|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,472 Year: 3,729/9,624 Month: 600/974 Week: 213/276 Day: 53/34 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Motley Flood Thread (formerly Historical Science Mystification of Public) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
The principle of cross-cutting relationships is simple. You can’t cut something that isn’t there.
Around the centre of the map (beneath and to the left of the Jurassic label) you will see that the lowest strata curve up - and stop. They have been cut by an erosional surface. The rocks immediately above do not follow the upward curve at all - they were clearly deposited on an irregular surface, but filled it in rather than following it. Likewise, beneath the Cretaceous label, there are strata curving upwards, along the side of the buried peak, and strata above them that do not follow that upwards curve at all. Again they seem to be deposited on an irregular surface, and some of them pinch out before reaching the buried peak.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Actually no. I am arguing that we can tell that the deformed strata have been eroded after deformation. And we can do that by seeing that the strata have been cut off - they terminate where they meet the stratum above, which has not suffered the same deformation.
quote: No. To start with the last point I mentioned that it was not impossible for later strata to follow the uplift - not that they had actually done so. I don’t remember anyone insisting otherwise, ever. However, the fact that the upper and lower surfaces are not parallel (while the strata when shown are) does indicate in this case that the irregularities were filled in rather than being the result of later deformation.
quote: I don’t see anything like that, while the diagram is really clear:
Your images again:
In the second one it looks very much as if the fold occurred before the unfolded rock above it was deposited.
quote: No it doesn’t.
quote: Your usual baseless whining is noticed. First, if we are going to show evidence of deformation occurring before all the strata were deposited we have to show deformed strata. Second, places where the deformation is cut off are extremely good evidence of erosion occurring before all the strata were deposited. Third, you brought up this cross section by using the misleading Smith diagram and a correction was needed. Fourth, part of that correction is showing that the more accurate diagram includes evidence against your claims. Whining that people dare to show that you are wrong - as you frequently do - is hardly sensible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: It’s a LACK of deformation on top of deformation. The upper layers do not show the same deformation. (They may show some but not the same) That the strata are cut off is an observation. They rise until they meet the upper strata and then stop. From this we conclude that the deformed lower layers were truncated by erosion and then the upper layers were deposited on top.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: In reality it is my ideas that make sense and yours that do not. We are not limited to simply classifying rocks as deformed or not. We can look at and analyse the deformation and we can tell the difference between different deformations. Thus even if both strata are deformed we can see that there was deformation that affected the lower strata but not the upper strata. In that case we certainly can’t assume that they occurred at the same time - in fact it is evidence that the upper strata weren’t there when the initial deformation occurred. We have a very clear examples in the Grand Canyon. The tilt of the Supergroup is distinct from the effects of the uplift - at the Canyon rim the Supergroup tilts up while the uplifted strata tilts down. Here it is your argument that makes no sense - we have two distinct events and no reason to say that they happened at the same time. And then we have the erosion of the lower strata. The fact that this erosion cuts the deformed surface indicates that it occurred after the deformation. (And this certainly does relate to the original laying down of the upper strata - it is evidence that they were originally laid down on the deformed and then eroded surface of the lower strata.) So now we have two lines of evidence supporting the idea that there was an event which deformed the lower strata before the upper strata were deposited. So far from having no reason to think that all the deformation occurred after the upper strata were deposited we have two very strong reasons to think that some of it occurred before the upper strata were in place. And we have examples of this for both regions you use as evidence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: There won’t be erosion where there is continuos deposition (by definition) and erosion is usually visible. The fact that you look for erosion in very limited ways doesn’t mean that it isn’t there. Deformation on the other hand will naturally affect multiple strata. There’s no way to limit it to a single stratum. So obviously it is going to affect blocks. That’s why the absence of deformation or a particular deformation is significant - if a deformational event didn’t affect a layer it’s often because the layer wasn’t there to be affected.
quote: But only because you assume that your conclusions are correct. I’m taking the simple and natural interpretation, and you don’t have any evidence to counter that. And until you do you can’t honestly claim that either diagram supports your assertions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: In other words you choose to ignore the evidence from beneath the surface. Please explain how you can possibly hope to reach the correct conclusion by ignoring most of the relevant evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: I’ve explained to you why the evidence says otherwise. Please do me the courtesy of explaining the basis for your conclusion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: It is complex, and what is going on underground doesn’t show in the surface. And that is why you need to look below the surface. It is absolutely not a case of the strata being deposited horizontally and then all tilting together. In fact the evidence pretty clearly indicates that there are multiple events and that they occurred during deposition.
quote: But it is not a simple sagging as I pointed out. The Cretaceous strata are mildly tilted up towards their Western end, but underneath the lowest strata are rising quite steeply towards the East. This makes absolutely no sense assuming a single deformation.
quote: Underground it’s much close to vertical stacking for most of the diagram. With at least four eroded surfaces - showing at this scale! - between layers.
quote: Except where they aren’t which indicates separate events, occurring before some of the strata were deposited. The Eastern end again is just so obvious.
quote: Again, except where they don’t
quote: Absolutely not. If they were parallel to the upper strata they couldn’t be cut off. What you mean, I think is that the upper strata is roughly parallel to the eroded surface - which is not parallel to the strata. But that is a very different thing and consistent with my view, not opposing it. The more so since there are large irregularities in the lower strata not reproduced in the upper.
quote: That there has been later deformation doesn’t really hurt my point much. The evidence is still there.
quote: Again you’ve raised no valid objection to my order of events or explained the evidence in terms of your order. The situation underground still looks like multiple deformational events and multiple cases of large scale erosion occurring while the strat were being laid down (of course the strata were not being laid down while erosion was occurring but they were laid down before and after)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Well, yeah. If you look at a map of the surface rather than the cross-section you can also see that Faith’s idea that the strata were simply tilted in a single event is less than plausible. I pointed that out the first time Faith tried using the Smith cross-section.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: The more complete cross-section - which is not Smith’s and date# from 1910 is certainly clear. And it clearly shows a long history of events.
quote: And yet you can only answer my arguments by making claims that are obviously false, that obviously disagree with the actual diagram. How could it be more obvious that you are wrong ?
quote: I’ve given reasons. If you refuse to see them that’s your problem. The idea that we can’t see differences in deformation - we can’t even notice differences in direction - is obviously insane. We can see them on the diagram. I suppose you have to blind yourself avoid admitting that your lovely invention could be wrong (even though it was obviously wrong from the start) Of course if we couldn’t tell that there were multiple episodes of deformation there would be no way to tell that you were right, either. But reasoning is another area you can’t really handle.
quote: In other words it is NOT obvious that you are correct. In fact you are running away because you can’t defend your claims. Because the diagram obviously contradicts you (that is why you had to misrepresent it). But of course you won’t admit that even though any rational person can clearly see it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
If you want to answer better you are going to have to overcome your irrational tendency to assume that reality is what you want it to be - even if you know better.
If the 1910 cross section obviously supported your views you’d want to use it. You don’t want to use it because it doesn’t.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: On the cross section of Britain I see direct evidence of erosion, not just missing layers Considering Percy’s list
Supergroup/Tapeats: unconformity
Obvious even on the diagram
Muav Limestone/Temple Butte: unconformity
wikipedia:Temple Butte Limestone
Within the eastern Grand Canyon, it consists of thin, discontinuous lenses, and relatively inconspicuous lenses that fill paleovalleys cut into the underlying Muav Limestone.
Surprise Canyon Formation/Supai Group
USGS on Watahomigi Formation, lowest member of Supai Group
Unit includes purple siltstone and gray limestone interbedded with conglomerate that fill small erosion channels cut into either Surprise Canyon Formation or Redwall Limestone
I could go on, I could even add to the list. But I think the point is made. There is plenty of evidence of erosion at unconformities.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: I did describe that area but not in relation to the peak which is much further to the East - just to the West of the Tertiary label. I think you will agree that is much more prominent. How Faith can’t see it is beyond me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Duplicate
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: So you were ignoring all the bigger problems underground. After I had pointed them out.
quote: It is very relevant to the idea that all the deformation occurred after all the strata had been deposited. It’s also relevant to the idea that there is no erosion between strata.
quote: The diagram has not changed since 1910. It is no more complex or ambiguous than it was when you declared:
Seems clear to me that the evidence beneath the surface occurred after the deformation.
Message 579How could that possibly be true if the diagram is too complex and ambiguous for you to understand ? I say again that the diagram has not changed since then. And certainly there is meaningful discussion on our part. The problem appears to be that you are, as usual, wrong and your claims are being exposed as utterly indefensible.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024