Summations Only

If you say so...

Actually, those are Pennsylvanian limestones. The boundary between the Pennsylvanian and Mississippian is the jagged line depicting an unconformity. Those represent thick layers of laterally varying sedimentary 'facies' or zones, similar to the offshore zoning we looked at earlier in this thread. What it shows is that there was not a lot of transgression and regression, just continual sedimentation as the basin subided. Excellent understanding. Your observation about the depth of the basin is very good for a non-geologist. No, anydrite is the non-hydrated version of gypsum (CaSO4(H2O)). They are both evaporites. In the scheme of things, they tend to precipitate after halite (common salt).

Exactly. I struggled with what to call it. To geologists I would say it is a chronostratigraphic datum or horizon. It represents the surface of the earth (as a plane) at a single point in time in geological history. (ETA: In actual geometry the line might be quite sinuouis. We have just straightened it in this type of diagram.)The purpose of the diagram is to show how the basin evolved, and the thickness of the Pennsylvanian strata. It is not a cross-section.In this case there is a huge (relatively) section of coarse clastic rocks accumulating at the edge of the Uncompahgre Uplift, during Pennsylvanian time (that would be upper Carboniferous to folks in much of the rest of the world), right in the middle of Faith's Phanerozoic 'quiet' period of no tectonism.I apologize for presenting such a technical diagram to this group. To me, it's just kind of second nature...Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Actually, this diagram says nothing about the post-Pennsylvanian. It is not a cross section. In this case, there is very little transgression or regression, just minor adjustments to the shoreline on the eastern side of the basin, probably related to periodic uplift of the Uncompahgre.

Exactly. Thanks, I'm keeping this one...ETA: After looking at some of the diagrams, I would call attention to Page 6. It shows the salt piercing one late-Pennsylvanian unit and then into even younger rocks; so it is showing what happened after the Pennsylvanian, as opposed to my earlier diagram. It is more of a cross-section, though certainly generalized. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Actually, it's exactly the opposite. The Uncompahgre uplift, part of the Ancestral Rockies was being severely eroded. And, as you can see, it is not far from the modern Colorado Plateau and during the tectonism-free period that you posit. Then you need to explain why conglomerates are being deposited adjacent to a fault with the east side strongly uplifted during the period that you say is tectonism-free. While the GC area seems to be fairly quiet, there was certainly plenty going on in the region. The geology proves you wrong. Just because you found a nice quiet beach on the Persian Gulf does not mean that there isn't upheaval in the provinces.... (that's an analogy, by the way). So, that's your argument? "No, it doesn't."When a fault cuts a rock, we can be pretty sure that it is younger than the rock. When the rock 'cuts' the fault off, we can be pretty sure that it is older than the rock. If you have an alternate explanation, I'd love to hear it.

So, you don't actually have an explanation of all of the data.Actually, that's fine with me.

I'm sure you would know. Based on your work, I'm sure we can throw out a century of geological field work done by people who have actually been there. The purpose of the diagram was not to 'prove' any age or correlation of the strata. For that you would have to go to a lot of previous work.However, what you should do is show that the correlation of strata in the Grand Canyon to the various basins and uplifts of the Ancestral Rockies is wrong. So, where are the rocks equivalent to the Supai Group in southeast Utah or Colorado? Has everyone else been wrong?Your hyper-skepticism of mainstream geology is interesting to me. I am curious how you can require so much exacting evidence from mainstream geology while you seem to just make up whatever you want, and our questions and requests for evidence seem to fall on deaf ears. How do you justify that?

Faith is not constrained by evidence, but by an idiosyncratic subset of a religion.Which is kind of weird because she keeps asking us for evidence or saying that we don't have any...Edited by edge, : No reason given.

The diagram is a portrayal of field relationships. Unless you are saying the the author and all of his sources are incompetent, then the diagram presents the evidence.The relationship of an active fault to the topography is evident: if there is relief on the fault, then it will have an effect on the sedimentation that is occurring simultaneously.I guess I'm not sure which diagram you refer to, but in the one showing the Uncompahgre uplift this is the case, with coarse clastics and breccias near the fault grading outward to sand, silt and eventually evaporites in a playa.The thickness/distribution of the sediments is also a clue that the the fault has an effect on the sedimentation. I am not quite sure why you say this. Do you have some evidence that the correlation is wrong? Have you traced the strata from the GC into Colorado? Why would these strata not correlate to the Supai Group? But we can certainly surmise that the Pardox Basin sediments correlate to the Supai Group and there was certainly a lot going on in the Paradox. Then it is incumbent upon YECs to disprove those 'old earth assumptions'. Where do you think they came from, anyway? Just going on record that I thought the same thing. Regardless of age, don't you think that tracing the rocks to Colorado shows a change of environment? Possibly representing a more tecontically active depositional environment? Where is the salt in the Supai Group? Perhaps it's by comparison with known environments that we see about us every day. Perhaps it has to do with evidence for mountain building, erosion, high pressures and temperatures...

And that would be according to whom? Most of science is hard work. In fact, just to get to the point of having the tools to do science is hard work.But I do agree that a debate thread is a difficult medium for communicating complex ideas. Well, then try to turn it into a learnable moment. Maybe this is all telling you something. I mean something other than the fact that we are a bunch of scowling meanies. Well, I will admit that it is well-exposed and fairly simple, but that's only if you ignore the pre-Phanerozoic. Perhaps we are just more holistic than you. Or maybe we have learned to beware of ad hoc explanations. But it does, perhaps serve reality. There are many concepts in geology that are not intuitive, but well-proven and form the basic tools for understanding. Not at all. My intent was to show that, while the CP area may have been relatively quiet, there was plenty of activity going on elsewhere, all part of the geological history that snapshot of the CP does not record. I can see why your are frustrated. Geology is not forgiving of half-baked scenarios, but isn't it better that we use all of the evidence to get at the truth as best we can? Well, you may be honest in presenting your interpretation, but you are also wrong. As several have described here, even if you ignore the 'fictitious' dates, correlation of strata shows a dramatic change going toward the more tectonically active areas with coarse detritus adjacent to a major fault. I would suggest that most here are not mystified. But yes, if your mind is closed, you should just forget it.I believe you are intelligent and you try very hard, but you do not have the tools to make accurate interpretations of the data. I understand that this is frustrating for you. Please be aware that if you were a more typical brainless YEC, I certainly wouldn't waste all of the time that I have spent so far.

Not working. The contact between the Unkar and the Vishnu is a nonconformity formed by erosion of the pre-Unkar rocks. Notice that there are rounded pebbles ('river rock') of the intrusive and metamorphic rocks (Vishnu) in the lowermost Unkar. How do you explain that?Furthermore, if you look at a picture, foliation in the Vishnu is vertical, whereas the bedding in the Unkar is moderately tilted. I'm not sure how you explain that, either.By the way, the same relationship holds at the base of the Tapeats.In fact, a lot of this evidence was provided in the video that you reference last week. Are you rejecting your own sources?

Well, we keep looking to you to provide evidence for what such a flood would look like.You either own this, or you don't.In the meantime, we do know that what we see is nothing out of the mainstream of geological observations.

There are a couple.First of all, it shows one existing relationship between the Unkar and the Vishnu. The Unkar rocks are preserved with in a graben (a down-dropped body of rocks), without a gradual contact that would be expected if they were the same strata, one derived from the other.The fault itself is a little hard to follow because it actually runs at an acute angle to the plane of the photo. It looks like the Tapeats is not affected by the fault.Second, if you look closely, you will see the Tapeats pinching out (not paralllel beds) against a promontory of the Shinumo Quartzite, just as you would want them to in an area where there is relief on an erosional unconformity (following the contours, if you will).

Well, then, you need to provide a better interpretation. One that explains all of the data, not just some of it, on a local basis.So far, YEC has failed to do so. Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.