Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win.
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1299 of 2887 (829640)
03-10-2018 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1297 by Percy
03-10-2018 3:52 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
A "knife-edge tight" contact would be too narrow to have a shadow be cast that is in it.
What do you think makes it appear darker then? Do canyon employees come along and trace it with a pencil or what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1297 by Percy, posted 03-10-2018 3:52 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1301 of 2887 (829642)
03-10-2018 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1300 by edge
03-10-2018 7:24 PM


Re: Grand Canyon Panorama Project
Reducing a FORMATION to dust means a ROCK.
So, the GC sediments were lithified?
I meant by "formation" the hoodoos and the Monument Valley buttes and that sort of thing. But perhaps they too weren't rock at the time they were eroded if I'm right that it was the receding Flood that did the first carving of them. So I've taken the position that compaction under miles of other sediments was enough consolidation to leave the buttes and take away all the material around them, to leave the whole limestone rock pretty much intact after exposure while starting the process of carving the hoodoos and so on, and left much of the Grand Canyon walls intact while washing away the less consolidated strata above the Permian and carving out the basic shape of the canyon.
And don't exaggerate the softness of the sediments at the end of the Flood. They were three miles deep so certainly highly compacted.
I knew you'd say that. Okay, so they were kinda-sorta-mildishly-weakly-yet-strongly-more-or-less tentatively lithified.
Compacted, not lithified yet, but compaction can produce a pretty hard formation anyway, in fact on a thread here quite a long time ago somebody found a site that said compaction does produce rock all by itself. Except for the very uppermost strata that got washed away I don't think it's right to describe any of the damp strata at the point the Flood receded as "soft" at all.
The point is that is becomes very difficult to see how soft rocks could so easily be eroded to depths and yet still form boulders, cobbles and gravel beds hundreds of miles away.
I'm not sure what you mean by "eroded to depths." You mean the cutting of the canyon? The amount of water involved that would have been rushing into the cracks in the strata would have sent chunks of material down the canyon to carve it out. But if the rocks weren't "soft" but highly consolidated or compacted they wouldn't just disintegrate, they'd break up into large pieces as well. Being washed down the canyon should do quite a bit of shaping wouldn't you think? But I'd also mention that you don't know WHEN any given boulders and gravel formed, do you?
And who knows what the gravel is you're sitting on anyway.
Yah, well, I've only talked to people who have been studying this stuff for decades; and really, where else did it come from? It's right there along the river in stranded gravel beds and it occurs from there for miles in some directions. If you have a better idea, I'd just love to hear about it.
I think I should have said you don't know WHEN the gravel you're sitting on arrived there, that is there's no reason to assume it washed there in the Flood water. Especially the gravel on the surface should have been deposited much more recently.
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 1300 by edge, posted 03-10-2018 7:24 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1302 by edge, posted 03-10-2018 10:56 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1303 of 2887 (829661)
03-11-2018 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1297 by Percy
03-10-2018 3:52 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
What "fine line" are you talking about? Is this the "darker fine line" that you still haven't revealed whether it's the shadow or something else?
Just reading a post of yours is like visiting the Twilight Zone or entering some weird torture chamber. Didn't I post the picture with the arrow pointing to the fine line? The tip of the arrow is right smack ON the fine line.
HERE'S THE PICTURE WITH THE ARROW AGAIN:
You keep adding the lighter band of rock to it for some reason, this one-inch "something" you're obsessed about that is just part of the Hermit rock though lighter because of the reflection of the sun on it, which means it's at a somewhat different angle from the Hermit rock. A slight ledge, a slight "beveled" angle, something like that. But the contact itself, the fine line itself is the line at the top of that band where the tip of the arrow touches it.
I read the lighter area beneath it as being at an angle that reflects the sun more directly than the rest.
Your eyes are telling you things that aren't there. The inch-side something is very unlikely to be at an angle. Here's the image that shows it best. The best that you can claim after viewing this image is that while it doesn't render it impossible that the inch-wide something is at an angle, it definitely doesn't look that way in the image.
It does to me and my eyes are just fine for this photo. The depressing weird thing is that YOU are the one who is seeing things wrong and blaming it on me. That's why I'd better get out of this weird place that is your mind as soon as possible for the sake of my health.
Click on it to expand:
But the important thing is that it is not the contact, the fine line is the contact.
Again, what do you mean by "fine line"? Where there's no shadow there's also no line. Look at the first vertical line from the left of sheered off rock in the Coconino layer. Where this vertical line meets the inch-wide something there is no shadow and no line.
It's the line at the very top of the inch-wide "something" you keep confusing with it.
The Coconino transitions abruptly into this inch-wide something.
This particular image also has pretty fair resolution. Blowing it up reveals that the texture of the inch-wide something is different from the Coconino, and it is different in both texture and color from the Hermit. Whatever this thin layer is, it is unlike the layers that adjoin it. Now maybe it's just that the very earliest Coconino deposits were different from those that came later. Or maybe it's some mixing of the Coconino and Hermit. Or maybe it's something else. I don't know, I'm not a geologist and I'm not there where I could study it anyway.
It's just an illusion of the light angle, Percy.
Appearing to be the same color as the Coconino is probably due to its reflecting that color, which is a typical optical effect.
No there is no rule that says a contact cannot be an inch thick,...
Is there a rule that says a "knife-edge tight" contact can be an inch thick?
Absolutely not. The rule is the English language. Knives are not an inch thick or they wouldn't cut anything. I can't believe I have to say this.
Edge calls it a sharp contact, and I give informed views very serious consideration, but I also have to give serious credence to what I can see with my own eyes in that image. That inch-thick something is not the same as the layers above and below it. That will be obvious to anyone with decent eyesight and a high-resolution monitor. My Macbook Pro is 2880x1800.
It's just an illusion of the way the light is falling on the rock at that point. Even texture can show up differently under different lights. Edge must be referring to the actual fine line contact when he calls it "sharp."
As Edge says, the inch-wide something is slightly recessive, hinting that it belongs with the Hermit. Also, the slabs of Coconino broke off at the top of it instead of the bottom, also hinting that it belongs with the Hermit. But Edge also mentions that in color it looks sandy, which isn't like the Hermit at all.
It's just an illusion caused by the way the light is hitting a slightly angled area of the Hermit just below the contact.
There's no way to tell what's really going on from an image. A geologist would probably walk up to the rock face and take samples above, below and at the inch-wide something that he then subjects to multiple analyses, which would certainly include examination by both eye and under a microscope, and I don't know what else. But even though we sitting here in our easy chairs have to concede that we can't possibly know the answers, that doesn't change the fact that the image alone tells us the inch-wide something is not the same as either the Coconino or the Hermit.
It's the Hermit looking lighter where the sunlight is hitting it more directly because of how the rock is angled. You are having a terrible time with your eyes. I am not.
...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.
Well, yes follow the discussion. There is an inch-wide something at a contact you've called "knife-edge tight."
The inch-wide something is the rock just below the contact that happens to be reflecting brighter sunlight than the rest of the rock.
You've called this contact unique, yet I've shown you an image of an even longer stretch of the Coconino/Hermit contact that looks just like that one, and here's yet another image of a different location where the Coconino/Hermit contact is just as clear and obvious as it was at other locations:
Since you can't read the photo in question accurately you aren't going to get anything else right either.
I said I think that stretch of contact MAY be unique "as far as I know" because it is singled out for its tightness. If there are other places with the same tightness that's fine, it doesn't matter. I don't want to get into another discussion with you about other photos.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
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 1297 by Percy, posted 03-10-2018 3:52 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1307 of 2887 (829669)
03-11-2018 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1306 by Percy
03-11-2018 9:04 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
Note that it labels the entire inch-wide something as the contact, and that it is just as vertical as the rest of the rock face. It is not "knife-edge tight," but it is certainly a sharp contact.
The arrow is indeed ambiguously placed but I can't see this any other way than I saw the others: the black shadowed line is the contact, the rock just beneath it is Hermit, whatever the cause of its appearing lighter. And it still looks like it could be at a slight angle to me.
You are simply not going to find a contact line dividing the bottom of a formation like the Coconino from a tiny portion of itself and if it did there would be another contact line beneath the lower portion of the Coconino dividing it from the Hermit anyway, which is not there. The identifying feature of a contact between two formations like the Hermit and the Coconino is that it does in fact divide the Hermit from the Coconino.
And again, since others have called this contact line remarkably or unusually tight that alone is reason to know the light section is NOT part of the contact line. I'm sure both Paul Garner and Baumgardner have seen this up close and personal and would not misidentify something so obvfious.
This is from the paper Paleozoic stratigraphy of part of northwestern Arizona. I'm unable to get to the paper itself, so I can't get more detail. This quote comes via a Google Scholar search, and without more context a conclusive interpretation isn't possible, but it seems to imply that the contact between the Coconino and the Hermit is made of sandstone, which would make it part of the Coconino Sandstone, not the Hermit Shale:
quote:
The upper contact of the Hermit formation with the Coconino sandstone is abrupt and is marked
by a sharply defined line separating pink and gray sandstones.
But
  • it clearly says the contact is "abrupt" and
  • "marked by a sharply defined line" which certainly doesn't include the lighter part
  • and that it is between the Hermit and the Coconino.
  • If that is sandstone right beneath it, it is part of the Hermit, not the Coconino.
  • It also says it is a different color from the other sandstone, one being gray the other pink, showing that it is not part of the Coconino.
  • It's absurd to think there would be a clear contact within the Coconino at that level rather than dividing the Hermit from the Coconino.
So you would be right about it being a different color and sediment from the Hermit but wrong about everything else.
ABE: And now I see that HBD has posted more information about this which says the Hermit is not shale but sandstone anyway.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
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 1306 by Percy, posted 03-11-2018 9:04 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1329 by Percy, posted 03-12-2018 12:28 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1309 of 2887 (829672)
03-11-2018 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1305 by jar
03-11-2018 7:09 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
When one layer is deposited on another layer won't the contact between the two layers always be "knife edge" unless there is mixing? Is there even some known process where the contact between two layers could be anything other than a "knife edge"?
The contact lines between many of the different layers have some small amount of erosion which makes them NOT "knife-edge" tight. This particular one is POINTED OUT FOR ITS TIGHTNESS, which certainly suggests it's at least unusual among the contact lines, otherwise there would be no point in singling it out. Percy's weird idea that a contact would be described as "knife-edge" which is really an inch thick is just beyond bizarre.
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 1305 by jar, posted 03-11-2018 7:09 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1314 by jar, posted 03-12-2018 8:05 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1311 of 2887 (829674)
03-11-2018 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1310 by edge
03-11-2018 11:32 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
t's starting to look like there was some kind of seismic event or events, that liquified the base of the Coconino and caused injection into fractures forming in the Hermit near the Bright Angel Fault.
This is very much the same interpretation of the sand in the Hermit cracks that a member of Paul Garner's British creationist team is pursuing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1310 by edge, posted 03-11-2018 11:32 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1312 by edge, posted 03-11-2018 11:46 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1315 of 2887 (829678)
03-12-2018 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1314 by jar
03-12-2018 8:05 AM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thickEros
The area is singled out because it's unusual and because it is evidence against millions of years between depositions.
Erosion can occur in the contact between layers from water runoff or tectonic moveme4nt. In any case the erosion that is seen is not what would be found on the surface. What's impossible is that any layer could have been deposited over millions of years.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1314 by jar, posted 03-12-2018 8:05 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1317 by jar, posted 03-12-2018 8:20 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1318 of 2887 (829682)
03-12-2018 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1317 by jar
03-12-2018 8:20 AM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thickEros
The evidence is what you see when you look at the surface of the earth now. It looks nothing like what we see between layers of the geo column.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1317 by jar, posted 03-12-2018 8:20 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1320 by edge, posted 03-12-2018 9:05 AM Faith has replied
 Message 1322 by jar, posted 03-12-2018 9:11 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1321 of 2887 (829686)
03-12-2018 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1320 by edge
03-12-2018 9:05 AM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thickEros
The Mesozoic and Cenozoic layers look exactly the same and in fact there are lots of very tight contacts there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1320 by edge, posted 03-12-2018 9:05 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1345 by edge, posted 03-12-2018 9:17 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1323 of 2887 (829689)
03-12-2018 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1322 by jar
03-12-2018 9:11 AM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thickEros
You are not talking about what anything LOOKS LIKE, you are talking about bits and pieces and odds and ends of stuff that are associated with particular sources and make the interpretive leap to the conclusion that those landscapes actually once existed there. You are NOT looking at the actual surface of the earth in any supposed "time period" but that is what we'd have to see for any of the geological timescale to be true..
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1322 by jar, posted 03-12-2018 9:11 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1324 by jar, posted 03-12-2018 10:08 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1325 of 2887 (829691)
03-12-2018 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1324 by jar
03-12-2018 10:08 AM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thickEros
Tracks occurred during the Flood between waves or when the tide was out, sand dunes were just transported sand, that isn't a stream bed, tree stumps were transported etc etc etc, and of course it was all "originally on the surface" but the Flood moved all kinds of things that were originally on the surface, and what we don't see is an actual earth surface in any of the layers, which would have to be there if the whole "time periods" notion had any truth to it. But there is only these flat slabs of rock one on top of another stretching for long distances. And again, The Wave sure looks like something that was shaped in water.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1324 by jar, posted 03-12-2018 10:08 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1326 by jar, posted 03-12-2018 10:23 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 1328 by herebedragons, posted 03-12-2018 11:17 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1333 of 2887 (829719)
03-12-2018 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1331 by Percy
03-12-2018 1:33 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
Also, I looked up the Bright Angel Fault but couldn't find anything about whether there was slippage along the fault during deposition of the Paleozoic layers, something Faith would be interested in since she believes the region completely tectonically quiescent during the period.
Conventional Geology is always interpreting this or that event or phenomenon to have occurred during this or that time period, but just because some effects can be seen in those rocks doesn't mean that's when the event or phenomenon occurred. Especially since the whole stack was built by the Flood and there's not really any "when" to any particular layer unless you're counting in hours or days.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1331 by Percy, posted 03-12-2018 1:33 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1336 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-12-2018 3:31 PM Faith has replied
 Message 1341 by Percy, posted 03-12-2018 5:31 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1334 of 2887 (829720)
03-12-2018 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1332 by Tanypteryx
03-12-2018 1:55 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
Flat and straight refers to the appearance of strata from a distance, has nothing to do with variations in thickness over thousands of square miles. The point as usual is that the apparance of flatness defies the idea of millions of years between layers.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1332 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-12-2018 1:55 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1339 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-12-2018 3:54 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1335 of 2887 (829721)
03-12-2018 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1329 by Percy
03-12-2018 12:28 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
You're stilll just repeating your opinion without evidence. What evidence tells you that the inch-wide something is part of the Hermit?
THE APPEARANCE AND PLACEMENT OF THE KNIFE-EDGE TIGHT CONTACT ABOVE IT, WHICH IS ELABORATED IN MY BULLETED LIST. SHEESH.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1329 by Percy, posted 03-12-2018 12:28 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1342 by Percy, posted 03-12-2018 5:40 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1337 of 2887 (829723)
03-12-2018 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1328 by herebedragons
03-12-2018 11:17 AM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thickEros
When I'm responding to jar, whose posts are usually just a bunch of wild assertions and accusations, I don't usually bother to try to prove anything, so "looks like" is the best he's going to get from me. I'm just countering his assertions with assertions from the other point of view.
Remember that, according to you, the surface was violently stripped of materials during inundation by a flood that has no equal. How did animals survive that to be happily skipping around between waves? It doesn't add up..
I've noticed you like to embellish my concepts with terms like "violent." What I usually say is that forty days and nights of heavy rain everywhere on the earth should have stripped the sediment from the land, and I've often given the example of local floods that collapse hills and bury cars and that sort of thing to give a basis for trying to imagine the same kind of event multiplied a billion times. But it doesn't have to be "ALL" the sediment.
What you are imagining is landscapes being captured like a snap shot of time. And you say that if long periods of time existed we should find these "snap shots" throughout the geological record. But in reality, the type of process that would be required to capture a "snap shot" of time in a landscape is a major, rapid flooding event. But we don't see that. We see the result of slow, gradual processes that work to destroy the current surface and build up new surfaces. What you imagine doesn't line up with reality.
\
It's conventional Geology that gives us those "snapshots," by taking the isolated bits and pieces from a rock and constructing a whole scenario based on them.
out the paleosols, termite nests and in situ root systems I presented in Message 993. Those were transported? To the location where apparent ancestral population migrated after the flood? Seems kinda speculative... actually beyond speculative and into nonsense.
Of course paleosols were transported, and root systems, no problem with those. Your language conjures up a whole intact termites' nest but all these things are usually just the bits and pieces I'm talking about, not whole anythings. And dinosaur nests too are usually just smashed flattened remnants yet they get described as if they are intact, just the way a fossilized leaf and a fossilized creature become whole exotic landscapes with trees and animals of a particular "time period."
But the main evidence of the Flood is in the way the strata were laid down and everything else has to follow from that though they may be hard to explain..
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
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 1328 by herebedragons, posted 03-12-2018 11:17 AM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1347 by edge, posted 03-12-2018 9:48 PM Faith has replied
 Message 1354 by herebedragons, posted 03-12-2018 11:42 PM Faith 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