All of which is irrelevant to my point, that the Base Tertiary was not there - certainly not as rock - when that fault occurred. That really is obvious because if it were we'd see the same step up there - and we don't. Indeed I'd say that the rising salt is the major contributor to the surface contours of the Base Tertiary, more so than any of the faults - it's obviously responsible for the "bump" in the middle.
Oh yes, I did forget an important point: the formations made up of interspersed layers of volcanic and sedimentary layers that many posted appear to be volcanic in origin, the whole formation, that is why I don't include them in my view of the basically sedimentary Geologic Column.
How convenient for you.
So, if we have Paleozoic sedimentary rocks overlain by Permian/Triassic volcanics, in turn overlain by Jurassic and Cretaceous sediments we can just pull out those volcanics as if they didn't exist. All just to fit Faith's idiosyncratic version of geology.
The Base Tertiary and all the others have been there only 4300 years, and that being the case all the faulting has occurred since then, and if some didn't go all the way up through some of the layers, big deal.
quote: The Base Tertiary and all the others have been there only 4300 years, and that being the case all the faulting has occurred since then, and if some didn't go all the way up through some of the layers, big deal.
So you're essentially claiming that you're right and if th evidence shows that you are wrong, "big deal". You do realise that that attitude - and the way it affects your behaviour - is one of the biggest problems you have here?