Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9049 total)
496 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, AZPaul3, dwise1, jar, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (7 members, 489 visitors)
Newest Member: Wes johnson
Happy Birthday: Astrophile
Post Volume: Total: 887,605 Year: 5,251/14,102 Month: 172/677 Week: 31/26 Day: 3/10 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence that the Great Unconformity did not Form Before the Strata above it
edge
Member (Idle past 726 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 11 of 1939 (752839)
03-13-2015 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by PaulK
03-13-2015 2:12 PM


I will reply by pointing out the problems with your argument
First it is possible for sediment to drape over existing contours provided friction and adhesion are sufficient to keep it in place. The concept of "angle of repose" seems relevant.

Second, I haven,t seen you give any reason why there cannot be two instances of uplift - or more.

The faulting is quite obvious - you can even see that the two sections of tilted strata are not in the same level. Equally obviously the missing sections of those strata would have been higher.

And certainly we should expect the faults to propagate upwards - and if they did not, then how did the rock above move down ? And where is the rest of the tilted strata?

Until you can come up with a reasonable alternative, the position that the Great Unconformity strata were tilted long before the strata atop then were laid down seems quite secure.


The biggest single problem for Faith is the principle of cross-cutting features.

The faults, which down-drop and preserve the GC Supergroup, cross-cut both the Vishnu and the GC Supergroup; and are therefor younger than both. In turn, the faults are cross-cut by the Great Unconformity and are therefor older than the unconformity which is then superseded the overlying Paleozoics.

The rest is just a bunch of details. Faith's story crashes ... burns ... suddenly and spectacularly.

It is ironic to me that Faith complains how the GC rocks can exist for so long without disturbance, but when we show her a period of disturbance prior to the Paleozoic rocks, she has to deny that it exists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by PaulK, posted 03-13-2015 2:12 PM PaulK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 03-13-2015 4:51 PM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 726 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 18 of 1939 (752851)
03-13-2015 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Faith
03-13-2015 4:51 PM


But there's no problem with this. Of course they'd be younger. So what? That doesn't mean they have to be millions of years younger, just younger than the rocks they cut through. You can build a stack of clay and then crack it. Same timing.

But they are older than the Paleozoic rocks.

Which as I've said could not have deposited in a curve over these Precambrian formations. You still have to explain that.

Yes, the fold came later in the form of the Kaibab uplift.

But what are you talking about? What could not have been 'deposited in a curve'?

Wishful thinking edge. You haven't addressed one thing I said.

Actually, I have. I have provided a sequence of events that does not violate cross-cutting principles.

I don't "complain" about that, I consider it prime evidence against the Old Earth that they could exist so long without disturbance, and the assertion that it's not at all unlikely I find to be just that, an assertion that flies in the face of all the claims about this being such an active planet and all that.

So now you are saying that such an active planet should have only one tectonic event.

Sure, that make sense.

Nope, that placidity here is good evidence against the Old Earth, and if it's been disproved in one place it must also be the case all over the globe that the Old Earth is a false interpretation.

Okay, so how many tectonic events should there be every million years? Why could there not be tectonically quiet zones on earth?

All the shaking and twisting came after the strata were in place. You can see this in the fact that everywhere you look the twisted strata are all strata that were originally horizontally laid down and then distorted in a block.

I have just proven to you that there was a major erosional event in the middle of your flood, using your own information using the principle of cross-cutting features.

You are wrong.

And of course I am rethinking the Precambrian disturbance as having occurred after all the strata were in place along with the disturbances that are so visible from the Kaibab on up. I've been seeing it this way for a long time but now I see solid evidence for it: how the curvature of the mound of strata above it shows that it couldn't have been tilted before those strata were laid down.

And you've completely failed to address this argument.


Other than the fact that your question is gibberish, actually, I have. I just mentioned that the Kaibab Plateau uplift occurred after deposition. There were, however, prior events.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 03-13-2015 4:51 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 03-13-2015 7:10 PM edge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 726 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 52 of 1939 (752910)
03-14-2015 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Percy
03-14-2015 9:31 AM


I don't see you saying anything new in this thread. These are the same arguments you've made in previous Grand Canyon discussions.

But now she is more convinced than before that she is correct.

What better evidence could you ask for?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Percy, posted 03-14-2015 9:31 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
edge
Member (Idle past 726 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 54 of 1939 (752912)
03-14-2015 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Faith
03-14-2015 12:39 PM


Re: the Great uncomformity proves the Earth is old
Except the evidence I'm giving.

What you have given us is not evidence. It is wishful fantasy.

Face it, the Great Unconformity is older than the entire Paleozoic section.

The faults that preserve fragmenst of the GC Supergroup are older than the Great Unconformity.

The GC Supergroup is older than the the faults that preserve it.

The Vishnu rocks are older than the GC Supergroup.

This is all based on irrefutable principles and field evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Faith, posted 03-14-2015 12:39 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Faith, posted 03-14-2015 7:02 PM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 726 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 57 of 1939 (752915)
03-14-2015 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Faith
03-14-2015 12:57 PM


Re: the Great uncomformity proves the Earth is old
Cardenas lava.

Good. Another event that is older than the Paleozoic section but younger than the Unconformity.

In fact, the Cardenas is younger than the lower part of the Supergroup, but older than the upper part.

However, I wasn't thinking of its intrusion into the Super Group, but the Super Group's being surrounded by schist and granite, both of which show the presence of volcanic influence.

What do you mean by 'volcanic influence'?

As I just said, you can see the indication of the magma fingers on the cross section.

There are a number of intrusive events in the Grand Canyon area, of different ages and compositions. This is clear from the data.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 03-14-2015 12:57 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 726 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 59 of 1939 (752917)
03-14-2015 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Faith
03-13-2015 10:30 PM


Besides, we also have the interesting fact that the Great Unconformity is smack dab right beneath the highest part of the mound, and in very close proximity to the canyon.

It's also smack-dab right under most of the continental crust of the entire planet.

I've argued before that the canyon had to have been the result of strain in the upper strata, ...

Which seems to hardly exist. What strain are you talking about?

... which were more than two miles deep at that point, caused by the force of the uplift that also broke and tilted the strata that became the Great Unconformity.

So, this 'Force' acted across the crust of the earth from Scotland to the Grand Canyon? Please explain this force.

Sure is suggestive that all the events are related. And I still think that view has to be correct, however hard it is to prove it.

In an overly simplistic mind, I suppose; but how do you get all of those cross-cutting features and inclusions of older rocks in younger rocks?

But of course maybe not hay? Maybe the strata had no problem spreading themselves along the contour of the mound, wet or not, ...

I have no idea what you are trying to communicate here. Why could the sediments not have been deposited then warped by the Kaibab Uplift?

... and maybe the Great Unconformity was the root of a mountain chain that managed to erode down absolutely flat, :eyeroll: ...

How do you know it was flat and what would be the problem with a flat surface?

... which is what I thought the strata supposedly built on, but that would mean the mound wasn't there yet. OR, the mound WAS there, which is it?

If by 'mound' you mean the Kaibab Uplift, of course it came later. It warps the youngest rocks present in the system.

Nothing caused it though. But then eventually there was some kind of uplift etc etc etc.

I have no idea what you are saying here.

Do you understand that the Great Unconformity is an irregular surface? Not a solid entity?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 03-13-2015 10:30 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Faith, posted 03-14-2015 8:18 PM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 726 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 60 of 1939 (752921)
03-14-2015 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Tanypteryx
03-14-2015 2:16 PM


I was pointing out that your blanket statements that sedimentary layers cannot follow a contour in underlying strata.

I'm not even sure what Faith means here. Is she saying that layers maintain parallelism to older layers or elevation contours?

I think this is kind of a red herring. Sediments will tend to be laid down in horizontal layers, but when they encounter topography, the layer will become thinner and after compaction, look like it is draped over a high point. In general, deeper parts of a basin will have thicker layers. This is where we get the concept of a 'depocenter'. In the case of continental shelf deposits such as those in the Paleozoic of the Grand Canyon, this effect is minimal and most variation in thickness is caused by erosion.

One observation apparent in the GC Supergroup is that the layers are of variable resistance to erosion and the Shinumo Quarzite actually formed island in the Tapeats sea. If you look carefully in most cross sections, you can see this 'bump', effectively refuting Faith's contention that the Great Unconformity is planar.

I continue to be a little confused as to what Faith thinks the 'GU' actually represents. There is no GU rock. It is an irregular surface representing the land surface at one particular time. It does not include the GC Supergroup or the Vishnu metamorphics.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-14-2015 2:16 PM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-14-2015 3:58 PM edge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 726 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 62 of 1939 (752928)
03-14-2015 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Faith
03-14-2015 12:45 PM


Hmmm, more stuff that I missed....

I always find that idea as absurd as the idea that the strata would conform to the slope of a hill.

Are you talking about a hill or fold?

Normal erosion doesn't reduce sharply tilted rock to a flat plain in my experience.

In your experience, of course not. But tell us why this could not happen.

But the relatively flat upper part of the G.U. is more reasonably explained on my scienario, ...

There is no such thing as an 'upper part' of an unconformity.

... as its upthrusting corners being sheared off in collision with the strata above under tectonic pressure from below, ...

And I presume you have some evidence of such shearing?

... the same force that raised the entire stack and formed the uplift.

Why would that have to be so? Why must you have major decollement-type faulting related to a gently uplift? Why not just say that all rocks were gently warped at the end of a long geological history?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Faith, posted 03-14-2015 12:45 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 726 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 74 of 1939 (752951)
03-14-2015 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Faith
03-14-2015 7:02 PM


Re: the Great uncomformity proves the Earth is old
If I can't follow it you are conveying nothing by these assertions.

I have supported my assertions previously. Since you had no response, I assume that you agreed with me.

Perhaps you proved it somewhere else but I really have no idea what you are talking about, ...

Of course you don't. You never addressed my evidence. I'm only repeating the sequence of events here.

... how the relation of the faults to the Supergroup proves it to be older than the strata.

You have it backward. The strata have to be there in order to be cut by faults.

Please clarify. And perhaps you could also review the evidence for the age of the Vishnu?

The faults are terminated against the unconformity. This means the faults had to be there first. If not, then they would propagate through the unconformity. This is pretty basic geological interpretation. The Vishnu Schists are the oldest rocks in the sequence. Their actual age is a matter of record, but it is not material to this discussion, but they are certainly older than all other rocks, including the granite intrusions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Faith, posted 03-14-2015 7:02 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Faith, posted 03-14-2015 8:49 PM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 726 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 76 of 1939 (752953)
03-14-2015 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Faith
03-14-2015 8:18 PM


Yes, and it can be easy to lose sight of its amazing size, but nevertheless in the canyon area, being right beneath that uplift, and right next to the canyon, suggests the effect I keep describing.

Faith, you never fail to entertain.

It is clear to everyone else here that no matter where the uplift occurred, the unconformity would be right underneath it.

Your observation is only relevant to this discussion because you say that it is.

But its huge extent also suggests that there should be other places where similar tectonic effects are in evidence.

Then please provide such evidence.

I'm talking about the stack of strata that used to exist above the Kaibab in the GC area, that no longer exists. It was as high as the Grand Staircase, and I suggest that it was strained by that mounded uplift (the Kaibab Uplift) when it occurred, since the highest strata would have stretched more over such a rounded uplift than the lower, and that it cracked, ...

Heh, heh, heh, ...

This is silly. So, you've got the post Permian rocks and the Precambrian rocks so strained that they are eroded away or highly sheared, and yet nothing happened to all of the rocks in between.

Are you being serious here?

... which was the beginning of the breakup of all that upper strata that then was washed away in the receding waters of the Flood, AND was the opening of what became the Grand Canyon. I think it's a very neat hypothesis myself.

It is a joke. It is a self-refuting fantasy.

The two miles of strata I'm referring to I just described above, the strata that were originally above the Kaibab over much of the Southwest area and into which the canyon was cut and out of which the Grand Staircase was carved. The "force" was the tectonic movement that caused the uplift and also the release of magma that is seen on the cross section under the GC and also at the far end of the Grand Staircase. I'd have to suppose that the same or other tectonic forces created the GU as far as it extends.

What were the dynamics of this 'Force'? When did gentle warps begin to generate the kind of strain you are talking about, that didn't affect the entire Paleozoic section?

Since you haven't yet explained them I don't know. I'll let you know after you've clarified.

It's pretty simple. When a fault cuts a rock the rock must be older than the fault. At the same time, when another structure (like an unconformity) cuts, terminates or dislocates a fault, that fault must be older than the feature that disrupts it.

Seems to be what everybody is saying, how the GU eroded flat and that created the surface for the strata to buld on.

Except that it was not entirely flat, as I explained earlier.

The problem I see is that I don't see how such an upthrust piece of hardened strata could erode away to flatness.

Some were not completely eroded. This is evident in your own sections.

You are missing my sarcasm directed at others here. Perhaps you need to notice more carefully the name at the upper right side of a post to whom it is addressed. In any case I agree with you that the uplift came later. I'm not entirely sure what you have in mind when you say "it warps the youngest rocks..."

The point is that whatever cause deformation of the GC Supergroup and eruption of the Cardenas Basalt did not affect the youngest rocks.

Uh yeah, that's the point of my argument that it wouldn't have eroded flat.

And it didn't. However, I know of no law that forbids that.

And there is plenty of time, your denial notwithstanding. There is actual hard evidence of long ages, all in opposition to your a priori beliefs.

So, what is your point?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Faith, posted 03-14-2015 8:18 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Faith, posted 03-15-2015 8:01 AM edge has responded
 Message 95 by Faith, posted 03-15-2015 3:28 PM edge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 726 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 78 of 1939 (752955)
03-14-2015 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Faith
03-14-2015 8:41 PM


Re: Bible truth vs. Science
Once you have allowed the veracity of God's word to be brought into question, you have eroded the very foundation you need to make any claims at all for the primary issues of the Christian faith. If the Bible can't be believed in Genesis why should it be believed anywhere else?

Ah, I see. You are an absolutist and a Bible idolator. You don't worship your god.

And as a matter of sad fact, the gospel NEEDS Genesis to make sense, why we need a Savior, how God promised to send us a Savior.

According to Faith...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Faith, posted 03-14-2015 8:41 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 726 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 79 of 1939 (752956)
03-14-2015 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Faith
03-14-2015 8:49 PM


Re: the Great uncomformity proves the Earth is old
I meant the strata above the G.U. I guess I have to call it the Paleozoic rocks.

The unconformity truncates those faults in the upward direction. The unconformity then post dates those faults and, by superposition, the Paleozoic System post dates the unconformity.

I thought your evidence had to do with proving that the faults and formation of the G.U. preceded the laying down of the Paleozoic rocks.

That is the unmistakable conclusion.

Yes and I used the point myself in this thread somewhere. Thanks for the clarification.

Then you have to agree that the faults which bound and preserve the GC Supergroup are older than the unconformity.

But now I'm not sure which faults you are talking about.

As I said, the ones that allow the GC Supergroup rocks to be preserved in down-dropped blocks. That faulting was clearly over by the time the Tapeats was deposited on the unconformity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Faith, posted 03-14-2015 8:49 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Faith, posted 03-15-2015 7:28 AM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 726 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 91 of 1939 (752975)
03-15-2015 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Faith
03-15-2015 7:28 AM


Re: the Great uncomformity proves the Earth is old
I still don't know what faults you are talking about but I'm not sure it matters.

The ones the between the Supergroup and the Vishnu sequence.

However, if the Paleozoic strata post-date the G.U. simply by superposition, ...

Okay, so refute the principle of superposition.

... that is, simply because it's beneath the Paleozoic system, that refers well enough to the strata the G.U. is composed of,

The Great Unconformity is not composed of strata!!!!!!!!!

Please read our posts.

... all that being already there before the Paleozoic layers were formed, but it really doesn't prove that the unconformity itself, the tilted blocks of strata, formed before the Paleozoic system did. Unless I'm missing something in what you're saying.

You are missing everything in what I'm saying.

If you are going to cut a stratum with a fault, the stratum has to be there in the first place.

If you are going to overlay one bed with another that bed has to be there in the first place.

If an erosional surface truncates a fault, that fault has to be there in the first place.

This is not rocket science...

Surely it's not uncommon for there to be underground movements of rock that in themselves predate upper rock, while the movement and repositioning of the lower rock are then more recent than the upper rock. Earthquakes reflect such underground shifts, right?

Hunh? So, the faults only affect certain rocks?

Where do you get this stuff?

No. An earthquake affects all rocks that the fault line intersects. If the rocks are younger than the earthquake are not broken by the fault.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Faith, posted 03-15-2015 7:28 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Pressie, posted 03-15-2015 10:53 AM edge has not yet responded
 Message 101 by Faith, posted 03-15-2015 4:05 PM edge has not yet responded
 Message 119 by Faith, posted 03-15-2015 9:55 PM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 726 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 93 of 1939 (752979)
03-15-2015 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Faith
03-15-2015 8:01 AM


Then I guess I'm the dunderheaded exception, but I don't get it except on the scenario I've given which you disagree with. To have to be right underneath the uplift means it has to be related to the uplift somehow,

Yes, it is related in space. There is no genetic relationship. This is a major logical fallacy.

... but unless it was also affected in the uplift as I'm suggesting it was, then I don't see how you would regard it as anything but a completely random or accidental fact that it happens to be right beneath the uplift.

When you have a global phenomenon, the fact that something else is occasionally found with it is insignificant. I can see that logic is not your strong point.

???

When I say that something is relevant only to you, that means that it is irrelevant.

Just a guess of mine that seemed logical. But perhaps some time you could give some kind of account of the Great Unconformity as it is found in other places besides the GC? That would be very interesting.

A 'guess of yours' is not evidence.

Have you not heard of Siccar Point?

Let me get something clear: you aren't denying that there WAS such a stack of post Permian rocks above the canyon area?

Do you also accept that the post-Permian rocks were severely eroded, forming the Grand Staircase and scouring off the Kaibab plateau?


I have no problem with that.

Very. If all that post-Permian rock could have been so catastrophically eroded ...

Who says it was catastrophic? There was certainly plenty of time for the erosion to occur.

... as we can see on that main cross section of the area, what's the problem with the possibility that the uplift put strain on the upper layers of that rock?

The fact that the rocks immediately beneath them are not so strained argues against your point. This was not a major strain event.

At two miles above the Permian those uppermost strata would be stretched a great deal by such an uplift. This doesn't seem reasonable to you?

No. In that case why (in your scenario) are the Precambrian rocks so deformed? Do you know the types of strain that would happen in a broad upwarp such as the Kaibab?

Seems quite reasonable to me. The strain is reasonable to begin with, and the breaking up of the upper strata is reasonable based on the strain which would stretch and crack the sediments.

But what does this have to do with the Precambrian rocks?

If it did all occur in the receding phase of the Flood you then have a lot of water as the mechanism for producing all that very visible erosion, including very likely the Grand Canyon itself.

Where is the evience for this 'lot of water'?

Perhaps you are just so used to thinking in terms of slow processes this hits you as too alien to consider?Well, first of all, you too believe the uplift occurred after all the strata were in place, correct? That suggests that you believe it possible for the strata to have remained intact through that uplift since it clearly IS intact. Now perhaps you think that's because it occurred more gently and slowly than I have in mind?

To a certainty.

Actually even if it did, ultimately the upper strata so high above the Permian would have had to undergo strain from being stretched more than the lower strata.

Please prove this with some math. You are making a wishful assertion here. It does however, avoid the point that this uplift is not the only tectonic event presented in the GC rocks. It is another red herring.

I think the immense weight of all the strata would have held it together by compressing it when the uplift occurred due to tectonic force from beneath.

Probably not. But still irrelevant.

It wouldn't have had to be abrupt but it would have had to be extremely powerful, pushing up the entire stack three miles deep.

Actually, there is no reason for it to be abrupt. Neither is it extremely powerful compared to other tectonic events in the history of the earth.

The continuous relentless pushing of a continental collision seems powerful enough and not necessarily abrupt, adequate to the scenario I have in mind.

It's hard to tell what you have in mind. Please describe these forces in magnitude direction and source.

I'm not imagining anything particularly abrupt or violent, just powerful enough pressure to push the strata of the Supergroup into an unconformity and raise the whole stack of strata above.

What do you mean 'push the strata into an unconformity'. That is a meaningless statement and there is no evidence that there has been any such deformation, particularly on a global scale.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Faith, posted 03-15-2015 8:01 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Faith, posted 03-15-2015 10:43 PM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 726 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 127 of 1939 (753035)
03-16-2015 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Faith
03-15-2015 10:43 PM


I don't think you are picturing what I was trying to get across. I'm talking about the uppermost layers at the very top of the post-Permian strata that were two miles higher than the Kaibab. You can't see "the rocks immediately beneath them" because that entire stack down to the Permian is gone. By strain I mean strain on the surface of the uppermost layers, from the stretching that would occur at that height over the rounded shape of the uplift and could make cracks in the highest layers. I'm of course not thinking of the uplift taking any great length of time but I would think even if it did take a long time the upper layers would get stretched and crack. n The layers WAY up there.

Please describe this strain. Give us some kind of evidence that there was such a thing. How do you create that strain without affecting the Paleozoic rocks?

Your question doesn't make sense to me. I think you didn't understand what I was saying and mean something different by "strain."

My definition of strain is the creation of certain features and structures within the rock. It would be the result of some kind of deformation. So, what are the signs of strain?

On the other hand I do know that those rocks were softer than the Paleozoic rocks. So, why is it necessary to strain those rock selectively?

Nothing except that I'm thinking of the uplift as causing both the strain at the uppermost levels above, beginning the massive erosion of that area, and the tilting of the Supergroup beneath the canyon. Same uplift, two different effects, one above, one below.

Except that we know the signs of strain in the lower rocks are older than the Paleozoic. I have already explained this to you.

This is a sort of thing to be visualized not calculated. Also, no avoidance going on, I simply believe there was only one major tectonic event that caused the Kaibab Uplift and all that massive erosion above the Permian, and the tilting of the Supergroup beneath the canyon.

You can believe as you wish, but that does not explain your theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Faith, posted 03-15-2015 10:43 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021