Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Motley Flood Thread (formerly Historical Science Mystification of Public)
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 473 of 877 (834623)
06-09-2018 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 469 by Faith
06-08-2018 9:48 PM


Re: The Smith cross-section
quote:
Of course you are missing the point as usual. It demonstrates that the strata were tilted as one block which demonstrates that tectonic deformation occurred after they were all in place. That's the whole point of this. But I think I should stop trying to make such simple obvfious points to you.
Since you claim to be able to see the strata in the 1910 diagram you should know that a more detailed look does not support the impression given by the Smith diagram. Relying on a misleading impression is hardly a good argument
A case based on two diagrams covering a small portion of the world is hardly a good case for any claim that applies to the whole of the globe. That you rely on a misleading feature of one and outright lie about the other (the Grand Canyon cross section contains strong evidence that the Supergroup was tilted long before the Tapeats was deposited on top of it) shows that you literally have no valid case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 469 by Faith, posted 06-08-2018 9:48 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 476 by Faith, posted 06-09-2018 7:56 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 477 of 877 (834629)
06-09-2018 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 476 by Faith
06-09-2018 7:56 AM


Re: The Smith cross-section
quote:
I posted a bunch of partial examples besides the two complete ones, and the case holds up. I'm sure I can dig up more if necessary.
Since neither of your complete examples has any worth at all how can you possibly think the case holds up?
If your two main examples are both false - and they are - the case does not hold up. That should be obvious to any sane person.
(I also note that the Grand Canyon has nothing from the Ordovician or Silurian periods, so it doesn’t exactly seem complete)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 476 by Faith, posted 06-09-2018 7:56 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 478 by Faith, posted 06-09-2018 8:22 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 479 of 877 (834632)
06-09-2018 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 478 by Faith
06-09-2018 8:22 AM


Re: The Smith cross-section
quote:
But they are both true. You are the one who is wrong.
The Smith cross-section is highly misleading as shown by the 1910 cross-section. The 1910 cross-section does not support your claims at all.
The Grand Canyon cross section has clear evidence that the Supergroup was tilted prior to the deposition of the Tapeats, despite your denial.
That is the truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 478 by Faith, posted 06-09-2018 8:22 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 481 by Faith, posted 06-09-2018 8:35 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 483 of 877 (834637)
06-09-2018 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 481 by Faith
06-09-2018 8:35 AM


Re: The Smith cross-section
quote:
Don't talk about images you are not producing yourself as evidence.
All the images I referred to are present in this thread. And whether I produced them or someone else is irrelevant.
quote:
I've made my point
If your point is that you are a liar you certainly have. You have not in any way provided any reason to think that you have any real evidence.
quote:
you are just trying to sound like you know something you don't.
On the contrary, I am talking about things that I do know. And that you know too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 481 by Faith, posted 06-09-2018 8:35 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 484 by Faith, posted 06-09-2018 8:47 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 485 of 877 (834639)
06-09-2018 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 484 by Faith
06-09-2018 8:47 AM


Re: The Smith cross-section
quote:
You are being purposely vague it seems to me. You talk about a "1910" something or other without bothering to be clear what you mean and I have no reason to think you know anything worth tracking down.
That is the cross section I produced at the start of this sub-thread.
As you can see it hardly agrees with your assertions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 484 by Faith, posted 06-09-2018 8:47 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 486 by Faith, posted 06-09-2018 8:55 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 490 of 877 (834645)
06-09-2018 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 486 by Faith
06-09-2018 8:55 AM


Re: The Smith cross-section
You can follow the thread back to Message 396 you can see the diagram there, you can see that it shows that there is a lot more to the cross section than Smith shows - largely because Smith only shows the uppermost rocks, and not what is going on lower down.
All you have to do is look.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 486 by Faith, posted 06-09-2018 8:55 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 512 by Faith, posted 06-10-2018 12:49 AM PaulK has replied

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


(1)
Message 514 of 877 (834685)
06-10-2018 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 512 by Faith
06-10-2018 12:49 AM


Re: The Smith cross-section
quote:
There is nothing about that diagram that changes anything I've said.
It shows that the Smith diagram is misleading and that the real situation does not support your claim. But since you’re outright lying about the other diagram I’m not surprised that you chose dishonesty here, too.
quote:
Siccar Point for instance, according to Lyell, shows that the strata that on the surface appear tilted are actually buckled in folds. In this case something else is going on, but it does not change the4 basic fact that the strata we
More importantly a fuller picture will give you a better understanding of what has occurred. And that fuller picture shows no sign that all the tectonic events occurred at the same time.
quote:
In this case something else is going on, but it does not change the4 basic fact that the strata were laid down first and THEN deformed.
Other than demolishing the evidence for your fact. But obviously that won’t stop you calling it a fact.
To take the most obvious points.
First rather than continuing straight down, as would be expected if all the strata were tilted as a block, the most steeply tilted strata level out and continue to the East. Except where they pinch out (also unexpected if they were tilted as a block).
Second there is a buried peak at the right end, which you claim you can’t see while seeing the strata. How you can see the strata rise and fall without seeing the peak I have no idea. Anyway the older strata instead of continuing down rise up. On top of them we see strata which are not present to the immediate west (whether they are continuations of strata that might be found further west or different rocks of similar age I can’t tell). The strata immediately on top of the peak are not deformed by the rise of the peak
(And that’s not mentioning the fact that there are a number of strata that appear to have been deposited on irregular surfaces - not following the surface but filling in the depressions. Whatever the cause of the irregularities that’s evidence that they were already there)
In short the idea that the real cross section can be explained by the strata all tilting as a block is absurd. Just look at it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 512 by Faith, posted 06-10-2018 12:49 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 516 by Faith, posted 06-10-2018 3:52 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 515 of 877 (834686)
06-10-2018 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 513 by Faith
06-10-2018 1:25 AM


Re: one fault line stream tributary vs meandering canyon
quote:
ABE: As a matter of fact I remember you from way way back just answering me with a couple of words, often "Why not?" or "Says you" and so on.
I can’t help noticing that those responses can’t really be characterised as unsupported assertions. They are, however, commonly responses to unsupported assertions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 513 by Faith, posted 06-10-2018 1:25 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 517 of 877 (834691)
06-10-2018 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 516 by Faith
06-10-2018 3:52 AM


Re: The Smith cross-section
quote:
Tilting is the appearance on surface and the fact remains that they are at an angle to the horizontal position of the4 original deposit, showing that the deformation occurred after all the strata were laid down, which is my main point;
The fact remains that the cross-section shows clear evidence of deformation before all the strata were deposited. So your main point is contrary to the evidence from both the locations you chose as your main examples.
quote:
Now that we can see the underground situation it remains true that they were all DEFORMED after they were laid down.
That’s what you say. The evidence says otherwise.
Let us note that I made arguments that you haven’t dealt with at all.
You’re just assuming that you’re right.
quote:
I can now "see" the right end but I can't make any sense of it. Whatever it is I'm sure it occurred after all the strata were laid down.
It makes sense if you drop that assumption.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 516 by Faith, posted 06-10-2018 3:52 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 518 by Faith, posted 06-10-2018 4:26 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 519 of 877 (834695)
06-10-2018 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 518 by Faith
06-10-2018 4:26 AM


Re: The Smith cross-section
quote:
It certainly does not. This kind of irrational assertion should be beneath you but obviously it's not
Telling the truth maybe irrational in your mind and you may consider it to be beneath you. I disagree.
quote:
The strata were laid down and then they all sagged as you see, as a whole unit, leaving some ends at the sur4face from which no doubt much sediment was broken off and washed away.
Don’t be silly. That is obviously untrue. If they sagged between the two peaks (Snowdon and the buried peak at the East) then the slopes should be in opposite directions at the two ends - but they aren’t. If you have the centre of the sag somewhere off to the East of the cross-section then the buried peak has to be due to something else. Either way, your vague description doesn’t come close to accounting for the diagram.
quote:
Enough nonsense. Cut it out.
You’re the one posting nonsense. Feel free to stop, any time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 518 by Faith, posted 06-10-2018 4:26 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 523 by edge, posted 06-10-2018 10:39 AM PaulK has not replied

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


Message 527 of 877 (834712)
06-10-2018 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 525 by Faith
06-10-2018 3:24 PM


quote:
The diagram shows the deformation of the strata below the usual baseline. It had to have deformed since being horizontally laid down, that is, AFTER it was deposited, which is the only point I'm making.
The point that you are trying to make is that there was no deformation of any stratum until all the strata had been deposited. There is plenty of evidence against that in the diagram.
quote:
Can't beat the authoritative-sounding willful assertion of total absurdities so I guess there's nothing more for me to say.
That’s your tactic and it isn’t working.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 525 by Faith, posted 06-10-2018 3:24 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 531 of 877 (834717)
06-10-2018 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 529 by Faith
06-10-2018 3:45 PM


quote:
Only by some really convoluted wacko reasoning. You can't get those neatly "tilted" rocks in a row that way.
As you know, that isn’t what we’ve got.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 529 by Faith, posted 06-10-2018 3:45 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 542 by Faith, posted 06-10-2018 4:51 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 541 of 877 (834730)
06-10-2018 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 540 by Faith
06-10-2018 4:43 PM


Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done with
quote:
I don't care if they erode or not, why does that matter? The point is they DIDN'T erode until they were all laid down as a block. How is that contradicted by the pictures?
By the evidence of massive erosion occurring before all the strata were deposited. The tilted surface of the Supergroup was heavily eroded before the Tapeats was deposited (that’s where the missing material went). Edge has pointed out similar features in the cross-section of Britain in Message 522

This message is a reply to:
 Message 540 by Faith, posted 06-10-2018 4:43 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 543 by Faith, posted 06-10-2018 4:53 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 544 of 877 (834733)
06-10-2018 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 542 by Faith
06-10-2018 4:51 PM


quote:
What you've got is deformation to strata as a unit or block, already laid down as a unit or block, in this case spanning all the time eras.
The tilting of the Supergroup didn’t affect the layers above it. The simple sensible explanation is that they weren’t there. The cross-section of Britain shows other examples. And we do have evidence of massive erosion before all the strata were deposited.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 542 by Faith, posted 06-10-2018 4:51 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 545 by Faith, posted 06-10-2018 4:59 PM PaulK has not replied

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


Message 546 of 877 (834735)
06-10-2018 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 543 by Faith
06-10-2018 4:53 PM


Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done with
quote:
We weren't talking about the Supergroup, why are you?
You were talking about the Colorado plateau. The Supergroup is in that region.
quote:
There's nothing in the cross section of England that shows erosion before deposition
As Edge explained, there is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 543 by Faith, posted 06-10-2018 4:53 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 547 by Faith, posted 06-10-2018 5:02 PM 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