|
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) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The rise over the Supergroup is evidence against your point. But stick to the Smith diagram, the Supergroup is another subject. I see no "evidence of massive erosion" before the strata were all laid down.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Edge was talking gobbledygook. Let's see if you can do better.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm not interested in the flat surfaces issue, I'm talking only about the order of events: strata laid down then eroded or deformed. Sorry if something else intervened that I missed but that is ALL I'm talking about and the erosion to a flat surface issue is utterly irrelevant to that.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You "replied to what I wrote" OUT OF CONTEXT.
I need a break.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I provided the context. It was Edge saying that erosion ultimately causes flat plains. Which you denied. I don't remember. Fine, I'm sorry if I misread you. Please forgive.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Smith diagram for reference:
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. Thank you for giving a clearer description so I can at least get the gist of it. Icouldn't see the print (I see it now; sometimes I can see and sometimes I can't with borderline images, something to do with visual fatigue I think) so didn't know what edge was talking about referring to "old red sandstone" and the like. I copied your post and the diagram into a Word document and blew it up to print it out in landscape format, made it as big as I could in that format which isn't really big enough for my eyesight problems, used a magnifier to try to follow your remarks and think I got the main idea though there are still some words on the diagram I can't see. Don't know what the "peak" is you are talking about, or I think I may but find it hard to believe you'd call that a peak. HOWEVER, here's the problem. You are trying to convince me that you can tell what the original horizontal strata looked like from this area of extremely deformed strata underground, and I don't see it It's most likely that the deformation itself accounts for what you are imputing to the original deposition. "Cut by an erosional surface??" Not even sure what that means but in any case it describes the deformed strata with no reason to think it applies to the original deposited strata. "..cearly deposited on an irregular surface, but filled it in rather than following it." The "irregular surface" is the product of the deformation, no reason to impute it to the original horizontal deposition. And it's interesting you say the deposited layer filled in the irregularity rather than following it because somebody, you I think, was insistting that the strata followed the Kaibab rise of the Paleozoic strata in the Grand Canyon. And you say some of them "pinch out" etc., which has to be another consequence of the deformation rather than the original horizontal laying out. Here are a couple of the pictures of deformed strata that I posted back in Message 419 where I could point out places the layers "pinch out" or stop altogether, or thicken as if filling in an irregularity perhaps. Are you going to tell me all these things in these deformed blocks of strata are evidence of how they were originally laid down rather than the consequence of the deformation?
So it still looks to me like the strata were all laid down in the usual horizontal fashion and were then deformed as an entire block from the Cambrian to the Recent. It's really not fair even to try to prove your point with an extremely deformed stratigraphic column anyway. If you can't prove it with straight flat strata then you can't prove it at all. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
??? The miscommunication is now beyond hopeless. I don't think you said one thing that relates to anything I said. I don't know where to begin.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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. De3formation on top of deformation?: What would that prove? ABE: I can make abolustley no sense of your reasoning about strata being "cut off." Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
ABE: Sorry, I keep editing this because I can't make sense of it and keep having different thoughts about it. I'm back to thinking that although you denied it you are describing the original laying down of the strata, lower strata being eroded before upper strata deposited, but you are making this case from the whole deformed stack, which is what makes no sense. As I said, I think what we see in the deformed stack happened after all the deformation had occurred. There's really no reason to think otherwise. /ABE
From this we conclude that the deformed lower layers were truncated by erosion and then the upper layers were deposited on top. I keep trying to make sense of this and just can't. I get the idea, I get that you think the lower deformed strata look like they were cut off by erosion and since the strata above them are relatively undeformed by comparison they must have been laid down after the lower were eroded. But this is happening to a whole area of already-deformed strata which has nothing to do with the original laying down of the layers. Sorry, makes no sense. 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. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Complaining about a popular science article that does not take on your favorite issue is unreasonable in the extreme. Seems to me you've completely missed the point. I thought I was going to post some more examples and maybe I yet will, but the point was that presentations of anything aimed at the public, on evolution, the ancient past, the time periods of the Geological Time Scale and so on, have a way of describing it all as flat fact, this happened, that happened, so and so was this sort of creature that did this sort of thing, there were such and such plants, the climate was such and such, all descriptions as if the writer was actually there looking at these things first hand instead of writing about a reconstruction of something that's entirely made up from extremely small clues found in a rock. I don't think science articles even about well extablished findings written for the public take on such an air of certainty and absolute knowledge. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
That's rather a tour de force there, I'm impressed, but it seems to me if the Time Scale interpretation were correct there should be lots and lots of erosion and deformation of all kinds between all the layers and not just occurring to any bunch of blocks of strata. But I think you are misinterpreting the evidence anyway, in both examples. That is, I think the situation is ambiguous enough to admit my interpretation that the erosion occurred after the deformation of the whole stack of strata, Similar situation in the GC area of course.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Well, in the end after going on your merry go round I have to come back to my first take. Just looking at the land surface itself it is very clear that the whole range of the strata were laid down and then deformed all in the same direction all together as a unit. There is one place where the deformation hiccupped but then continued on the same path as all the rest, and the far right is still hard to decipher but the overall lay of the land is all in one direction all as one block of strata. .
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Seems clear to me that the evidence beneath the surface occurred after the deformation.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
There is an overall problem with this example to begin with, that is hard to assess, and that is the kind of deformation it shows, which is very unlike all the other examples I've had in mind. That is, the usual situation is something visible on the surface, such as the tilting or buckling or twisting of the strata along the lines of the photos I posted.
The diagram of the UK is entirely different, the deformation is underground and it's hard to figure out what happened to bring it about. Maybe you or edge know but to me it looks like the sagging strata I associate with the Michigan basin and the Gulf coast, where a salt layer seems to be involved. But in this case there is no indication of a salt layer. The sagging of the4 strata IS the deformation in this case. And it isn't like the others I mentioned in that the strata in those cases originate as a vertical unit at one location and then sag and expand as they sag or sink. The UK example has all the strata in a row across the horizontal level of the land rather than vertically stacked. In Smith's cross section they appear to have been tilted or buckled to all lie in a row. In the other diagram it's basically the same layout with some probably minor differences I don't know how to assess. In any case all the "time periods" are horizontally laid out and all tilted or folded in the same direction which is what strongly suggests the deformation happened to the whole stack of strata at the same time. Underground they sag and thicken overall. They all follow the same basic pattern in parallel. That suggests deformation at the same time, as a unit. What you are focused on seems to me to have occurred at the same time as the deformation or afterward. The fact that the lower strata are cut off by what you are calling erosion while the upper are not doesn't suggest that the erosion occurred before the upper were deposited. That's because they all lie parallel to one another. Whatever happened to the lower strata had something to do with the sagging or deformation itself. And overall we're talking about a whole stack of deformed -- sagged -- strata. If the upper layers had been deposited after the erosion occurred to the lower layers, it woule be more convincing if they were still straight and flat as originally laid down. Since they follow the basic sag pattern of the deformation it's too much of a stretch to accept your order of events.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024