Summations Only

That reminds me. I'm still waiting on various lines of evidence from you.

Yes, flat and straight; just as I would expect from slow, steady deposition.

I did not see an image like that. What are you referring to?

I don't suppose you'd consider that these outcrops are erosional remnants of a much larger formation.Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Air is very fluid. The Navajo Formation would constitute strata in anyone's estimation but yours evidently.By the way, I have seen the Navajo and Kayenta contact and it is gradational. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Indeed it does. That is until you realized that there were several events before the period and that there were things going on all around the plateau in the Paleozoic.There is nothing in plate tectonic theory that says any particular region must undergo deformation every hundred million years. Or that it's irrelevant and that mountain building was going on elsewhere all over the world.Your argument is a strawman. Please feel free to flail away.

An interesting point here is that not all that much sediment made it to the Gulf of California even before.At present, I am sitting on perhaps hundreds of feet of Colorado River gravels, but I am about 20 miles from the river on the Arizona side. What is not river gravels is mostly sand dunes and some lake sediments.

There are certainly strata, but not by your definition. This is off the edge of the continent as defined by older continental crust.

I'm having an exceedingly hard time visualizing Faith's depositional scenario. Maybe someday it will crystallize, but I'm pretty sure that if that happens it will be seen as a complete failure.From everything we know about rapid deposition, we see that such sediments are poorly bedded, impure. and of highly variable thickness with rough tops and gouged bottoms. They are often called 'immature' sediments.We do not see this everywhere in the geological record.If you load one sediment rapidly with another, it is usually uneven loading. This causes disruption of original texture and destruction of fossils. Same thing with the liquefaction argument that some YECs like to expound. And 'wet sediments' make it even worse. It would be a chaos.We do not see this everywhere in the geological record.To transport coarse clastic sediments, very high fluid velocities are need for extended periods of time to cover a continent to the depths present. Admit it or not, Faith needs a high-velocity mudflow that should leave behind some kind of evidence such as that we see for high-velocity ash flows on volcanoes.But that is not what we see in the geological record.In fact, what Faith proposes would produce the opposite of what we see exposed in the geological record. So, what is the attraction? Simple adherence to a religious belief system that must be validated.

I don't know that the conglomerate is there at all locations, but I'm sure it is quite thin except for adjacent to the monadnocks. Most images I've seen have at least a few pebbles at the contact. That's a bit of an artifice to show a climbing, time-transgressive unit, possibly with minor regressions. I have a feeling that they combine the Tapeats and Bright Angel, or maybe this diagram had a specific purpose that I do not know. Actually, I don't really care for the diagram. I like the one that you found better because it doesn't have all of the unit names to confuse the issue. Lots of times geological diagrams are too complex, probably people just showing off. Just your standard transgression. This continental boundary became a passive margin in the late Proterozoic. It was probably pretty flat and near sea level at the time. There was no reason for disturbance until the Atlantic Ocean completely closed and then started opening in the Permian. It is a transitional contact with some extensive 'tongues' of one environment extending into another, probably related to changes in sea level. So, while the general trend was toward transgression (the Sauk transgression), there were minor reversals. At a given point, sure. The problem is that the point is dynamic and will change with time.I sometimes cringe when people say that a formation is of a certain age. Actually, it is a range of ages and those ranges are different in different locations. So when YECs say that there is a 10 million year gap between two formations, it's really kind of meaningless. But it sounds like a horrible 'problem' to a lay person. Well, if she expected to see beach chairs and cabanas, she would be disappointed. I remember that too. There isn't much of the road left. However, there is a statue of a flat-bed ford on a corner in Winslow, Arizona.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added link at end. There is a statue of a man and a guitar, but no statue of a flat-bed Ford (although there is supposed to be a mural containing said Ford). A statue of Glen Fry was later added somewhere there, in 2016.

Exactly true.

IIRC, the Mississippi actually discharges a larger sediment load than the Amazon. On reason is obvious: agriculture. The second not so: much sediment is trapped in the Amazon lowlands during flooding.The Amazon is definitely unique. It has the highest sustained stream velocities of any measured in the world and it is the only 13th order stream in the world - if you count all of the divergences from a single stream, you come up with 13. The next highest numbers are perhaps 10 or 11. Again, this is from memory.The point here? Well it is a transcontinental stream and that is likely what existed in the Mesozoic era, flowing from the eroding Appalachians to somewhere in the NW United States where it was then blown into the great Jurassic ergs of the Colorado Plateau area (just to get back to where we started...)

Personally, I believe that the Colorado Plateau was uplifted first, sometime after the Cretaceous. It was planed off until all that was left was the ancestral Colorado River which removed much of the Grand Staircase rocks over 30 million years or so. Later, the the Kaibab Uplift started, changing the course of the river to the northwest until stream capture returned it to a SW flowing stream once again.That way we explain the entrenched meanders and the interruption of sedimentation in the Colorado River delta, and then the second phase of canyon building in the GC with the Kaibab uplift. In my opinion this explains the previous confusion as to the age of the Grand Canyon. There were two phases.Well, I've been wrong before but it makes some sense.

So, where are the limestones?And do you realize that these deposits are confined to 1 mile wide deposits?According to your definition, these are not strata.

Ah, but IIRC, the GC sediments were soft when they started to erode. Consequently the wall should be laid back many times that distance. Of course they wouldn't be as steep as we see them ...