Summations Only

Here is a diagram showing how certain formations might occur outside of their original assignment to the geological time scale.For instance, we know that the Tapeats, practically by definition started deposition at the beginning of the Cambrian. The problem is that this doesn't make a whole lot of sense because it started deposition at different times in different places.As long as we only had relative dating it worked fine.The problem arose when we started to assign absolute ages to the time scale. That caused confusion. What if we found a place where the Tapeats (for instance) started a hundred thousand years earlier? We would have Cambrian rocks with a Precambrian date. We have also developed more precise dating methods and smaller differences became apparent. The solution, we think, is to have standard absolute ages for each Period, but the rocks themselves will deviate from that standard just because of the nature of sedimentary deposits as I mentioned earlier. The unfortunate consequence of all this is that it becomes a giant puzzle for the lay person to understand and Faith is a classic, though extreme example.Some things to remember are that most of the divisions of geological time are based on major life events such as the end of the Cretaceous or the Sauk transgression that started the Cambrian. Consequently some of the divisions between time periods were based on the rocks and their fossils and they appear to equate rocks with periods of time. That only works locally.The other point I'd like to make is that most of the geological Periods are so long that they can encompass multiple formations (sensu stricto) representing a number of depositional environments.

Well, the rejection of time is a major problem for Faith. According to her, all fossils died at once. All mountains rose at one time. There was only one ice age.Until the time factor is recognized Faith will be confused.And I think I can say confidently that this will never change.

For the purposes of a discussion, we might call it a datum. In both diagrams, the Ancestral Rockies are on the very right hand edge of the diagram. As they rose, they shed debris off into the Pennsylvanian aged seas, forming a deep trough that was an evaporite basin for a long time.All this happened during the Pennsylvanian time when strata (in the sense of Faith) were being deposited in the Grand Canyon area.Consequently, we can say that, yes there were obstacles to continental-scale sedimentation during the time that Grand Canyon 'strata' were being deposited and that the strata were not like unrolling the layers of carpet across the continent.

Part of my point in that post was that Faith, like many YECs, has a tendency to add to definitions. The term 'strata' is particularly misconstrued by Faith.

Faith does not see tomorrow, either. Time does not exist in Faith's world. The earth is a static, dead planet.

There may be other factors, but that is the most obvious reason for the basin. If you notice other irregularities in the Paradox Shelf carbonates, those helped for form restrictive basins where evaporation could occur, i.e., they were cut off from general circulation of sea water.

Correction: They are nothing like YOUR strata. They are very like what most people accept as strata, local deposits with a lot of lateral variation.

You've got that right! I've had to alter the meaning of 'strata' in a desperate attempt to communicate with you. It didn't work.

First, your requirement that 'strata' must be of a continental scale, flat with sharp contacts.Second, that strata must overly strata. This is not important, but shows your tendency to create new definitions.

There actually is no such thing. There is a stratigraphic column for the Grand Canyon, but even then the east is different from the west side.I'd suggest looking at a glossary of geological terms.

Nonsense. You have said several times that local formations, including the Temple Butte Limestone, are not strata.

My reason for doing so is to show that you really don't know the subject all that well. Wrong again.I have said that there is a different stratigraphic column at each location. If anyone is changing definitions, it is you. These things have been defined for ages and they are not going to change because you disagree with them. Then you will continue to run into objections unless you want to talk to a bunch of YEC bobbleheads.

Why?

First of all, let me make a suggestion: periods ... lots of them.Next, I would suggest a different word from 'erosion', most people think that erosion is what moving water does on the surface of the land. Maybe 'abrasion' would be better.However. your scenario leave out numerous facts. If there were such an event as you profess, I would expect to see a shear fabric in both the Tapeats and the underlying Supergroup rocks ... we see no such thing. I would expect to see some kind of deformation in the Supergroup rocks ... but we don't. I would expect to see some kind of shearing elements such as slickensides or gouging or chatter marks on the unconformity surface ... but we don't. I would expect to see thrust faults projecting into the Tapeats ... but nope, not there. Now, I wouldn't expect to see rounded boulder and gravel from the Supergroup rocks at the contact ... but we do. I wouldn't expect to see fine cross bedded sandstone just above the unconformity ... but, guess what. Nor would I expect to see rough irregular surfaces at unconformities formed this way ... but, you got it, we do.Now, I have just given you several lines of evidence why your just-so story cannot prevail. And all you can say is 'it must'a been some kind of tectonic force'. Well, the force is not with you, Faith. Your processes are unsupported, your kinematics are fanciful and your dynamics are incomprehensible.This is so silly that it shatters credulity. Thrust faults and detachments look nothing like the Great Unconformity. Or the Shinumo was more resistant to erosion and formed boulders surrounding solid Shinumo monadnocks in the advancing Tapeats sea.So, what happened to the Tapeats and part of the Bright Angel that are missing? Are they crunch up into a little spot someplace, or did they just vanish?I know that you are serious about this but no one is taking you seriously.

But you should disprove radiometric dating if you are going to continue to claim that we have no evidence. At convincing yourself, sure. Are you now a fortune teller? Yes, and then we learn more. That's is why YEC was abandoned as a theory over a century ago.