Growing the Geologic Column

Faith, if you have other information than that shown on the diagram, this would be a good time to let us know. But, Faith, why don't all of the faults cut entirely through the section if, as you say, they were all present at the time of faulting? Let's see... Who said this? Heh, heh...This discussion has gone comic. Actually, it is tested every day by people working with it in the field. Yes, you just said that. Actually, we test the OE ideas by using them every day. If they didn't work, we'd know it. No, you do not use the same data. For instance, you ignore radiometric dates and relative dating methods by cross-cutting features (this is shown by your erroneous interpretation of the Gulf Coast cross sedtion). And, in fact, you make up a bunch of stuff also, like the abrasion effects at angular unconformities. They just don't exist. Evidently, your position has changed here. You said that all rocks were deposited prior to all deformation and volcanism. We have shown that to not be the case. Now, it's not important to you? Negative. Genetic models are important in all geological studies. I know that they are not important to you, but how the rocks got to be the way they are is part and parcel to the science. It is laughable that you can sit there and deny centuries of successful geological interpretation based on a religious myth.

Perhaps I can clarify. You can think of it as 'ore genesis' in the mining business. What are the facts surrounding the formation of a deposit that tell you how it formed? We use such models to explore and develop resources, whether it's kitty litter, diamonds, baking soda, oil or copper.It usually means all of the features, processes and timing by which a geological deposit forms. It could include the source rocks, fluid sources, the transport chemistry and depositional environment, geological age, the timing of faulting, etc., etc.For a specific, RW example, I might envision the development of a a half-graben and thermal lake in a volcanic field with explosive breccias, and so on. It can be as involved as you wish. This is exactly correct.Okay, I'll try to clarify with some ensuing posts. The gist of it is that if you can reconstruct the history and controls on where/when a mineral deposit occurs, it makes exploration and development a lot easier.To keep it on topic here, age dates can be an important part of the process. Faith keeps harping on the sedimentary sequence, but sometimes we do not have a visible sequence of events. For instance, there may be two intrusive rocks present in an area, but we may not be able to tell the relative ages, much less the absolute ages. If a 12my, intrusive is known to be more productive in the region, it would help to know both of ages in order to spend money efficiently. If we know the absolute ages, we also know the relative ages.I hope this helps. Please feel free to ask questions. I really don't expect Faith to get much our of it, but really, if there's on thing I like to emphasize it's that these things are usually more complex than we'd like.

Yes, it shows that the deformation is ongoing and that it started a long time ago. I would expect this in a place such as the Mississippi Delta and the Gulf of Mexico as sediments compact and dewater at depth.I think you are missing the point that deformation is decreasing upward. I'm not sure why you would say this. They do have their own pattern which is 'less deformed' than the lower rocks. The fact that the deformation is occurring in the same tectonic setting means that they will have some similarities, but the intensity is less. The entire pile of sediment is settling, and there is no reason why a surface should remain perfectly flat. In fact, if what you said were true, the salt would never flow. And that flow is just another factor in the irregularities of the formation contacts. Some styles of deformation are inherited either from previous events or from boundary conditions such as the direction of forces. The beginning of the Tertiary was over 50million years ago. I would expect the base to be irregular in the settling of a pile of sediments. There could be several reasons for this.Faith, you continue to grope for interpretations that fit your preconceived notions. It won't work.

I have done it several times in my career to answer specific questions. I have also done research into existing radiometric data to help straighten out a complex rock sequence. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Do you think that the soil is permanent? Do you know that many unconformities have paleosoils? What do you think will happen to that soil when the next marine transgression occurs? As I said, this is an ongoing process. I knew this would trip you up. You mean in the transgressing sea that had islands of Shinumo Quartzite that penetrated entirely up through the Tapeats? Yep, just more evidence for old ages. No. That's the whole point. It's an erosional surface. How do you think the crests of the folds were planed off?

Maybe. You got plenty of money to waste? Is there another way for you to move the goalposts?

Nice find! Never seen this before, but I'm not really surprised.

Because, it indicates that deformation started early and continued so that the later layers only received the last part of the deformation. This is not rocket science... Well, maybe to you, it is rocket science. Yes, all units are deformed. Why are the deeper units more deformed and why do faults not reach the surface? Think about it. Why not? Not really. what do you see in the Paleozoic rocks? There are very few truly parallel contacts in this diagram and they are frequently broken by faults.

You can say whatever you want, but there is no evidence for this. Again, zero evidence.

I have used it to compare to other known dates.Not so sure why you think the answer was 'weird'. Maybe you are confused about which post I was answering.

The problem is that I do follow it.And it makes no sense. The layers are not perfectly parallel and deformation increases with depth. This means something.

Yes, I am interested in relevant facts. Actually, the layers do not look parallel to me at all, at the scale of this diagram. In fact, I would say that the salt was probably not even continuous across the diagram since we can be pretty sure it was deposited in a (number of?) closed basin(s) with boundaries created by fault-controlled topography. Well, there are lots of important things, but that is one of them. This is a classic case of deformation occurring over long periods of time concurrent with sedimentation. Well, it would be important because it refutes your contention that deformation, along with faulting and erosion, only occurred after the entire sequence was deposited.Do you think it is unimportant because it disagrees with you?Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Maybe you could try again. I know about your claim that the strata a 'paralle' (which is demonstrably untrue), but other than that, you do not explain how major faults affect the lower strata, but not the upper strata, nor how the deformation increases downward.You also ignore the fact that none of the major faults penetrate the Tertiary on this diagram.You just blow these observations off.

Have you ever seen one of these detachment zones? The deformation is rather obvious creating very distinctive rock types. We don't see them at the Great Unconformity. We see an irregular surface produced by erosion with rounded cobbles of the lower unit incorporated into the upper unit. We we basal conglomerates and sandstones, channeling and recessive weathering of softer units. We even see overlap of the Tapeats sands on high ground formed by resistant knobs of Shinumo Quartzite.None of these things should be there, Faith. They should be planed off by a shear zone that has no regard for irregularities for the primary features of a sedimentary setting. And yet there they are. You have not explained this.And I haven't even gotten into what a detachment fault looks like... Yes, and I would expect that. Fragments of the lower (older) zone in the (younger) upper one are common above unconformities. We often find this, though the opposite would be much harder to explain. If your scenario were correct, I'd expect a lot more ambiguity in this relationship.Your boulder only indicates an age relationship with a boulder rolling off of a quartzite highland.ABE: Could you please explain how this boulder supports your position? What are the features that make you think it is of a tectonic origin?Edited by edge, : No reason given.

I can understand why communicating with me makes you uncomfortable. No one likes to have there cherished notions questioned. However, there are ramifications to your deformational scenario. Would you like to know more of them?