|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Continuation of Flood Discussion | |||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1469 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
But, I was understanding her idea to be that the ground up material was back-filling a gap underneath the Supergroup after it was tilted. Yes that is an idea I've had and said somewhere recently and you said it well. The idea that there wouldn't be enough room is answered to my mind by the fact that the forces that all came together in that region beneath the GC were powerful enough to lift the whole stack of strata above. The Supergroup tilted right up into that uplift, almost appearing to be part of the cause of the uplift.
But there is no indication that the Vishnu schist was formed in two separate events. The question I'd have first of all is whether any rubble that did backfill beneath the Supergroup is Vishnu schist or un-metamorphosed rubble, or just what it is.
|
|||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1469 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
At any angular unconformity Geology says there is a zone of erosion between the upper and lower sections, which you appear to be denying based on the photographs you posted of the Great Unconformity.
But apart from that I think those photos are interesting because they show a section of the contact between the two levels that did get exposed in the canyon, and the Tapeats appears as a broken shelf overlying the Supergroup. I could read that as supporting my scenario in that the forces that tilted the Supergroup also broke up the Tapeats in that area along with a lot of other sedimentary rock both above and in the foreground below the Tapeats. I do interpret the canyon itself as a product of this event too you know. All of it is the sort of thing, in other words, that would have happened AFTER all the strata were in place. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1469 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The layers of the Grand Canyon are NOT parallel nor are they continuous. All this is nitpicking obfuscation. I KNOW they aren't mathematically perfectly parallel OR continuous in all cases either. That is not relevant to the point I am making. The word "parallel" is the only one that fits the situation. Perhaps I could find a ten-word phrase for it but there is nothing wrong with "parallel" for the situation I am trying to describe. Can you think of another? Nothing anyone has said has changed the point I am trying to make so I still need words to make it with. The first drawing I made showed what it would look like if uplift had occurred before the whole stack was laid down. The post-uplift strata would be decidedly NOT parallel with the pre-uplift strata. THEREFORE the uplift did NOT occur before all the strata were in place. I could try to draw uplift in tiny tiny increments during their laying down I suppose, and boy would THAT be a mess. That would show non-parallel strata at many levels, confirming again that NON-parallel strata did NOT occur in that stack. What you are all describing is variations in the amount of sediment that made up sections of any particular layer. That does NOT affect the parallel orientation of the layer in alignment with the other layers. Unless you are being nitpickingly pedantically mathematically obsessive, as of course you go right on to insist on being:
There is erosion between the layers, unconformities, variation of thickness, layers that terminate at other layers. I think its perverse for anyone to claim the layers of the GC are parallel. Which I answered above. Could we please stop this idiotic semantic quibble. What I mean about "parallel" I STILL mean. If you don't like the word and can get over your pedantic nitpickery and see what I'm TRYING to say, then find me another word. Sheesh. Yes, it DOES support the Flood, HBD, it truly does. Is that why you refuse to recognize what I mean by the word "parallel?" ABE: There is nothing in the natural world that is mathematically precisely parallel that I know of, except perhaps at the atomic level, certainly not at the level of messy Geology. And yet the word does have common application to natural phenomena. We CAN speak of a fallen tree as perpendicular to standing trees which are parallel to one another and that sort of thing. All this quibbling with this common usage is NUTS. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22489 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
Faith writes: Percy seems to think that the whole length of strata from which the Supergroup broke off should be rubble but I don't see why. I didn't address where you said the supergroup had gotten "metamorphosed into Vishnu Schist" because Edge had already addressed this, but I see now that you've explained to HereBeDragons that you didn't understand that explanation. The reason the Vishnu Schist could not be metamorphosed material from the supergroup is because the two have distinctly different compositions. The material in the Vishnu Schist is definitely not metamorphosed supergroup layers. The supergroup layers are predominately sandstone, siltstone, claystone, mudstone and limestone, while the Vishnu Schist, though highly varied, has a much more granitic and volcanic content. Also, as HereBeDragons has pointed out, were there a tectonic event that metamorphosed most of the supergroup layers and joined them to the Vishnu Schist then we would be able to easily recognize that, both from the junction boundary and particularly from the different composition. The Vishnu Schist is already subdivided by geologists into many different subcomponents, and if one of the Vishnu Schist subcomponents had been contributed by metamorphosed supergroup layers then it would not be possible to miss that. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Forgot limestone in my list of composition types of the supergroup layers, added it now.
|
|||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1469 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes it would be possible to miss it by having a strong commitment to the interpretation that there had to be millions of years separating the events.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22489 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
Faith writes: Yes it would be possible to miss it by having a strong commitment to the interpretation that there had to be millions of years separating the events. But this is just another bald assertion that is contradicted by the evidence. If you read the Wikipedia article on Vishnu Basement Rocks you'll see that the composition of many different portions of it have been analyzed in detail. Were the upper layers of parts of the Vishnu Schist contributed by metamorphosed supergroup layers then the analysis would have showed this, and there would have been an obvious boundary. There's no evidence of anything you claim, which is expected for things that are made up. --Percy
|
|||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1731 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about this particular aspect of the situation, so any part of it could be wrong, but the diagram shows contact. But the idea I have in mind is that the Vishnu schist is metamorphosed eroded rock, or sedimentary rubble, so it looks like a very likely candidate for where much of the rubble from the eroded Supergroup would have gone that everybody keeps objecting is this enormous amount I haven't accounted for.
This is silly. You are basing your whole scenario on limited data and wishful thinking. The Unkar Group is younger than the Vishnu because it overlies the Vishnu in an erosional unconformity where rounded fragments of the Vishnu occur in an Unkar conglomeratic layer.
[qs]Hotauta Conglomerate MemberRed-brown and gray conglomerate of well-rounded to subangular pebbles and boulders of granite, gneiss, and schist derived from underlying Early Proterozoic igneous and metamorphic rocks.[/u] Clasts are cemented in red-brown, coarse-grained, gravelly sandstone matrix. Unconformable contact with underlying Early Proterozoic rocks called the Greatest Angular Unconformity (Noble, 1922), a hiatus lasting about 450 million years (Hendricks and Stevenson, 1990). Unit does not include diabase sills. Variable thickness 0—30 ft (0—10 m).(bold added)[/qs]USGS URL Resolution Error Page So, it is pretty obvious that the older schist was eroded and clasts were incorporated into the lowermost Unkar rocks. Clasts of a rock, found within another rock are always older. You cannot erode a rock, metamorphose it and then reincorporate it into itself. Also note that rounded clasts are indicative of stream erosion, like the 'river rock' that people use for ornamentation.
Edge did say that the composition of the Vishnu doesn't fit my scenario but unfortunately edge seems to enjoy saying things in a way that confuses rather than enlightens. Perhaps you could act as translator.
I'm not sure what the problem here is. If you say that the Vishnu is derived from the Unkar, then it should compare chemically to the Unkar. Note that the Unkar has limestones in it and the Vishnu does not have any limestone or other metamorphosed limestone... Does this help?
|
|||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1731 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
At any angular unconformity Geology says there is a zone of erosion between the upper and lower sections, which you appear to be denying based on the photographs you posted of the Great Unconformity.
You might be aware that erosion at the surface also implies transportation. Usually sediments (eroded rock) are carried away. In a crushing or abrasion event, the material is left in situ. It should still be there. But it isn't. I also would caution you that the term erosion in the event of crushing and abrasion is confusing. While it can be understood. we usually use it in the context of surficial weathering and transport.
But apart from that I think those photos are interesting because they show a section of the contact between the two levels that did get exposed in the canyon, and the Tapeats appears as a broken shelf overlying the Supergroup.
What do you mean by 'broken' in this case? Are you saying that the layers are no longer parallel?
I could read that as supporting my scenario in that the forces that tilted the Supergroup also broke up the Tapeats in that area along with a lot of other sedimentary rock both above and in the foreground below the Tapeats. I do interpret the canyon itself as a product of this event too you know.
The canyon is a product of erosion.
All of it is the sort of thing, in other words, that would have happened AFTER all the strata were in place.
Yes, you can only erode rocks after they are emplaced.
|
|||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1469 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Things that are made up are sometimes called theories.
I don't see much in that article about the source of the various kinds of rocks and minerals in the GC basement rocks. A lot of it is igneous which is to be expected, but there are rocks with a sedimentary origin too. I wouldn't give up on the idea too soon myself.
|
|||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1469 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The Unkar Group is younger than the Vishnu because it overlies the Vishnu in an erosional unconformity where rounded fragments of the Vishnu occur in an Unkar conglomeratic layer. erosional unconformity?rounded fragments of the Vishnu? Unkar conglomeratic layer? Do you have any interest whatever in communicating with me or is your enjoyment of mystification just too irresistible? I WOULD really like to know what you are talking about. 90% of what you have written on this thread is incomprehensible, or it's insinuations, ridicule and insults. I am never going to accept Old Earth interpretations but I do expect you to have knowledge of facts that could be very interesting if you would only speak plain English, expand on your remarks, anything that could actually communicate information. I can only conclude that that is not your objective here, that your aim is to avoid communication, probably because that serves your REAL goal of putting down the creationist -- by whatever devious means. Which is why I don't read much of what you post. There is no point. Big waste of time for me, and I would think for you too unless you just enjoy this game of one-upmanship that much. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 193 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Things that are made up are sometimes called theories Not in a scientific setting, unless they have a lot of evidentiary support.
|
|||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 193 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
You aren't going to communicate accurately in English with someone who doesn't speak English.
You aren't going to communicate accurately about geology without using established geological terms, the meaning of which is easily found with insignificant effort. Edge is doing the best that he can to describe things accurately to you, and you are refusing to put any effort at all into learning anything at all about what has been found and measured and described. You just sit in your darkened room and make up ludicrous fantasies without any reference to the real world. The fault is exclusively yours. You could easily remedy it. But even what's easy is too hard for you. Feh!
|
|||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1731 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
erosional unconformity?
Which word do you have a problem with? An intrusive contact is also an unconformity. I'm trying to be precise.
rounded fragments of the Vishnu?
Yes, which I explain in my post. Would 'clasts' or 'cobbles' help?
Unkar conglomeratic layer?
Yes. I explain this in the quotation that I presented.
Do you have any interest whatever in communicating with me or is your enjoyment of mystification just too irresistible?
I am interested in showing how much you don't know. I'm not so sure about that.
90% of what you have written on this thread is incomprehensible, or it's insinuations, ridicule and insults.
So, you admit that you do not understand? You know, you could just as nicely...
I am never going to accept Old Earth interpretations but I do expect you to have simple knowledge of facts that could be very interesting if you would only speak plain English, expand on your remarks, anything that could actually communicate information.
I add explanations frequently.
I can only conclude that that is not your objective here, that your aim is to avoid communication, probably because that serves your REAL goal of putting down the creationist -- by whatever devious means.
Well, it IS a debate, not a bible discussion group.
Which is why I don't read much of what you post.
Maybe that's why you miss my explanations.
There is no point. Big waste of time for me, and I would think for you too unless you just enjoy this game of one-upmanship that much.
I can see why you are frustrated. That could be overcome, you know. Oh, was this a discussion or a complaint session? Why not try asking nicely what a fragment is or what a conglomerate is, or 'rounded'?
|
|||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1469 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I am interested in showing how much you don't know. Right. There it is. Exactly what I concluded. No reason to read anything you write for that reason. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22489 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
Faith writes: I am interested in showing how much you don't know.
Right. There it is. Exactly what I concluded. No reason to read anything you write for that reason. So in a debate you don't think it's kosher to demonstrate that your opponent's views are based upon ignorance? In this age of Internet point-and-click to get a definition, I can't believe you actually complained about vocabulary. Can we assume you'll be using this excuse to once more reset to square one and begin making your arguments from scratch, while of course claiming that you've proved this all before? --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024