Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win.
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1261 of 2887 (829579)
03-09-2018 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1259 by Faith
03-09-2018 5:28 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
Faith writes:
Faith writes:
The contact in the picture is that fine dark line above the roughly one-inch thick beveled part of the Hermit...
I think you're mistaking a shadow for a "fine dark line". If there were truly a thin dark layer of strata at the bottom of the Coconino then it would not go completely unremarked upon by geologists.
The line is dark because of the shadow IN the contact, which is very fine because the contact is so tight.
That would be incorrect. The shadow isn't present along the entire contact. It's easier to see in the other image that the shadow is due to the Coconino sticking out just a little bit above the Hermit. This makes sense since the Hermit is softer rock than the Coconino and erodes more quickly. Here's the other image. Be sure to click on it to expand it, it makes it much easier to see the Coconino sticking out a bit above the Hermit:
That's how much of a "gap" there is between the Hermit and the Coconino. Sheesh, Percy, are you really this obtuse?
Well, glad to see you never start anything.
"Thin dark layer of strata???????" It's the CONTACT for pete's sake, it's where the Hermit stops and the Coconino begins.
You called it a "fine dark line", not a shadow, so I assumed you thought it was something real rather than an artifact of the light, which means it would have to be a fine dark line of strata at the bottom of the Coconino. I was merely describing how what you said implied something that couldn't possibly be true. *I* understood it was a shadow, which is why I said, "I think you're mistaking a shadow for a 'fine dark line'."
And if what you're calling the "one-inch thick beveled part" were truly part of the Hermit, then why isn't it the same color as the Hermit? It is instead the same color as the Coconino.
As I said, it's lighter because the sun is shining more directly on it because it's at a slight angle to the Hermit, which is what I meant by "beveled." If you are no better at reading a photo than this it makes conversation with you worse than tedious, it makes it futile for anyone else actually trying to make a point.
The image above reveals there to be no bevel. That little inch-wide section is just as vertical as the rest of the rock face. The "fine dark line" is a shadow, and we still don't know what that Coconino-colored inch-wide section is.
No wonder you had a billion irrelevant tedious questions, which is so typical of you.
Well, I do agree that this Coconino/Hermit contact isn't very relevant now that Edge has pointed out that some of the things on the web about it are incorrect, such as the discontinuity being millions of years old. Edge doesn't even believe it's a discontinuity but a diastem. That's the benefit of discussion, you learn things.
It's nevertheless important because it is very unusual and perhaps unique as such a tight contact in the whole Grand Canyon. It gets pointed out for that reason alone though calling it an unconformity may make it slightly more dramatic. It's only relatively unimportant in this context of your making such a huge issue of it which I now understand is due to your misreading of the photo.
This would be incorrect, on a couple counts. First, I did not misread the photo.
Second, that section of Coconino is not "unique as such a tight contact in the whole Grand Canyon." In my Message 1254 I provided an image of the Coconino/Hermit boundary from elsewhere in the canyon, and it looks exactly the same. You replied about it in your Message 1260, so I'll address that here:
Faith in Message 1260 writes:
I've been looking at the yellow line you put in the second photo and its magnified section and can't figure out what on earth it's supposed to be pointing to. It seems to confirm that you have a very strange idea of what the boundary between the two rocks is.
I think your eyesight may be limiting you here. Here's the image again:
The lower left of the image contains a blowup (bordered in yellow and labeled "B") of the section of the rockface that is pointed to by the yellow line in the main image that is labeled "A". Click on the image to expand it and look at the blown up section in the lower left. You'll be able to see that this section of the Coconino/Hermit interface is just like the one from the Bright Angel Trail, with that little inch-wide something between the Coconino and the Hermit, and with shadows cast from the Coconino because it sticks out just a tiny bit further from the rockface below it.
I hope someone else comes along to disabuse you of your wrong idea about the photo but meanwhile I've learned, not for the first time, that you are so bad at this it's only ulcer-making futility for me to stay in the conversation.
I think if you stick with the discussion that you'll see the images support what I've been saying.
So what about all those other issues?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1259 by Faith, posted 03-09-2018 5:28 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1262 by jar, posted 03-09-2018 8:30 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1263 by edge, posted 03-09-2018 8:35 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1264 by Faith, posted 03-09-2018 10:11 PM Percy has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 1262 of 2887 (829580)
03-09-2018 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1261 by Percy
03-09-2018 6:31 PM


And the fact remains...
The Coconino is NOT the product of any flood; it is wind blown sand.
quote:
The Coconino Sandstone is typically buff to white in color. It consists primarily of fine well sorted quartz grains, with minor amounts of potassium feldspar grains deposited by eolian processes (wind-deposited) approximately 260 million years ago. Several structural features such as ripple marks, sand dune deposits, rain patches, slump marks, and fossil tracks are not only well preserved within the formation, but also contribute evidence of its eolian origin.
We have the Coconino Sandstone so we win.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1261 by Percy, posted 03-09-2018 6:31 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 1263 of 2887 (829581)
03-09-2018 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1261 by Percy
03-09-2018 6:31 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
Well, there is some apparent discoloration below the main sandstone bed. As to what it is we can only guess. There are several things that it could be. My guess is that it would be mapped in with the Hermit because it is slightly recessive, but the color looks sandy.
Perhaps someone has a drone to take some close-up pictures?
But it's all really moot since, my understanding is that the the Coconino interfingers with the Hermit in some places.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1261 by Percy, posted 03-09-2018 6:31 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 1264 of 2887 (829582)
03-09-2018 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1261 by Percy
03-09-2018 6:31 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
Yes I see the contact line in the blown up picture and it's knife-edge tight. There are bits of the Coconino overhanging and causing shadows.
But I was saying that the reason the contact is a darker fine line than the surrounding rock is that we're seeing the shadow that is IN the contact. And I can tell you don't get it, you don't get any of this and I guess nobody is going to straighten you out about it, nothing surprising there, but I'm tired of being the butt of your failures of comprehension.
No, if you still think the contact is an inch thick or that the lighter band beneath the contact doesn't belong to the Hermit, you are not getting it and I am not interested in discussing any of this with you.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1261 by Percy, posted 03-09-2018 6:31 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1267 by herebedragons, posted 03-09-2018 11:50 PM Faith has replied
 Message 1269 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-10-2018 12:13 AM Faith has replied
 Message 1297 by Percy, posted 03-10-2018 3:52 PM Faith has replied

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


(2)
Message 1265 of 2887 (829583)
03-09-2018 11:32 PM


Grand Canyon Panorama Project
I thought people might appreciate this link. It is a series of panoramic images thorough the Grand Canyon. Really, really spectacular!!!! You can explore most of the major parts of the canyon and even some minor areas. Hint: I found that if you click on the zoom button 3 or 4 times before panning around, it is much easier to see and navigate.
There is a geology section where there is some brief discussion of the different formations. You click on the geology tab and then you can choose your favorite formation. The images in that section are really cool, the lines that define the formations fade in and out so you can look at the image with and with out the visual aids. When you click on the image, you are taken to the panoramic view of that location.
Its not real heavy on the fine points of the geology (it won't help determine the nature of the contact between the Hermit shale and the Coconino) but it should give a good perspective about how much rock is down there and how much material needed to be removed to form the canyon. If you look down at the ground, you can see the rock being turned to "dust." You should also be able to see that the process takes a lot of time. You don't turn that amount of material to dust in a few thousand years... there's just no way.
Anyway, check it out. It really is the next best thing to being there.
Grand Canyon Panoramic Project
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 1266 by Faith, posted 03-09-2018 11:43 PM herebedragons has replied

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


Message 1266 of 2887 (829584)
03-09-2018 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1265 by herebedragons
03-09-2018 11:32 PM


Re: Grand Canyon Panorama Project
You should also be able to see that the process takes a lot of time. You don't turn that amount of material to dust in a few thousand years... there's just no way.
It sounds like you think somebody said that would happen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1265 by herebedragons, posted 03-09-2018 11:32 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1276 by herebedragons, posted 03-10-2018 10:48 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 1267 of 2887 (829585)
03-09-2018 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1264 by Faith
03-09-2018 10:11 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
I am wondering if you have had a recent miraculous healing... anytime I present an image or a figure to you, you are completely unable to read it due to your eyes (age-related macular degeneration, I believe it was). Now here you are able to pick out the finest details in an image and call out Percy for foul play because he sees it differently.
Priceless.

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 1264 by Faith, posted 03-09-2018 10:11 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1268 by Faith, posted 03-10-2018 12:03 AM herebedragons has not replied

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


Message 1268 of 2887 (829586)
03-10-2018 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1267 by herebedragons
03-09-2018 11:50 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
I can't see bright white images with thinline writing or images on them and those are very common. Photos with decent lighting I can usually make out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1267 by herebedragons, posted 03-09-2018 11:50 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 1269 of 2887 (829587)
03-10-2018 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1264 by Faith
03-09-2018 10:11 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
No, if you still think the contact is an inch thick or that the lighter band beneath the contact doesn't belong to the Hermit
Do you have a reference that that says what that light ~1 inch light band is? Does it make any difference to your argument if the cantact is at the top of the light band or at the bottom of the light band or actually is the ~1 inch light band?
I can tell you that the 1 inch band is lighter than the material above and below it. The same light illuminating it is also illuminating the whole wall, so there is nothing about the light that is effecting that thin layer and making it look brighter.
But I was saying that the reason the contact is a darker fine line than the surrounding rock is that we're seeing the shadow that is IN the contact.
I don't know what you mean by IN the contact, but guess you mean the shadow is falling across the contact line.
And I can tell you don't get it, you don't get any of this and I guess nobody is going to straighten you out about it, nothing surprising there, but I'm tired of being the butt of your failures of comprehension.
Is it your superiority at reading photographs of strata that tells you that the thin bright band is not the contact or is it based on someone else's analysis? If the former, then surely you can tell us why the band looks different and as I already said, it is not because of lighting, it is caused by what minerals make up that band.
No, if you still think the contact is an inch thick or that the lighter band beneath the contact doesn't belong to the Hermit, you are not getting it and I am not interested in discussing any of this with you.
So, is there some principle of stratiography that says the contact cannot be an inch thick? What is it that convinces you that the light band belongs to the Hermit?

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1264 by Faith, posted 03-09-2018 10:11 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1270 by Faith, posted 03-10-2018 12:51 AM Tanypteryx has replied
 Message 1277 by edge, posted 03-10-2018 11:13 AM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 1270 of 2887 (829588)
03-10-2018 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1269 by Tanypteryx
03-10-2018 12:13 AM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
If someone describes a contact between layers as the tightest they've ever seen or uses a descripture term like "knife-edge" I know it is knife-edge tight and not an inch thick. Why Percy doesn't know that I can't fathom but I had no problem at all just looking at the picture and knowing that the fine line is the contact. I read the lighter area beneath it as being at an angle that reflects the sun more directly than the rest. But the important thing is that it is not the contact, the fine line is the contact.
No there is no rule that says a contact cannot be an inch thick, but follow the discussion: this contact line in this particular section of the GC is pointed out for its extreme tightness which wouldn't be the case if it were an inch thick.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1269 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-10-2018 12:13 AM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1271 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-10-2018 1:11 AM Faith has replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(1)
Message 1271 of 2887 (829589)
03-10-2018 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1270 by Faith
03-10-2018 12:51 AM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
No there is no rule that says a contact cannot be an inch thick, but follow the discussion: this contact line in this particular section of the GC is pointed out for its extreme tightness which wouldn't be the case if it were an inch thick.
I was following the discussion and you still didn't say how you know "the important thing is that is not the contact, the fine line is the contact." Why is that the important thing? How do you know?
this contact line in this particular section of the GC is pointed out for its extreme tightness which wouldn't be the case if it were an inch thick.
So, a 1 inch thick layer could never ever be considered a tight contact in a canyon that is thousands of feet deep? Really? Are you daft?

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1270 by Faith, posted 03-10-2018 12:51 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1272 by Faith, posted 03-10-2018 1:39 AM Tanypteryx has not replied

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


Message 1272 of 2887 (829590)
03-10-2018 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1271 by Tanypteryx
03-10-2018 1:11 AM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
The daftness here is what I'm up against in this utterly absurd conversation. All I mean by "the important thing" is that it's what we are talking about for cryin out loud. We're talking about the CONTACT LINE and the contact line is that very fine line just below the Coconino, and not the lighter band beneath it no matter what the nature of that band might be. Sheesh. A one inch contact line would not be described as "knife-edge" tight even if it was tighter than others in the canyon. It's hard to believe the absurdities you're willing to sink to in trying to put me in the wrong about something as obvious as this.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1271 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-10-2018 1:11 AM Tanypteryx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1273 by herebedragons, posted 03-10-2018 9:34 AM Faith has replied

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


(1)
Message 1273 of 2887 (829595)
03-10-2018 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1272 by Faith
03-10-2018 1:39 AM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
The daftness here is what I'm up against in this utterly absurd conversation.
No, Faith... the daftness here is that a person with a serious visual impairment would argue so vehemently about fine details in an image from the internet. How many times have we had these types of arguments?? It's ridiculous. That you would be so cock-sure that you are right about a detail that you obviously can't really see accurately just demonstrates your lack of humility and your inability to approach evidence in an honest and objective way.
It is obvious to anyone who can accurately see the image that there is something going on at that contact. I have looked at several photos of that transition and in some places there is almost no transition and in other places there appears to be a band of lighter colored material between the two layers that Percy is talking about. The exact nature of that band can not be determined from a photograph; there is just not enough detail. You can't tell grain size or composition, nor how they intermix. None of us can tell for sure - from an image - what that light colored band is... and I have much less confidence in your ability to do than others. It could be a mixing of materials, it could be chemical weathering, it could be bleaching, it could be a separate layer, it could be the way light reflects off a bevel as you say... but it is impossible to tell for sure from a photograph. I didn't find anything written about it in a brief search except for a comment on the Panoramic Project link I posted yesterday that said the transition occurs in less than an inch. So that comment would support the idea of a minute amount of intermixing, but it's not clear.
Regardless... the bigger point is: How could the flood make such a clean transition? You are trying to make this claim of a "knife-edge contact" to say that traditional geology can't explain it, but in reality... your flood scenario is what can't explain it. How could waves surging over the Hermit Shale lay down a huge layer of seemingly wind-blown grains of sand without disturbing the layer beneath. Did the Hermit Shale have time to harden between waves? Was the rising of the waves gentle and slow?
That's whats daft. That you think that the contact between the Hermit and Cononino supports your story.
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 1272 by Faith, posted 03-10-2018 1:39 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1274 by Faith, posted 03-10-2018 9:41 AM herebedragons has replied
 Message 1278 by edge, posted 03-10-2018 11:28 AM herebedragons has not replied

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


Message 1274 of 2887 (829596)
03-10-2018 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1273 by herebedragons
03-10-2018 9:34 AM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
NOBODY would refer to a one-inch-thick area between strata as "knife-edge" tight. Nobody. Nobody would refer to it as so unusually tight they wish they could take people there to see how tight it is (Garner in video of GC lecture). You don't need to know any more about it to know that the contact in question is the fine line and has nothing to do with anything else in the picture. All the rest of your cogitations are totally irrelevant to this one simple point. That's all that matters, that the line is that tight at that location, everything else is utterly and totally and completely irrelevant. You don't need to postulate anything about the cause of it, whether Flood or whatever, all you need to do is recognize what the contact line is. Sheesh. But perhaps this explains the craziness going on here. You're all so afraid it might be used to justify the Flood you can't even recognize the simple fact that the contact is indeed "knife-edge tight."
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 1273 by herebedragons, posted 03-10-2018 9:34 AM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1275 by herebedragons, posted 03-10-2018 10:43 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 1280 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-10-2018 12:09 PM Faith has replied

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


(1)
Message 1275 of 2887 (829598)
03-10-2018 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1274 by Faith
03-10-2018 9:41 AM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
NOBODY would refer to a one-inch-thick area between strata as "knife-edge" tight. Nobody. Nobody would refer to it as so unusually tight they wish they could take people there to see how tight it is (Garner in video of GC lecture).
Oh... so you really can't see the image, you are just going from the description of "knife-edge tight" by a creationist lecturer. Ahhhh.... I get it now....
I don't really consider "knife-edge" to be any kind of real description of the contact, just a term for general audiences. That description doesn't really tell us anything useful.
But OK, you convinced me. The contact between the Hermit Shale and the Coconino sandstone is remarkably tight. This would mean it represents an unconformity where there was an interruption in sedimentation and the Hermit Shale was exposed at the surface for some amount of time and was able to harden before the Coconino sands were blown onto it. So, I guess you win this argument.
But.... how does that support a worldwide flood?
But perhaps this explains the craziness going on here. You're all so afraid it might be used to justify the Flood you can't even recognize the simple fact that the contact is indeed "knife-edge tight."
Why would we be afraid of that since it doesn't do anything to justify the flood. In fact, transitions like that make flood deposition untenable. Unless you have some argument or evidence that a flood deposits layers with "knife-edge" contacts?
What the issue is, is the misrepresentations and distortions that creationists use to support their flood narrative and then declaring those assertions to be good science.
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 1274 by Faith, posted 03-10-2018 9:41 AM Faith 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