Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 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: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why the Flood Never Happened
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 196 of 1896 (713688)
12-15-2013 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Faith
12-15-2013 2:00 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Faith writes:
Again, the problem with this image is that it has nothing to do with what I was saying about the kind of disturbances one would expect to individual layers...
You've forgotten the discussion history. The image was supplied as an example of a boundary between layers that was not "knife-edged", which you claimed all boundaries were.
Herebedragons was right to question the image, see my Message 188.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Faith, posted 12-15-2013 2:00 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 12:32 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 197 of 1896 (713689)
12-15-2013 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by PaulK
12-15-2013 1:28 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
PaulK writes:
Because she wants to "explain" why the strata laid on top of angular unconformities are NOT bent. It seems pretty silly to me - but so long as she wants those strata to be there and lithified when the angular unconformity is created, she's stuck with it.
You mean she thinks the strata above the angular unconformity were greatly fractured so that they could settle into a flat form? Why? Weren't they already flat? Or does she believe they were previously tilted in line with the layers of the supergroup? But how would the even be possible because the extent of the above strata is hundreds of miles, so they could never have been tilted.
Guess that's why she needs to invent her "eroded band". Every angular unconformity would have to have one - if she was right. I've never heard of one, and she doesn't seem to have produced any examples. So much for "observable evidence".
I can't even ask an intelligent question about this one.
Obviously I'm having trouble understanding Faith's position about how the angular unconformity happened, further clarification appreciated.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by PaulK, posted 12-15-2013 1:28 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by PaulK, posted 12-15-2013 2:41 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 200 by Faith, posted 12-15-2013 4:27 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 205 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 12:35 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 198 of 1896 (713691)
12-15-2013 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Percy
12-15-2013 1:01 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
So let me interpret this as you setting aside the possibility that a volcano caused the Great Unconformity to instead consider the How is it that you imagine uplift tilting the deeply buried layers of the Grand Canyon supergroup, and then creating an erosion layer on top of them just below the Tapeats Sandstone. Here's a diagram again to help you visually: possibility that it was caused by uplift.
Whatever FORCE created the uplift tilted the layers. Tectonic action had to have been involved so perhaps all of it was the result of that, but some force occurred beneath the canyon that uplifted the whole thing.
I'll get to your question in a minute but I woke up this morning realizing I hadn't explained why the malleability of the strata is important, too much on my mind, tired of getting nowhere with this argument, feeling rushed.
STRATA IN PLACE BEFORE UPLIFT:
Anyway, the fact that the strata conform to the mounded shape of the uplift shows that the strata were already there when the uplift occurred, because they would have been deposited as the usual horizontal layers and wouldn't follow the slope of the land, they'd butt up against the slope. This may also demonstrate that they were malleable because still wet, which many I've read affirm, but you insist they don't have to be wet to follow the contour of the land and that's not the important thing. The important thing is that they DO follow the contour of the mounded area into which the GC is cut, and that proves that the upheaval that caused the contour occurred after all the strata were already laid down. That's my theme song you know: strata all in place THEN come the disturbances, tectonic, volcanic, earthquakes, faulting, broken up higher strata, canyons cut, stairs sculpted, name it, etc etc. After all the strata were in place THEN all this occurs and not before. Again, proved by strata following contour of uplift.
MEANWHILE, WHAT HAPPENED IN THE BASEMENT:
SO, now look at the bottom of the canyon where we see the Great Unconformity, that huge block of tilted layers. It looks on the diagram like the uplift more or less follows the uptilting of that formation. Then there is the illustration of magma intrusion and the igneous rocks, implying the volcano beneath, the granite which takes heat and pressure to form and the schist. And it makes sense to add the formation of the Shinumo quartzite as a result of that same event as well. So these rocks all apparently formed by the heat of the volcano below, and, as I've been putting it together, also in conjunction with the pressure of the weight of the stack above, which has been laid down by that point to a couple miles in depth, evidenced by the fact that the uplift occurred AFTER the whole stack was in place.
That's how I arrived at the idea that it was the upheaval beneath the canyon that made the unconformity and lifted the whole stack all in the same event after the stack was in place to a depth of at least two miles. The roundedness or mounding of the uplifted area didn't suggest a tectonic cause, that's why I got the volcanic magma bubble in the picture, but as you have made me aware I can see that that wouldn't exert the force needed to lift the stack, so it had to be tectonic force and the tilting of the strata into the unconformity now seems to be the rock platform over which the mounding occurred. In any case it's clear to my mind that the uplift occurred after the stack was all in place so its shaping into the mound was part of that event.
So back to your question which I've already partially answered:
How is it that you imagine uplift tilting the deeply buried layers of the Grand Canyon supergroup, and then creating an erosion layer on top of them just below the Tapeats Sandstone. Here's a diagram again to help you visually:
OK, I've already shown that the uplift occurred after the stack was in place, shown by the strata following the contour of the uplift above. It had to have been caused by a tremendous force and you can see the effects of that force in what you just described. The tilting of the supergroup was caused by that force, and as it was tilted it met the resistance of the weight of the strata above, to more than two miles deep at that point, and the point of resistance was between the tilting layers and the Tapeats Sandstone (I kept forgetting the name of it and misnamed it earlier). At that level where the resistance meets the force the tilting layers slid under the Tapeats sandstone layer and the abrasion caused the erosion that is pretty visible in that area.
As I recall both the sandstone from the Tapeats and the various rocks in the tilting supergroup are mixed together in that band of erosion, which is evidence of the scenario I'm describing and shows that the erosion was NOT created on the Old Earth scenario of: 1) tilting rock (no stack above), 2) erosion developing over a very long time of exposure until the tilted ends of the supergroup were eroded flat, 3) and then the other layers laid down over great aeons of time. Didn't happen that way.
=========
And now you raise another question, regarding what I think happened to the highest strata as a result of all this.
The point is that the UPLIFT caused the breaking of the strata and this happened at both the GC and the GS, and this uplift is what distorted the lay of th4e whole land, ALONG WITH the shaking caused by the tectonic movement AND the volcanoes, all together breaking up the higher strata.
Why do you require the strata to be broken up?
You go on to raise an objection that I need to answer separately so I'll start with this: It's not that I REQUIRE that the strata be broken up, it's that as I contemplate the facts that the strata were already in place to an enormous depth -- could have been closer to three miles though two miles is a certainty, which I can explain later -- and that the uplift contoured the land over the canyon into a rounded mound, and that you can see that the canyon cuts into that mound, on one side of it, I pictured strain being caused to the upper part of the stack of layers that stretched them over that mounding, and of course there would be more strain in the higher parts of it. This may be obvious but I may need an illustration and one isn't coming to mind. Oh one just did: Create a stack of flat layers of malleable clay, build them over a flat balloon which you then blow up after they are all in place. The clay layers would stretch to follow the contour of the expanding balloon but at some point they would start to break apart, and the highest ones would be stretched the most so would break first, followed by the others.
The current upper rim of the canyon is only about a mile above the base so that was a LOT of layers above it that we can see were eroded away at some point. I just figured the stretching effect of the uplift caused them to crack and eventually break. The layers would still have been damp at least if just laid down in the Flood, which I figured contributed to their ability to stretch at all, but again, if you insist not then it's not crucial to the point. The point still is that they WERE already in place when the uplift occurred.
As I keep telling you, on a scale of miles rock is very pliable. It's going to bend, not break.
OK, but only up to a point, they aren't pliable like Silly Putty or taffy or chewing gum that you can stretch a long way before it breaks; they are going to break at some point well short of that degree of stretch.
Where around the world have you ever heard it reported that volcanoes or earthquakes broke up sedimentary layers into little pieces that then begin eroding away at the enormous rate your scenario requires.
You have to picture the mounding of the uplifted land that put strain on the layers by stretching them over this expanding balloon shape. The force that created the uplift is more or less incidental to this fact. If the volcano beneath the canyon wouldn't have done it then it must have been the tectonic force that caused both the volcano and the tilting of the supergroup which seems to have been the main part of the "balloon" of my illustration, over which the land mounded, to a great depth. All this forcing and tilting and sliding and eroding woujld certainly have been accompanied by earthquakes, and that probably also facilitated the breaking up of the strata being stretched at the higher levels.
As for the eroding away at an enormous rate, that has to do with the supposition that we're at the end of the Flood, which has laid down the layers to their current great depth, so when the upper layers start cracking we've got a huge volume of water ready to rush into the cracks. This could either be from still standing Flood water or from a huge post-Flood standing lake that I've found described to have existed above and to the east of the canyon area. I don't know which but it just figures that it was water that started the process of opening up those cracks and then it would have carried all that material that was breaking up with it and that cataract of chunky sediments would have widened the cracks and sculpted them out until eventually the entire gigantic canyon was scoured out. The chunks probably eventually dissolved back into sediment since they wree still wet but at first they would have been damp chunks and would have had quite a bit of abrasive effect on the sides of the cracks that were opening up. We're talking an enormous volume of water of course and an enormous quantity of broken up sediments. And it IS a good question where they ended up because it doesn't seem they ended up in the canyon itself. I just figure they all washed through over some period of time and ended up as I said in California or the Gulf of California. How long it woujld have taken for all that water to drain through and reduce down to river size I don't know but we're not talking millions of years.
You have the layers at the Grand Canyon being deposited by the flood, then remaining in place long enough to lithify into solid rock,
Haven't meant to say they had already become actual rock, but they would certainly have been much hardened by the weight of the sediments above. Mud with all the water pressed out of it can become hard enough at least to hold its shape. (yes, contrary to Dr. A's suspicions, I did make mudpies as a child) But I figure it WAS still wet, not actual rock, so that a great rush of water could fairly easily have sculpted it out, water carrying the broken up chunks of the higher strata adding more abrasion to the process. That's one HUGE canyon, it took a LOT of water and abrasive material to carve it out.
then the layers being uplifted and broken up, then a mile or so of layers being eroded away to reveal the topography we see today, which is an unheard of rate of erosion in a region that gets little rain.
By normal processes of course it would be, but the various stages of the Flood are something else as I hope I have demonstrated. And the idea that the tiny Colorado River carved all that out is even less likely don't you think?
One point I raised that you haven't addressed yet: most of the layers of the Grand Canyon are marine layers with fine-grained sediment. There are no land lifeforms in these layers, and there are none of the large particle sediment types associated with floods. Many of the layers are limestone, which is particularly finely grained.
Let's say I believed you and wanted to be convinced by you, but I knew that floods don't lay down fine grained sediments, and I couldn't understand how a global flood could create layers containing only marine life. How are you going to help me past these obstacles without insulting my intelligence?
I'm frankly amazed that I understand as much of this as I think I do, I don't expect to be able to answer all the multitudinous challenges people throw at me here. All I can say is that you can't compare the worldwide Flood to just any flood, even a very big flood. This Flood was a planet-covering ocean and the usual idea is that the ocean floor was also affected, stirred up, even that "fountains" opened up at that depth, and much marine life was killed.
The Grand Canyon layers are the lower layers laid down in the Flood, which it makes sense would have contained the marine life killed in the water, while the layers that eroded away above, that are still in evidence in the Grand Staircase, get into the land animals. How that order was developed and maintained is the subject of a lot of guesses, and how particular kinds of sediments make up the layers as well, so my way of approaching this is through the overall structure of the strata, the canyons and so on, because it seems to me this demonstrates, first, that the Old Earth explanation doesn't work, and second, that the Flood is the most likely explanation. But the particulars aren't all that easy to figure out. However, the Old Earth explanations are a lot less elegant, are n fact klutzy, unlikely in the extreme and the Flood explanation really very nice by comparison.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Percy, posted 12-15-2013 1:01 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-15-2013 9:58 PM Faith has replied
 Message 202 by Percy, posted 12-15-2013 10:05 PM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 199 of 1896 (713692)
12-15-2013 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Percy
12-15-2013 2:10 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
quote:
You mean she thinks the strata above the angular unconformity were greatly fractured so that they could settle into a flat form? Why? Weren't they already flat? Or does she believe they were previously tilted in line with the layers of the supergroup? But how would the even be possible because the extent of the above strata is hundreds of miles, so they could never have been tilted.
No, she means that they STAYED flat while the rocks beneath tilted up on end. I guess that she wants it to be true because of her idea that all the strata were laid down by the Flood. I can't think of any sensible reason to believe it, at all.
As I understand it, she thinks that the strata on top were lifted up on top of the bends (presumably in her idea the rubble would fill the hollows created by the bending, but I've seen no evidence that that has actually happened).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Percy, posted 12-15-2013 2:10 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 200 of 1896 (713697)
12-15-2013 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Percy
12-15-2013 2:10 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Since you and PaulK are now talking about my idea of how the Great Unconformity happened I'd really like to get into the discussion but it may be a while before I can. So I'd like to post a link to the discussion of this that I did on my blog a couple years ago, which was inspired by an illustration I'd found in one of Lyell's books: Angular Unconformities: An Alternative Interpretation Part 2: Charles Lyell Proves My Point It also happens to be the post where I include that cross-section I said I like so much, with some analysis of the northernmost part of the Grand Staircase where the fault splits the two sections of the strata.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Percy, posted 12-15-2013 2:10 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 2997 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


(1)
Message 201 of 1896 (713702)
12-15-2013 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Faith
12-15-2013 2:33 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
I don't expect to be able to answer all the multitudinous challenges people throw at me here. All I can say is that you can't compare the worldwide Flood to just any flood, even a very big flood.
I understand that you're outnumbered here, but you make it sound like you're actually answering a fair number of the often major problems people have pointed out to you, which you definitely aren't. Go on, try one more. Explain to me how wet sand was deposited at a 34 degree angle. Or where the footprint-makers came from. Or how the in situ dinosaur was preserved. Or the existence of speleothems which RAZD has pointed out take a long time to form. There are plenty to choose from and you're alternating between ignoring them completely and pretending they aren't a problem. Despite the fact that you acknowledge that a physical impossibility does indeed represent a major problem for a theory. I'm certain you'll continue to display that intellectual integrity we've all come to love and either ignore or downplay these issues once again, but I just thought I'd point it out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Faith, posted 12-15-2013 2:33 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 12:38 AM Atheos canadensis has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 202 of 1896 (713703)
12-15-2013 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Faith
12-15-2013 2:33 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Faith writes:
Whatever FORCE created the uplift tilted the layers. Tectonic action had to have been involved so perhaps all of it was the result of that, but some force occurred beneath the canyon that uplifted the whole thing.
But this doesn't answer the question. Whether it was volcanoes or tectonics or something else, how did just a few deeply buried layers tilt without wreaking havoc on the bottom of the immediately overlying layer.
This may also demonstrate that they [the rock of the layers] were malleable because still wet,...
You don't need particularly pliable rocks to bend on a scale of miles. When they don't bend you get a fault. You're inventing problems for yourself.
Then there is the illustration of magma intrusion and the igneous rocks, implying the volcano beneath,...
Volcanoes are a surface feature. The magma intrusions just come from deeper within the Earth, not from subterranean volcanoes. When magma reaches the surface, then you get a volcano.
You go on to describe the tilting of the supergroup layers into the Great Unconformity as if it were an event local to the Grand Canyon when portions of the Great Unconformity underlie much of the continent. What you describe happening had to take place in roughly uniform fashion all across the continent. And the Great Unconformity is an eroded boundary. It was once on the surface before all the overlying layers were deposited.
As I recall both the sandstone from the Tapeats and the various rocks in the tilting supergroup are mixed together in that band of erosion,...
You'd be recalling incorrectly. The Great Unconformity boundary is very irregular as a result of erosion, but the layers of the supergroup were very solid when the Tapeats was deposited. There is no mixing in evidence. Look at the diagram again:
Look at the portion of the supergroup that underlies the Grand Canyon. You see the tan layer that extends up through the Tapeats? That bump of layer is there because it is harder than the other layers, so when these tilted layers were exposed on the surface the edges of the other layers eroded faster, leaving behind a lengthy range of mountains or hills formed by this edge of harder layer.
(By the way, I want to note something that you got absolutely right. Note that where that harder layer sticks up into the Tapeats that the Tapeats just stops and butts up against it. This is because higher regions experience net erosion, while lower regions experience net deposition.)
The bigger problem for your scenario is the question of where all the material from the supergroup went when it tilted. Look again at the portion of the supergroup beneath the Grand Canyon. Remember you claim it was originally horizontal when the overlying layers were deposited, so in the diagram it would have appeared as a rectangular block of horizontal layers. But now it's tilted and a big portion of the former rectangle is missing. Where did all the material go that is now sliced off? The Great Unconformity received this name because it is so huge in extent across the continent, so if the tilting occurred while it was buried, where did all the missing material go? Why wasn't it pushed up into the above layers?
About the upper layers of an uplifted region fracturing while lower layers stay intact, it can happen, but not to anything like the degree you imagine. Rock on this scale is very pliable. Take a half-inch dowel a foot long and try to bend it. It will bend, but not really visibly. Now take a half-inch dowel a yard long and try to bend it. It bends as much per foot as before, but now over the longer distance you can see it. It's the same for rocks. You can't visibly bend a granite rock, say a flat piece of granite for your front step, but lengthen it to a mile and it will bend plenty. Plus realize that layers are not made up of miles long and wide pieces of solid rock. They're not monolithic.
If you're thinking that you need the rock of the upper layers to break up so it can be eroded away quickly, then look again at the above diagram. The flatter region in the middle eroded very nearly as much as the uplifted region of the Grand Canyon. The equally flat region to the north of the Vermillion Cliffs eroded a little less. The highly bent layers just to the south of the Hurricane layer should be full of compression fractures by your thinking, but they're not, and despite all the bending they've been eroded much less than any other area of the diagram. This is because erosion is due to other factors than you're imagined breaking up of upper layers.
As for the eroding away at an enormous rate, that has to do with the supposition that we're at the end of the Flood, which has laid down the layers to their current great depth, so when the upper layers start cracking we've got a huge volume of water ready to rush into the cracks. This could either be from still standing Flood water or from a huge post-Flood standing lake that I've found described to have existed above and to the east of the canyon area.
Your scenario has layers that turn to rock because of the pressure of a great many layers above them. Turning to rock takes time, so we can eliminate the flood that created the layers as also causing the erosion, because the flood lasted less than a year. So you're proposing huge lakes. But you need water to not only create the Grand Canyon, you also need enough water to erode through a mile of layers all across the western US. After your flood waters recede, you can't store enough water in upland lakes to do that. A year's worth of rain might erode a mountain top by an inch, so to erode a million square miles of land down a mile you'd need more water than you could ever store on the continent. What you'd need to do is to reuse the water over and over again, say by rain followed by evaporation followed by rain followed by evaportion, and do this year after year for millions of years.
Haven't meant to say they had already become actual rock,...
For layers that haven't yet become rock, once the overlying layers are eroded away they'll never become rock. Rock doesn't form by drying out like mud might become bricks. Making sedimentary deposits into rock requires great pressure.
By normal processes of course it would be, but the various stages of the Flood are something else as I hope I have demonstrated.
Again, you need time for sedimentary deposits to become rock. You can't have the flood both deposit and erode the same layers if you need to wait for those layers to turn to rock. Again, the flood lasted less than a year.
This Flood was a planet-covering ocean and the usual idea is that the ocean floor was also affected, stirred up, even that "fountains" opened up at that depth, and much marine life was killed.
Every once in a while it's worth calling to your attention the lack of evidence for your scenario. There's no evidence of "fountains" anywhere, nor any evidence of a great marine die-off 4500 years ago.
The Grand Canyon layers are the lower layers laid down in the Flood, which it makes sense would have contained the marine life killed in the water,...
Those layers that geologists believe are marine contain marine life. Those layers that geologists believe are terrestrial contain land life. The layers at the Grand Canyon are both marine and terrestrial, and some of the topmost layers are marine. You need to adjust your scenario to account for this, plus this scenario makes no sense anyway. The terrestrial life living around the current location of the Grand Canyon at the time of the flood would have greatly outnumbered marine life washed in later from oceans hundreds of miles away. All around the world, the deeper and older the layer, the more any fossil life contained within differs from modern forms. There's nothing about a flood that could account for this.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Faith, posted 12-15-2013 2:33 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 12:57 AM Percy has replied

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


Message 203 of 1896 (713706)
12-16-2013 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by Percy
12-15-2013 1:55 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
But why do you care? What does it matter whether more layers formed after the fault or not? Whether more layers formed or not, they obviously eroded away. What difference does it make to you
You've posted a lot and asked a lot and I'm just not going to get to it. But this theme keeps coming up, from you and PaulK, the idea that I somehow WANT things to be the way I've been describing them. I assure you I simply deduced that they ARE that way from what I observed, and I've tried to argue from that perspective. Period.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Percy, posted 12-15-2013 1:55 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by PaulK, posted 12-16-2013 1:20 AM Faith has replied
 Message 214 by Percy, posted 12-16-2013 9:09 AM Faith has replied
 Message 257 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-16-2013 6:30 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 204 of 1896 (713707)
12-16-2013 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by Percy
12-15-2013 1:59 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
I have NOT claimed that ALL boundaries are knife-edged. I don't think you could even find a place where I misspoke about that. I certainly know about the erosion in certain areas, I've thought about it a lot so no way would I say what you say I said. The fact that there ARE knife-edged contacts should demonstrate a lack of surface exposure. The eroded areas were also not exposed at the surface but the extremely close contacts are the best for showing that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Percy, posted 12-15-2013 1:59 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Percy, posted 12-16-2013 9:24 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 205 of 1896 (713708)
12-16-2013 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Percy
12-15-2013 2:10 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
I've read and reread this exchange between you and PaulK and have been unable to make any sense out of it so I can't respond to it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Percy, posted 12-15-2013 2:10 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 206 of 1896 (713709)
12-16-2013 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by Atheos canadensis
12-15-2013 9:58 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Unless I have a clear understanding of a problem of that sort I just don't deal with it at all Atheos, I've tried to explain that to you. I focus on my own favorite arguments which I think should prove the Flood and the wrongness of the OE, and that being the case all the other problems are secondary or irrelevant, as I've said. There's no point in continuing to badger me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-15-2013 9:58 PM Atheos canadensis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-16-2013 10:29 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 253 by RAZD, posted 12-16-2013 4:26 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 207 of 1896 (713712)
12-16-2013 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Percy
12-15-2013 10:05 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
But this doesn't answer the question. Whether it was volcanoes or tectonics or something else, how did just a few deeply buried layers tilt without wreaking havoc on the bottom of the immediately overlying layer.
It did. It is deeply eroded. But it was a whole block of tilted layers not "just a few." That is really a very large formation which is indicated on all the cross sections.
You go on to describe the tilting of the supergroup layers into the Great Unconformity as if it were an event local to the Grand Canyon when portions of the Great Unconformity underlie much of the continent. What you describe happening had to take place in roughly uniform fashion all across the continent.
Nothing in Wikipedia about the Great Unconformity suggests that it is anything more than a local event, but I'm not sure why it would matter anyway. It would merely show the pattern of tectonic force all across the country.
And the Great Unconformity is an eroded boundary. It was once on the surface before all the overlying layers were deposited.
But of course that is the standard interpretation which I'm pointedly disputing, saying the erosion was caused by the abrasion between the Supergroup and the Tapeats.
Look at the portion of the supergroup that underlies the Grand Canyon. You see the tan layer that extends up through the Tapeats? That bump of layer is there because it is harder than the other layers, so when these tilted layers were exposed on the surface the edges of the other layers eroded faster, leaving behind a lengthy range of mountains or hills formed by this edge of harder layer.
There's no problem with explaining it as surviving the abrasion of the friction between the layers either, though, because of its hardness. This IS one of those things that would be easiest to determine close up though.
If you're thinking that you need the rock of the upper layers to break up so it can be eroded away quickly, then look again at the above diagram.
Please stop suggesting that I came up with these ideas because I NEED them. Do you think that way? Neither do I. It occurred to me as I was studying the diagram as the likely way things ACTUALLY HAPPENED, and it gives a good explanation for the carving of the canyon. Period.
I have to suppose that the abraded material from the Supergroup is under the canyon, out of the picture or maybe part of the unidentified material shown on the crsoss sections.
I already answered you about layers turning to "rock." They hardened enough to be stable. I assume they are rock by now. Because I reject the idea of millions of years for just about any process.
The upland lake you claim was too small was a superlake like the Missoula and the Lahonton, very high and very large, all lakes which wre most likely water left over from the Flood. The breaking of the dam of the Missoula carved out a river canyon in that area too.
I may come back to this later.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Percy, posted 12-15-2013 10:05 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Tangle, posted 12-16-2013 3:12 AM Faith has replied
 Message 247 by Percy, posted 12-16-2013 2:41 PM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 208 of 1896 (713714)
12-16-2013 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Faith
12-16-2013 12:28 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
quote:
You've posted a lot and asked a lot and I'm just not going to get to it. But this theme keeps coming up, from you and PaulK, the idea that I somehow WANT things to be the way I've been describing them. I assure you I simply deduced that they ARE that way from what I observed, and I've tried to argue from that perspective. Period.
Then can you show me where your "eroded belt" is observed ? On your ideas it needs to contain mixed rubble from the older bent rocks and from younger unbent strata. But I've never heard of any example at an angular unconformity and you haven't show any. So far as I can tell it's just something you've made up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 12:28 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 1:26 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 209 of 1896 (713715)
12-16-2013 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by PaulK
12-16-2013 1:20 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
I distinctly remember that the eroded area between the levels at Siccar Point is specifically described that way, and I THINK I remember the same in the film of Paul Garner's talk on the Grand Canyon which I know I linked or posted here before. But I'm not up to trying to find all that right now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by PaulK, posted 12-16-2013 1:20 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by PaulK, posted 12-16-2013 1:49 AM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 210 of 1896 (713716)
12-16-2013 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Faith
12-16-2013 1:26 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
In the case of Siccar Point I only remember material from the older rock embedded in the younger. The quartzite boulder from Paul Garner's talk would be another case like that (there being no sign of erosion caused by the boulder being forced into solid sandstone).
I tried google which found NO hits for the search: Siccar Point "eroded belt" but showed up a number of links in the alternative it came up with. Including this:
Hutton's Unconformity at Siccar Point
A further search found this:
Siccar Point
Here are some selected quotes:
The unconformity surface at Siccar Point is very irregular because of differential rates of pre-Late Devonian weathering and erosion of individual beds in the Silurian succession
The conglomerates were deposited preferentially in hollows on the original land surface (Greig, 1988). Beds of crumbly red mudstone and siltstone with ribs of sandstone rest on the unconformity above the small inlier of Silurian in Tower Burn (NT 758 702). In Pease Burn, red sandstones dipping at 35 to the north rest unconformably on Silurian rocks. West of Siccar Point, the cliffs of Silurian rocks are capped by conglomerates that are up to 3 m thick in depressions in the palaeosurface. The unconformity descends to the beach south-east of Kirk Rigging, striking ENE on the shore, where there is little basal conglomerate.
The conglomerates are poorly sorted and framework-supported with a matrix of red, medium- to coarse-grained sandstone. The angular, generally tabular clasts are of grey, wacke sandstone of pebble- to boulder-grade up to 0.56 m, with a few vein quartz pebbles up to 0.07 m (Balin, 1993).
The basal conglomerate appears to be what you call an "eroded belt". However, the eroded material is rounded (else it would be classified as a breccia) indicating water transport, and it appears that pebbles and larger stones eroded from the greywacke have been deposited with some quartz pebbles and red sand to form the conglomerate.
This is really not what your ideas demand - but it is entirely consistent with the conventional view.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 1:26 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 2:35 AM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024