|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Motley Flood Thread (formerly Historical Science Mystification of Public) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: All the images I referred to are present in this thread. And whether I produced them or someone else is irrelevant.
quote: 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: On the contrary, I am talking about things that I do know. And that you know too.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: That is the cross section I produced at the start of this sub-thread. As you can see it hardly agrees with your assertions.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: 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: 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: 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: I can’t help noticing that those responses can’t really be characterised as unsupported assertions. They are, however, commonly responses to unsupported assertions.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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: 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: It makes sense if you drop that assumption.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Telling the truth maybe irrational in your mind and you may consider it to be beneath you. I disagree.
quote: 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: You’re the one posting nonsense. Feel free to stop, any time.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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: That’s your tactic and it isn’t working.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: As you know, that isn’t what we’ve got.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: You were talking about the Colorado plateau. The Supergroup is in that region.
quote: As Edge explained, there is.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024