Summations Only

Well, then, you shouldn't be looking at pictures of the canyon walls. I'm not sure what you mean by a 'block of parallel layers' if you are ignoring the layers...

Heh, heh...When you don't show us the obfuscation that you are talking about, that's the greatest obfuscation of them all.

In some cases, it was a mountain range and in some cases, not. I prefer the more general description to include all situations. Flat in general and flat on a large scale, but in places there is relief on the surface. Some of these sections presented here even show that.

What about the intrusives and the sediments that were partly eroded previously? Why would it buckle and break? Why north and south? Oh...You really don't understand how to interpret cross-sections, do you? What is your evidence for breaking (brecciation) and sliding? Why? What is the direction of the strain? What do you mean? What rock is being uplifted over what rock?If the vergence of your deformation was vertical, why would the deformation form a (kind of) flat layer? Then you need to explain the compositional differences and why the Vishnu is intruded by granite, but the overlying rocks are not.Faith, your wording is vague and your logic is mushy; you have no evidence. I have asked you repeatedly for evidence of dislocation along the unconformity and you have done nothing but regurgitate this melange of disconnected ideas.

Plainly, the contacts are not parallel, and what do we look at in the canyon wall if not contacts?Just like the contact between the 'fish' and the 'snake'...

Of course, the section is on a scale of tens of kilometers per page whereas your little diagram is at centimeters per page.This is a silly argument, Faith. Well, here is what MW-Online says... So, I assume you are using a different definition of 'parallel'? Well, I'd agree that it was not severe disturbance, however, there was plenty of action elsewhere in the region and on the continent. The Colorado Plateau happened to behave as a rigid block at this time, which we have demonstrated. Not really. The Ancestral Rockies rose during this time and proved much of the sediments to the CP region. And realistically, there were several unconformities in the GC area attesting to this. Remember, the base of the Claron is an unconformity, probably related to the Laramide Orogeny, and the formatin itself is composed of lake sediments and coarse conglomerates shed from the east. You like making unsupported assertions, do you not? Not really. It was another uplift with very little deformation. All of the action was at the Hurrican Fault and several other minor faults in the region. This is an erosional event, not really tectonic, other than the fact that the region was uplifted, largely as a block. Actually, I think that that post Kaibab rocks were eroded earlier, at least in part, when the river meanders were established.But I'm glad you agree that this was largely erosional due to uplift of the region. Please reference this unconformity. What strata at what other points?As far as I know the faults were late, but some were likely pre-Claron in part. But maybe not all of the strata and there is certainly evidence of unconformities in the section.The main problem here is that you ignore the evidence for at least three deformational events and at least two erosional event prior to the Great Unconformity. I'm sure you are correct. I mean, certainly, you have amassed a fortress of evidence and support for your arguments. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Actually, I would place the Vishnu under and to the left of the lowest GC Supergroup unit.In a pure geological sense, the Vishnu cannot cut supergroup rocks. Those rocks would extend to a point where they would be a) cut off by a fault, b) be eroded away as another limb of a fold, or c) never deposited.Your point is taken, however, that Faith's scenario results in 'room' problems.

Well, the fact is that those units are truncated at the Great Unconformity. Faith does not recognize this fact. As I understand it, she want's it to be a tectonic contact for which there is no evidence. The GC Supergroup is tilted and truncated.

Thank you.

With a tip of the hat to Tim H over at Carm, here is one of the best articles on Joggins polystrate trees that I've ever read. The reason for posting it is Figure 7, which I'm sure Faith will find laughably incredible since it shows 14 minor transgressive/regressive cycles in 2500 feet of section at the Joggins coal fields of Nova Scotia. View of The Pennsylvanian Joggins Formation of Nova Scotia: sedimentological log and stratigraphic framework of the historic fossil cliffs | Atlantic Geoscience I mean, it's really just an interpretation, right?

Or precise. Okay, I see that you understand the Great Unconformity is younger than the Unkar Group because it cuts the layers. However, this has implications. In the case of Percy's question where did all of that ground up rock go? A tectonic contact would be like a fault with relative motion of the two sides. You are forcing the unconformity to be a tectonic contact despite that fact that there is no evidence for this and that would be what I call wishful science. I am simply trying to show you how much you don't know. If you take that as an insult, there isn't much I can do to help.Is this complaint just a diversion, Faith?

Evidently. Never mind that, in this 'model', the Vishnu should found along the contact between the GC Supergroup and the Tapeats; in other words it is the Great Unconformity. That would be very difficult to determine since it has been so deformed and then eroded, and now covered...ETA: This is, I believe, Percy's point. There should be a very thick zone of crushed rock all along the Great Unconformity; one that contains both supergroup rocks and Tapeats. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Very creative, but there is no evidence for this. A rock type that forms by abrasion along a fault plane does not simply move into one big concentration away from its place of origin. If the Vishnu were even partly caused by sliding it would extend out along the Great Unconformity and be nearly everywhere present.And if the Zoroaster Granite intrudes the Vishnu, why do we not see it also intruding the GC Supergroup and all along the unconformity. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This is silly. You are basing your whole scenario on limited data and wishful thinking.The Unkar Group is younger than the Vishnu because it overlies the Vishnu in an erosional unconformity where rounded fragments of the Vishnu occur in an Unkar conglomeratic layer. [qs]Hotauta Conglomerate MemberRed-brown and gray conglomerate of well-rounded to subangular pebbles and boulders of granite, gneiss, and schist derived from underlying Early Proterozoic igneous and metamorphic rocks.[/u] Clasts are cemented in red-brown, coarse-grained, gravelly sandstone matrix. Unconformable contact with underlying Early Proterozoic rocks called the Greatest Angular Unconformity (Noble, 1922), a hiatus lasting about 450 million years (Hendricks and Stevenson, 1990). Unit does not include diabase sills. Variable thickness 0—30 ft (0—10 m).(bold added)[/qs]USGS URL Resolution Error PageSo, it is pretty obvious that the older schist was eroded and clasts were incorporated into the lowermost Unkar rocks. Clasts of a rock, found within another rock are always older. You cannot erode a rock, metamorphose it and then reincorporate it into itself.Also note that rounded clasts are indicative of stream erosion, like the 'river rock' that people use for ornamentation. I'm not sure what the problem here is. If you say that the Vishnu is derived from the Unkar, then it should compare chemically to the Unkar. Note that the Unkar has limestones in it and the Vishnu does not have any limestone or other metamorphosed limestone...Does this help?

You might be aware that erosion at the surface also implies transportation. Usually sediments (eroded rock) are carried away.In a crushing or abrasion event, the material is left in situ. It should still be there.But it isn't.I also would caution you that the term erosion in the event of crushing and abrasion is confusing. While it can be understood. we usually use it in the context of surficial weathering and transport. What do you mean by 'broken' in this case? Are you saying that the layers are no longer parallel? The canyon is a product of erosion. Yes, you can only erode rocks after they are emplaced.