Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


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 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 811 of 1939 (754912)
04-01-2015 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 806 by Faith
04-01-2015 2:08 PM


Re: Back to Angular Unconformities
The suggestion is that the shearing action is what OPENED the system, shoving out the rubble wherever it opened.
Well, based on your model, shown here:
... it seems that room is created in the troughs of the folds. If we are to concentrate rubble anywhere, that would be the location, right?
So, we would logically look for concentrations of rubble wherever there are fold troughs in the Great Unconformity surface. On the limbs and crests of the folds there should be minimal rubble concentration because that's where the basement rocks are being sheared off.
This should also be where sheared rock textures would be prevalent.
Okay. Where do you see this?
ETA: In the meantime, the model shows that there is no stress on the upper book which, evidently, represents the Grand Canyon Phanerozoic rocks. How does that happen?
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 806 by Faith, posted 04-01-2015 2:08 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 830 by Faith, posted 04-02-2015 2:06 AM edge has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 812 of 1939 (754913)
04-01-2015 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 808 by edge
04-01-2015 2:34 PM


Re: Back to Angular Unconformities
So, you've got shearing. Please show us an example of a sheared texture at the Great Unconformity
Well, here's an example of shearing I found online:
Which reminds me of the GU contact lines in images No. 2 and 4 of the Great Unconformity I posted in Message 213:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 808 by edge, posted 04-01-2015 2:34 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 813 by edge, posted 04-01-2015 3:29 PM Faith has replied
 Message 816 by herebedragons, posted 04-01-2015 4:00 PM Faith has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 813 of 1939 (754915)
04-01-2015 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 812 by Faith
04-01-2015 3:13 PM


Re: Back to Angular Unconformities
Well, here's an example of shearing I found online:
Well, that's not the Great Unconformity ...
Which reminds me of the GU contact lines in images No. 2 and 4 of the Great Unconformity I posted in Message 213:
Well, I can see a number of differences, mainly in that the mineral orientations shown in your example of a shear zone is not present in your surmised shears zones.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 812 by Faith, posted 04-01-2015 3:13 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 814 by Faith, posted 04-01-2015 3:47 PM edge has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 814 of 1939 (754918)
04-01-2015 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 813 by edge
04-01-2015 3:29 PM


shear
Just wondering: in considering the evidence of shear is the age of the shearing event relevant, and how often is the age actually known as opposed to surmised?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 813 by edge, posted 04-01-2015 3:29 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 815 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 04-01-2015 3:52 PM Faith has not replied

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2373 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


Message 815 of 1939 (754920)
04-01-2015 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 814 by Faith
04-01-2015 3:47 PM


Re: shear
Faith writes:
Just wondering: in considering the evidence of shear is the age of the shearing event relevant, and how often is the age actually known as opposed to surmised?
How in the world is that question even relevant to the context of this entire discussion where you claim that ALL of these ages are surmised and that NONE of them can be known.
So if they tell you that the ages can be known, you will merely dismiss them out of hand and substitute your own age. Is there a point to the question?
JB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 814 by Faith, posted 04-01-2015 3:47 PM Faith has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 816 of 1939 (754921)
04-01-2015 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 812 by Faith
04-01-2015 3:13 PM


Re: Back to Angular Unconformities
Well, here's an example of shearing I found online...
Which reminds me of the GU contact lines in images No. 2 and 4 of the Great Unconformity
But it looks nothing like the contact at the GU. It is similar in that it is two layers of rock, the upper resting uncomformably on the lower, but that's about the only similarity in that contact.
I have highlighted some features below
Look at how the grain is distorted. You can even tell which direction this block was sliding. (The upper block was sliding to the right relative to the lower block)
The area in the circle is really distorted - it may even had been plastic (not molten) heated from friction.
That's the thing, sliding cause a lot of friction - A LOT. Friction causes heat. Heat causes deformation. Deformation is recognizable in the contact.
No such deformation in the GU.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 812 by Faith, posted 04-01-2015 3:13 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 817 by Faith, posted 04-01-2015 4:33 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 817 of 1939 (754923)
04-01-2015 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 816 by herebedragons
04-01-2015 4:00 PM


Re: Back to Angular Unconformities
I can't see your lines on the picture unless I squint and get up close. A contrasting color would probably help. I don't even see a circle at all.
But no need, I get the point.
I'd still like to know if knowing when the shear occurred is part of the evidence.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 816 by herebedragons, posted 04-01-2015 4:00 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
saab93f
Member (Idle past 1394 days)
Posts: 265
From: Finland
Joined: 12-17-2009


(1)
Message 818 of 1939 (754924)
04-01-2015 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 793 by Faith
04-01-2015 12:50 PM


Re: Himalayas etc
1) Ice age after the Flood kept things cool. Ice age also a product of whatever heat is generated in tectonic and volcanic events.
2) I never said tectonic events such as the raising of the Himalayas took only a few years. Sorry if I said something that could be interpreted that way. However I certainly don't think such events took millions of years, a few hundred would be more than enough.
3) There were no people in India for at least that long, and besides all they'd experience would be earthquakes.
Excuse me if I feel free to guess about such things, but that's what Science is doing too.
Honest guessing is quite alright. Science OTOH does not guess per se.
The amount of heat generated by very rapid tectonic movement cannot be countered by any ice age, especially since one cannot assume that the movement had quite suddenly groung to a halt. The plates move as they have for millions of years.
It is rather silly to think that peeps in India had been able to carry on with their daily life when greater earthquakes that have ever been recorded would have happened in "their backyard".
You are persistent and hard-working but when your basis is so fatally flawed, it is nothing short of amazing how you just carry on. There is absolutely no way that the earth we see today was mere millenia old. There is recorded history for longer than that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 793 by Faith, posted 04-01-2015 12:50 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 819 by Faith, posted 04-01-2015 4:43 PM saab93f has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 819 of 1939 (754925)
04-01-2015 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 818 by saab93f
04-01-2015 4:33 PM


Re: Himalayas etc
Saab, I KNOW the earth is not millions of years old. I KNOW the tectonic plates have not been in motion for millions of years.
So I KNOW you and all believers in millions of years are wrong about what WOULD happen IF things happened in the Flood time frame. There is no other time frame possible.
NOTHING "ground to a halt," the plates have been in motion since the Flood some 4300 years ago, including the plates raising the Himalayas, slowing down continuously since the motion started. ABE: From what I calculated to be a launching speed of 20 feet per day, ten on either side of the Atlantic Ridge. /ABE*
The likelihood is that nobody had arrived in India during the first movements of the plates anyway.
* What I said in that post:
I figured the distance between Europe and North America to be currently roughly 3000 miles, and for that distance to have been traveled in a rough 4500 years would mean moving at an average rate of 1000 miles in 1500 years, or 10 miles in 15 years or 3/4 mile in one year, or 3960 feet or 47,520 inches, or 11 feet per day. I put that number at the midpoint of the time between the Flood and today, or roughly around 100 BC or so. I figure that's the speed at which the continents would have been separating in 100 BC. Before that they were separating at a faster rate that increases back to the beginning, and since then at a slower rate that decreases to the present rate of 2-4 inches per year.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 818 by saab93f, posted 04-01-2015 4:33 PM saab93f has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 821 by edge, posted 04-01-2015 5:32 PM Faith has replied
 Message 827 by NosyNed, posted 04-01-2015 8:57 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 820 of 1939 (754927)
04-01-2015 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 808 by edge
04-01-2015 2:34 PM


Where the rubble went
By the way, the amount of deformation during the Kaibab uplift is nowhere near as intense as the folds you show in your blog.
Yes. Same principle though.
But I still think the best explanation is that the sheared off rubble accumulated under the Tapeats where the magma from below turned it into schist.
The problem you have is that the rubble appears in the Tapeats as well. This means that the Tapeats came after whatever event caused the rubble, either tectonic or sedimentary.
I don't take that as a problem at all but confirmation of the idea that there was abrasion between the two levels of rock. The quartzite boulder that is embedded in the Tapeats seems to me to be evidence of this. The British creationist group that pointed this out in their video think it shows the movement of a slurry, but of course I'm wacky enough to disagree with them too, since I like my abrasion theory better. But they are like most Creationists who start their Flood scenario on top of a pre-existing G.U. I don't see how any strata could pre-exist the Flood; All of it must be the product of the Flood or none at all.
Anyway the appearance of rubble in the Tapeats (which I kept trying to prove to PaulK a long time ago who kept denying it but anyway), its existence there is evidence FOR the abrasion theory rather than against it. Still room for more rubble to collect under the Tapeats where the schist is located.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 808 by edge, posted 04-01-2015 2:34 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 822 by edge, posted 04-01-2015 5:46 PM Faith has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 821 of 1939 (754928)
04-01-2015 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 819 by Faith
04-01-2015 4:43 PM


Re: Himalayas etc
Saab, I KNOW the earth is not millions of years old. I KNOW the tectonic plates have not been in motion for millions of years.
So I KNOW you and all believers in millions of years are wrong about what WOULD happen IF things happened in the Flood time frame. There is no other time frame possible.
So we end up with the cognitive dissonance that all of your posts represent.
A kind of Alice-in-Wonderland fantasy world, where whatever you wish can actually happen.
And no one understands what the heck you're talking about...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 819 by Faith, posted 04-01-2015 4:43 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 823 by Faith, posted 04-01-2015 5:47 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 822 of 1939 (754930)
04-01-2015 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 820 by Faith
04-01-2015 5:08 PM


Re: Where the rubble went
Yes. Same principle though.
But not enough strain to cause shear textures. And no evidence that it happened.
I know. You don't care.
I don't take that as a problem at all but confirmation of the idea that there was abrasion between the two levels of rock.
Except that you have no evidence for such abrasion.
The quartzite boulder that is embedded in the Tapeats seems to me to be evidence of this. The British creationist group that pointed this out in their video think it shows the movement of a slurry, but of course I'm wacky enough to disagree with them too, since I like my abrasion theory better.
I like the erosion theory better. I have no problems with boulders sitting in beach sands as this picture from Viti Levu shows.
I don't see any abrasion going on to get this boulder into place in the sand. In the case you are talking about it is a boulder of Shinumo Quartzite sitting in the transgressing Tapeats sand.
But they are like most Creationists who start their Flood scenario on top of a pre-existing G.U. I don't see how any strata could pre-exist the Flood; All of it must be the product of the Flood or none at all.
Or else there was no flood...
Anyway the appearance of rubble in the Tapeats (which I kept trying to prove to PaulK a long time ago who kept denying it but anyway), its existence there is evidence FOR the abrasion theory rather than against it. Still room for more rubble to collect under the Tapeats where the schist is located.
Well, let's see, we have boulders in sand without any apparent abrasion occurring, and we see no expected effects of abrasion.
I suppose it's logical to you that abrasion occurred anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 820 by Faith, posted 04-01-2015 5:08 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 825 by Faith, posted 04-01-2015 7:28 PM edge has not replied
 Message 837 by Faith, posted 04-02-2015 10:10 AM edge has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 823 of 1939 (754931)
04-01-2015 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 821 by edge
04-01-2015 5:32 PM


Re: Himalayas etc
What I'm trying to do is find a way to prove it to others. Some do at least understand what Im talking about, however. I'm not sure why it's so difficult for you.
ABE: Actually, it's more like I'm trying to figure out HOW it all happened, so as to prove it to others.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 821 by edge, posted 04-01-2015 5:32 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 824 by edge, posted 04-01-2015 7:16 PM Faith has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 824 of 1939 (754934)
04-01-2015 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 823 by Faith
04-01-2015 5:47 PM


Re: Himalayas etc
ABE: Actually, it's more like I'm trying to figure out HOW it all happened, ...
Actually, that's already been done.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 823 by Faith, posted 04-01-2015 5:47 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 826 by Faith, posted 04-01-2015 7:31 PM edge has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 825 of 1939 (754935)
04-01-2015 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 822 by edge
04-01-2015 5:46 PM


Re: Where the rubble went
Here's a video lecture about the Grand Canyon by British creationist Paul Garner who is arguing his case for physical erosion of the G.U. as opposed to chemical weathering, starting at 1:01:40, and shows the quartzite boulder embedded in the Tapeats at 1:06:
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 822 by edge, posted 04-01-2015 5:46 PM edge has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024