|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence that the Great Unconformity did not Form Before the Strata above it | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I think what you are really saying is that we should acknowledge that 'Faith is correct'. Isn't that right? No.
I'm trying to follow your argument, but it doesn't make sense. You say that the unconformity is 'flat', even though it isn't. Look at the pictures for a definition of "flat."
Then you say that erosion can't create such a surface, even though we show you places where it has. But you haven't. You've shown flat surfaces but without any evidence that they are the sort I've been talking about.
You don't seem to be doing much other than just requiring that we agree with you before engaging in civil discourse. Well that's not what I'm doing. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1735 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Look at the pictures for a definition of "flat."
I'm not asking for a definition. Several lines of evidence have been shown to you that the Great Unconformity is not flat. Even by your pictorial definition.
But you haven't. You've shown flat surfaces but without any evidence that they are the sort I've been talking about.
Then maybe you are not being very clear in what you'd like to see. You have shown several flat bedding planes, so I showed you a couple of images where bedding planes have been exposed by erosion over a fairly large area. So what do you want?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I can't continue this discussion. This is nonsense. Just TRY to get what I'm saying. Somebody shoot me.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I went back and reread this and I guess I really don't understand your point (I guess you were right, I just didn't think about it ) Thank you. I just noticed this. But I can't read the rest. I'm not up to continuing this miserable discussion right now anyway.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 886 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
OK I think I know what you are trying to get at. Here is some pictures that Percy posted back in Message 88
You're saying that erosion could not have caused this process. Here's the first problem... if we show you images of angular unconformities where it has been flattened, it the same situation; erosion could not have done it. If we show you images of tilted blocks in the process of being eroded (which is not practical because everything but the erosional surface will be buried) that is not evidence because it is still all bumpy and lumpy. By your standards nothing is evidence that erosion could wear a mountain range into a flat plain. The second problem is... how do you know that erosion couldn't do this? You don't think it could. That's not evidence, that's not an valid argument. The way we know (or at least think that it could) that erosion can wear a mountain range down to a flat plain is that we see evidence of it in the rock record. The idea seems strange to me too, it's hard to picture. But the evidence suggests that what happened. You start with the premise that erosion can't reduce a mountain to a plain and then reject the evidence of it in the rock record. If you are interested in the evidence of this, we can continue discussing why the Great Unconformity is actually an unconformity. The other direction this could go is propose a way other than erosion that the Great Unconformity could form. HBDWhoever 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The second problem is... how do you know that erosion couldn't do this? You don't think it could. That's not evidence, that's not an valid argument. YOU DON'T HAVE EVIDENCE EITHER. YOU THINK IT COULD AND THAT'S THAT. HOW DO YOU KNOW EROSION COULD DO THIS? YOU THINK IT COULD. THAT'S NOT EVIDENCE, THAT'S NOT A VALID ARGUMENT.
... You start with the premise that erosion can't reduce a mountain to a plain and then reject the evidence of it in the rock record. I DO NOT START WITH THIS AS A PREMISE. I LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE AND DRAW MY OWN CONCLUSIONS. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF IT IN THE ROCK RECORD. THERE ARE LUMPY ROCKS WITH FLAT SURFACES. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF HOW THEY GOT THAT WAY. THAT IS ALL MENTAL CONJURING, THEORY, ASSUMPTION... AAAAAAGH. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Shouted nonsense is still nonsense Faith.
If erosion/weathering moves material from high points and deposits it in the low places why would the surface not change from lumpy to smoother? After a while continuing to shout nonsense is just stupid.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 886 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
YOU DON'T HAVE EVIDENCE EITHER. YOU THINK IT COULD AND THAT'S THAT. HOW DO YOU KNOW EROSION COULD DO THIS? YOU THINK IT COULD. THAT'S NOT EVIDENCE, THAT'S NOT A VALID ARGUMENT. I think it could... you think it couldn't. So we are on equal footing here.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF IT IN THE ROCK RECORD. Are we going to discuss it or are you going to assert it? I have not asserted that erosion is the force that made "it" flat. I said what alternative is there? I said how do you know that erosion couldn't do that? I said we don't need to even discuss erosion if the GU is not even an unconformity; erosion is right off the table if the GU is not an unconformity.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF HOW THEY GOT THAT WAY. I bet there is... How about we check? Now is the Great Unconformity an unconformity or not? HBDWhoever 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Perhaps this would be a good time to remind you that according to your own version of events, the top of the Kaibab Plateau (blue) was exposed by erosion.
It's no less flat than all the things you keep claiming can't be produced by erosion because they're too flat. (Many of which geologists don't claim were produced by erosion, but which are perfectly ordinary bedding planes, so you're using a bad argument to fight against a straw man.)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Let's look at some more things that aren't flat.
Large paleovalleys carved into the underlying Redwall Limestone developed through dissolution i.e. karstification, and likely were enlarged by west-flowing streams. --- Timons and Karlstrom (eds.), Grand Canyon Geology, Geological Society of America, 2012. Sink holes, caverns, and solution cracks common in upper parts of the Redwall limestone are in places partly or entirely filled with red mudstone accumulated during deposition of the overlying Supai formation. --- E. D. McKee, U.S. Geological Survey, "The Redwall Limestone", Ninth Field Conference of the New Mexico Geological Society The top of the Mississippian Redwall limestone in the Grand Canyon area was subject to extensive karstification during a period of about 30 million years from the late Meramacian to early Morrowan time. This hiatus has recently been shown to be much shorter, possibly only 5 million years, in the western Grand Canyon where tidal and deltaic channels draining westward toward the retreating sea are eroded into the Redwall surface. These channels have average depths of about 107 m (350 ft). --- T. Troutman, University of Texas at Austin, "Genesis, Paleoenvironment, and Paleogeomorphology of the Mississippian Redwall Limestone Paleokarst, Hualapai Indian Reservation, Grand Canyon Area", Cave Research Foundation Newsletter vol. 29 no. 1, 2001.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
If you had bothered to read what I wrote you'd know that I was talking about the impossibility of eroding down to flatness tilted surfaces like the angular strata of an angular unconformity and lumpy surfaces like schist and granite, and specifically said I was NOT talking about naturally FLAT surfaces like the Kaibab which is the upper surface of a limestone layer. I SAID THAT IN SO MANY WORDS. Sheesh.
And your second post isn't addressing anything even remotely related to the topic here. Nobody here reads carefully, nobody thinks. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
No, there is no evidence of how they got that way, it's all fantasy.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Yes, amen. But while that's true of the Bible's descriptions of the heavens, it's not true of its statements about the creation of life and the age of the earth, which limit science to those statements. One thing we can say is that Christians are not of one mind about what you state here. Geocentrists would probably tell people who held your belief that they were letting science dictate their interpretation of the Bible, while people like me would insist that essentially none of the Bible is intended to teach science or mathematics.Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 886 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined:
|
Declaring there is no evidence is nothing but evasive. Of course there is evidence. Maybe there is not enough evidence to come to a conclusion; maybe the evidence doesn't support the premise; maybe what evidence there is supports a different hypothesis besides erosion... but there certainly is evidence.
We could compare two competing hypotheses and see which one better fits the evidence. If the erosion hypothesis has no evidence to support it, then the competing hypothesis should find at least some support. What you are saying is that you don't want to discuss the evidence, you just want to make unsupported declarations. You pretend that you have brought down the conventional view of geology and therefore any unsupported hypotheses are just as valid. That's nothing but basic denial. 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 886 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined:
|
The point Dr. A, edge and myself are trying to get across is that those surfaces you say couldn't be brought down by erosion because they are so flat are not flat.
So the question becomes "Can erosion make a lumpy, bumpy surface into a lumpy, bumpy surface?"
Nobody here reads carefully, nobody thinks. You're the worst one for this. When we "misunderstand" your point you just keep repeating the same thing over and over often resorting to yelling and name calling. I try different approaches trying to get at what your saying, you just keep up the same mantra "declaration X is right, just think about what I said." over and over. Sheesh yourself. HBDWhoever 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024