unit. These things are not possible in the scenario that you attempt to develop.

---

I've tried pointing that out, too. She just ignored it.

So far as I can tell, her position is that she likes it, so it must be true. Which seems to be her attitude in most things discussed here.

Hi, edge! Hope you have been well. She just sucks you in, doesn't she? lol

Faith likes to look at ONE cartoon of the Grand Canyon and make all sorts of assumptions based on it. All other data and images are summarily ignored because the cartoon is simple... and flat. And we all know Creationism can't do complex, the true nature of the geologic record.

Faith writes: No doubt this is one of those interpretations that is based on particular kinds of evidence, but we never get the evidence, just the interpretation.

What a terribly ignorant and lazy excuse. There are numerous technical journals, books, and WEBSITES (for crying out loud!) that present the evidence for all who are interested to see. Scientific papers are specifically formatted to present the objective data, the method of study, method of collection, etc., with the conclusions (interpretation) generally at the end.

The truth is, as we all know, Faith is terribly ignorant of geology, so it's much easier to make up lies about what today's geology actually says about the rock record. Plus, I think she's afraid of what reading textbooks might do to the simple little world she's constructed in her mind.

I happen to think that angular unconformities such as the Great Unconformity, even if located deep under flat-lying strata, were formed after all the strata above were laid down, and were not ever mountains. The weight of the overhead strata, two miles deep over the Supergroup, would have resisted the force that tilted the Supergroup How is that? Why would the overlying rocks not deform while the ones underneath do so, assuming both were present at the same time?

Amount of resistance -- weight, pressure from above -- would apparently have been equal to the force from beneath at that level, so that the effect of the force that created the Great Unconformity and the granite and the schist would not have continued into the strata above.

However, the entire area was uplifted at the same time, probably by the same tectonic force. The strata from the Tapeats on up were lifted up, just not tilted or broken.

This doesn't really make sense even in a rheological model. Do you have experiments showing this phenomenon?

I really wish I could design one. The closest I came to finding one was the illustration PaulK mentions, in Lyell's online book, where he is demonstrating the buckling or folding of strata by lateral force -- a book on each side-- with a pile of cloths as the strata. Of course he's not trying to prove my scenario but I thought it was a good illustration for that purpose. He has a book on top which keeps the cloth confined to the area between the side books.

So to translate it to my idea: the side books of course represent the tectonic force, and the book above represents the weight of the strata from the Tapeats up through the Claron Formation (the uppermost layer of strata from the Kaibab up, now only to be found in the Grand Staircase but originally above the GC too).

PaulK says I said the upper strata were rigid-but-not-rigid but I'm not sure what he's remembering from me. They would have been pretty rigid it seems to me, with two miles of strata above compressing them all. Rigid enough to make an effective resistance against the forces from beneath anyway.

... so that it formed there, from the tectonic force and perhaps also the volcanic force which was exerted at the same time and made the granite and the schist basement rocks. No. That much disruption will not leave the superjacent rocks unaffected.

Well, do YOU have an experiment to prove this? I know you're a geologist and all that but I'm sure you haven't seen anything actually happen on this scale so you're guessing too.

If the underlying rocks were that mobile, they would contain fragments of the rigid rock above.

I don't make a distinction between the mobility or rigidity of either group of rocks, not sure why you do. It's all about the amount of force versus the amount of resistance. A lot of heat and pressure would have been exerted between the upper and lower rocks; If my scenario is right, then that was the point where the two forces balanced each other out -- does seem to me to be about elementary physics. Uplift was all that happened to the upper strata, then the forces dissipated.

Instead, we have the opposite effect where rounded fragments of the underlying unit are found in the upper. In fact, they are found in troughs within the underlying unit. These things are not possible in the scenario that you attempt to develop.

Well, you guys all love to tell me that this idea or that is impossible but since you're just guessing too, without actual evidence, I'm not convinced. What you are describing certainly doesn't seem impossible to me. Seems to me that the underlying unit in fact WOULD have been heavily abraded since the strata are tilted there so the broken ends of the strata would be easily abraded, and I don't see why there's a problem with their becoming embedded in the upper layer either, or being rounded either for that matter. There would have been incredible friction between the upper and lower rocks in my scenario of course, accounting for a lot of erosion at that point. There is also a huge quartzite boulder embedded in the upper layer, which is at least a quarter mile from its source if I recall correctly, which Paul K tried to rationalize away, but it clearly would have broken off the Shinumo layer of the Supergroup and I don't see any reason why it couldn't have gotten itself embedded in the upper Tapeats as you describe, during the upheaval.

ABE: A quarter of a mile travel for that boulder suggests that was at least the distance that was eroded between the two levels, implying a LOT of friction, a LOT of abrasion. /ABE

Seems to me that Siccar Point was formed the same way, by lower strata being folded and eroded against a great depth of horizontal strata above, which all eroded away since then. Now, you contradict yourself. if the upper strata are eroded away then there is a new depositional regime which is exactly what we see. Is this what you are saying?

I'm not sure what YOU are saying so I can't answer yet but I'm sure there is no contradiction. The angular unconformity would have been created the same way as that in the GC, that's step one: lower strata being forced by tectonic movement to fold and abrade up against a weight of upper strata. But in the GC the strata remained in place up to the Kaibab, only the strata above that washing away, and the canyon was cut through it, while at Siccar Point all the surrounding strata washed away leaving some of the upright rock and some of the overlying rock, which over the years got weathered down to its current condition.

There's even a dike there too to show volcanism beneath that formation as well, which again seems most likely related to the formation. Volcanism can occur at any point after. If you ask me, all of these events militate against a young earth.

But of course that's your habitual way of thinking. I have no problem thinking of all this as occurring more or less at the same time, the tectonic movement triggering the volcano as well as tilting the lower strata and so on.

Then there's also the north side of the Hurricane Fault which can be seen on the cross section so often posted here, ...where strata that had been continuous with the strata on the South side of the fault tilted and fell a great distance, but keeping the layer of the Claron Formation horizontal on top of the tilted layers. That certainly was not laid down after the tilting, ... Why is that?

Well I have to refer you to the cross section where you can see that all the layers tilted on the north are the same layers that have remained flat on the south, only the north block has dropped thousands of feet from the level of the south side. The Claron layer is straight on both sides, apparently resisting the tilting of the others. Do you have a scenario by which the same layer would have deposited both on the lower flat and the upper which is thousands of feet higher? It's remotely possible I suppose but not very likely. I'd point out that all the same layers beneath it are on both sides of the fault line, AND the magma dike farther south pushes up through all the layers to the very top where it created a lava field, through the Claron formation too. Seems to me the volcanic eruption would likely have had something to do with causing the fault line? So the fault split the two sections after the strata were already all in place, the lower layers tilted on the north as the whole block dropped, leaving the Claron flat.

...it was already there and fell with the whole block. How do you know this?

It's my theory, which I think makes sense of what is actually there.

quote: And again there's a magma dike paralleling the fault. And?

I just think it's interesting that in the three places noted where an angular unconformity formed there is evidence of volcanism as part of the whole tectonic scenario.

I'd guess they were probably folded elsewhere as a block though, just as they were bent as a block in the GC, showing that the strata were all in place before the tectonic force occurred. Too bad it's usually just a small block that happens to though. I have no idea what your point is here. There are a lot of observations that really have nothing to do with the timing of faulting.

I'm more interested in the fact that the strata were already all laid down when any / all of these disruptions occurred.

All the activity, all the disruptions, occurred after all the strata were in place, that's the main observation. The contour of the uplift over the GC is followed by all the strata that remained intact there The upper to the level of the Claron all washed away, while the cliffs and canyons of the GS formed, that cut all the way through to the Claron, which was clearly already there. I mean there is no Claron draping itself down the cliffs; it was already there when the cliffs formed.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.