Origin of the Flood Layers

I'm sure you would know.

Tectonic pressure is usually lateral isn't it? That's what I attribute the whole scenario to, the Kaibab uplift, the tilted Supergroup, the formation of Vishnu and granite, the erosion between unconformity and Tapeats caused by sliding of the Supergroup etc.In my scenario all the strata above is present three miles deep and then the upper two miles above the Permian broke up due to the uplift also. Heat from below, pressure from above and from the side both.

I'm putting together my own hypothesis, it is subject to change but not on the basis of everything you guys throw at me. So you can stop with your "you would know" jibes.

Actually, just baking the rocks would not create a schistosity (foliation) in the metamorphic rocks. And there is no indication of dynamic (deforming, such as folding) related to intrusives visible in the GC.

No. For instance, we don't see compressional folding in the Paleozoic rocks. Then you would be wrong on several accounts. There's not enough horizontal stresses to fold the Paleozoic rocks, but the metamorphic sequence is severely deformed.That means that you are wrong before you get out of the starting gate.

This is easily resolved by figuring that the tectonic pressure, while lateral, occurred BENEATH the level of the Paleozoic rocks, therefore only affecting the basement rocks -- or I shouldn't say "affecting" since I think the whole area was affected as it also caused the Kaibab uplift. But to reword it I'd say that since the direct lateral pressure was beneath the Paleozoic strata that it was only the rocks beneath that it pushed and tilted and distorted, while pushing up the whole stack above where they all managed to stay horizontal.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Infallible in everything, not just the Bible, hum?Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Point it out. Shadows in bright sunlight have sharp edges. BS. Obviously you don't know anything about dynamic range in photographs. I do. The HDR picture I posted shows that the shadowed area is illuminated, showing features within. The original image didn't have the dynamic range required toOf course, in your scenario the bottom of the "depression" wold be illuminated in the original picture. The features in the shadow are obviously extensions of the features in the light, as my ellipses indicate.

Yes, you did.

No, he said that the evidence shows it was not the magma intrusions. So you are including some three miles of material above the Vishnu Schist to turn the mudstone or shale into schist.That is five as long as you can provide the model, method, process, procedure or mechanism that explains the creation of each layer in that three mile expanse of material. I was trying to at least give you a chance but you just make your position weaker and weaker. Now you want to also add the Zoroaster Granite. So you will also need to present the model. method, process, procedure or mechanism that creates the Zoroaster Granite. Now it happen to be younger than the Vishnu Schist.But remember, schist and granite and sandstone are different things.

Okay, now all you need is evidence. The problem is that we are way ahead of you on that. But please, proceed.

Just to wrap up some ideas, here is an image of what I see as the planar fabric in the shadowy area beneath the clasts in the photograph that we have been discussing. I have highlighted a few of the features, leaving some to be be seen in the enhanced state that Jon has produced.There are lots of ramifications here. For one, when you see this material outside of the shadows (in an unenhanced photo), it is a very dark reddish brown. This all compares with the older observations by Sharp (from McKee) discussing a dark, weathered zone at the top of the Vishnu Schist.I'm pretty sure that the description matches the material in the lower right of this image. the highlighted folia are more likely a soil or clayey zone at the very top of the Vishnu, possibly transported.Note that the zone is not continuous and does not always occur beneath the quartz-rich pegmatite clasts.The Vishnu is heavily weathered here. I wanted to try and get the schistosity orientation, but it is just a little to vague for me to feel confident; however in the larger scale picture you could see that the foliations are closer to vertical.I think you can also see that the larger clast deforms the foliation beneath it. This suggests to me that the clast came to rest in a patch of mud, prior to deposition of the Tapeats. As a final comment, I refer Faith to an image in Message 272 in which there are boulders of granite and pegmatite suspended in the Tapeats. This is the image that I was thinking about when I called the clasts 'boulders' in an earlier post. It also indicates that there was erosion of the igneous/metamorphic rocks during deposition of the Tapeats.Edited by Admin, : Change reference to message 272 to a link.

I see what you are indicating at the bottom of that depression but I really don't know what to make of it. I wish we could send someone to investigate that little trench in person.Yes Message 272 has the same sort of image of small clasts stuck in and suspended in the sandstone. They are not "boulders," the setting is exactly the same as for the small clasts we've been discussing, even with that little ridge you called a bedding plane. On such a tiny scale I don't see how you could draw such a conclusion from it as "It also indicates that there was erosion of the igneous/metamorphic rocks during deposition of the Tapeats."

According to my browser, there are two pictures in that post.And I don't expect you to believe anything I write. I post only for people who actually want answers and ideas.

The upper picture also appears to be on the same tiny scale.