Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Motley Flood Thread (formerly Historical Science Mystification of Public)
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 558 of 877 (834748)
06-10-2018 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 482 by Faith
06-09-2018 8:39 AM


Re: one fault line stream tributary vs meandering canyon
Faith writes:
Perhaps it's you who misjudge the Word of God as an "ancient myth." If it ever hits you what it really is you may find yourself riveted to the floor in amazement as I did when I first discovered that God is real and no myth.
Can I still believe in God if I don't believe in buried strata tilting, rock evaporating, sea floors rising and dropping, continents dancing jigs, floods sorting sediments, corpses and radiometric isotopes, and all the rest?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 482 by Faith, posted 06-09-2018 8:39 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 559 of 877 (834749)
06-10-2018 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 484 by Faith
06-09-2018 8:47 AM


Re: The Smith cross-section
Faith writes:
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. I told you I can't see any fold in the Smith diagram. If you want me to see it you have to do something to make it possible.
See Message 396. Took 15 seconds to find. You do know the discussion board has a search facility, right?
I agree with you about including images in posts. I've been trying to encourage people to include any images under discussion in every message. There's almost no overhead involved.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 484 by Faith, posted 06-09-2018 8:47 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 560 of 877 (834752)
06-10-2018 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 487 by Faith
06-09-2018 9:12 AM


[qs=Faith]I looked at all youRe: one fault line stream tributary vs meandering canyon
Faith writes:
I looked at all your links, which was a lot to ask of me since I had to move them to a Word document and zoom them to be able to see them,...
When in your browser window just hit Ctrl-+ and the page will increment in size. Hit Ctrl-+ as many times as needed to grow the page (and it's attendant images) as large as you need. You may need to pan around to get the image in the field of view. When done simply hit Ctrl-0 and the page will return to normal size.
Edge didn't respond, so I'll attempt an answer:
Also keep looking at the diagram. While the pictures show something more irregular than most of the examples I've seen they are still nowhere near the irregularity of the Kaibab curve and I'm still unable to see it as a meander. Itg just looks like a river that is running through an area of tributaries and something like small side canyons, nothing like the meanders in your pictures or the diagram, except the overall curve. But the terrain could cause the curve; meanders form where the land is flat.
The diagram looks like any diagram of meanders and I'm not sure what I'm supposed to get out of it. It doesn't suggest anything like the Kaibab curve to me.
Here's a satellite view of the Grand Canyon from Google Maps. There are straight parts and meandering parts:
You'll probably want to click on "View larger map".
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 487 by Faith, posted 06-09-2018 9:12 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 561 of 877 (834754)
06-10-2018 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 492 by edge
06-09-2018 11:33 AM


Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done with
edge writes:
If you look up the term 'lystric faulting', you will get a good explanation.
Interesting - I didn't know this was possible:
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 492 by edge, posted 06-09-2018 11:33 AM edge has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 593 of 877 (834830)
06-13-2018 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 506 by edge
06-09-2018 10:20 PM


Re: Video on the formation of the Grand Canyon
Just went through a busy period - finally a slow day.
Thanks for your ideas about how the Kaibab Uplift happened. You mention the asthenosphere at one point:
edge writes:
In fact, my guess is that the deformation causing the Kaibab uplift was caused more by tension rather than compression, and related to thermal effects in the asthenosphere.
Would subduction of the Pacific Plate beneath western North America be at about the depth of the asthenosphere by the time it's beneath Arizona, and if so could that be the source of the thermal effects?
I'm only asking because it doesn't make sense to me that a science writer of Oskin's experience and accomplishment would make a blunder like misunderstanding Dickinson so badly that she said "underground folding" when it wasn't even close to what he meant. I still think she was trying to translate into layman's terms something Dickinson described to her, and that it may have had something to do with subduction of the Pacific Plate, which I've seen described as piling up layers of crust well inland (which is itself probably an attempt to translate science into lay terms).
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 506 by edge, posted 06-09-2018 10:20 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 598 by edge, posted 06-13-2018 9:58 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 594 of 877 (834835)
06-13-2018 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 507 by Faith
06-09-2018 11:07 PM


Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done with
Faith writes:
I'm saying one simple thing:Erosion carves canyons and cliffs and monuments and hoodoos and gullies and valleys and so on and so forth. The statement is true, all these things exist and they are caused by erosion.
As Edge said, these are intermediate products. I'll take monuments as an example. This is Monument Valley:
The monuments exist because they're capped by hard conglomerate rock. The entire valley was once at the same height as the tops of the monuments - the valley was all monument from one end to the other, and the tops of the monuments were valley floor, just much higher than today.
Incisions likely begun by rivers and streams created opportunities for erosion and cutback. The sides of what eventually became the monuments gradually eroded away, undercutting the hard cap which collapsed whenever support diminished sufficiently, eventually leaving us with what we see today, isolated and widely separated monuments. I'm not sure how long it will take, but eventually the monuments will be gone and only a flat valley will be left.
This is because erosion flattens a landscape - eventually only plains are left. Cliffs and canyons and hoodoos and so forth are intermediate topographic features, but eventually you're left with plains. Uplift can hold it off, rising seas or subsidence can speed it up, but all land eventually erodes away. Sooner or later the land sinks beneath the waves where sedimentation resumes and more strata forms.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 507 by Faith, posted 06-09-2018 11:07 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 597 by Faith, posted 06-13-2018 7:06 PM Percy has replied
 Message 599 by edge, posted 06-13-2018 10:09 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 595 of 877 (834845)
06-13-2018 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 508 by Faith
06-10-2018 12:21 AM


Re: Video on the formation of the Grand Canyon
Faith writes:
Neither your guesses nor Percy's -- and his understanding is often weirdly wrong anyway --
But you think everyone is weirdly wrong. Nothing I've said is significantly different from what everyone else is saying, though I have challenged you on some things that no one else has bothered about.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 508 by Faith, posted 06-10-2018 12:21 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 596 of 877 (834853)
06-13-2018 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 539 by Faith
06-10-2018 4:36 PM


Faith writes:
edge writes:
Faith writes:
Only by some really convoluted wacko reasoning. You can't get those neatly "tilted" rocks in a row that way.
How about this terrace? The rocks are standing on end and yet they are planed off as though with a knife.
Uh, tectonic pressure of course, what does that have to do with anything we are talking about?.
I couldn't make out any details in Edge's image, but I was able to find a better one. This is the Port Arena Lighthouse. The sharply angled strata can best be seen on the right hand side of the image about 2/3 of the way down.
These tilted strata have been eroded flat across a great distance, as can be seen in this image from further away:
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 539 by Faith, posted 06-10-2018 4:36 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 606 of 877 (834874)
06-14-2018 9:17 AM
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
Faith writes:
The point is they DIDN'T erode until they were all laid down as a block.
Strata are not deposited as block. Even in your Flood scenario they are not deposited as a block.
And assuming we're talking about the strata visible in the walls of the Grand Canyon, the evidence of unconformities between strata tells us that the strata were not continuously deposited. The stratigraphic column grew in fits and starts, with periods of marine deposition interspersed with periods of terrestrial erosion. Here again is the list of unconformities in the Grand Canyon strata:
  • Supergroup/Tapeats: unconformity
  • Muav Limestone/Temple Butte: unconformity
  • Surprise Canyon Formation/Supai Group: unconformity
  • Formations within the Supai: unconformity at top of each
  • Supai Group/Hermit Shale: unconformity
  • Hermit Shale/Coconino Sandstone: unconformity
  • Coconino Sandstone/Toroweap Formation: unconformity
  • Toroweap Formation/Kaibab Limestone: unconformity
  • Kaibab Limestone/Moenkopi Formation: unconformity
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Mental typo.

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 607 by Faith, posted 06-14-2018 9:28 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 608 of 877 (834878)
06-14-2018 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 542 by Faith
06-10-2018 4:51 PM


Faith writes:
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.
Whether you're talking about the Grand Canyon or England, none of the recently presented diagrams of stratigraphic columns represent all the eras. There were a bunch of eras before around 600 MYA, all absent.
It is also again worth noting that having only partial representation of an era means that what's not there was eroded away, i.e., an unconformity. Erosional unconformities can be recognized in a couple ways. In some cases erosional features like stream channels are present. In other cases only a jump in indicator fossils shows a missing span of time. If the former is true then the latter must also be true.
In the interests of completeness I'll mention the possibility of non-deposition (also called a diastem or a nonsequence) as a cause of an unconformity. Though not uncommon they generally represent very short periods of time geologically. All the unconformities mentioned thus far are erosional.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 542 by Faith, posted 06-10-2018 4:51 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 610 of 877 (834886)
06-14-2018 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 564 by Faith
06-10-2018 8:19 PM


Re: Smith diagram showing underground strata
Faith writes:
Smith diagram for reference:
Nice!!!
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.
I, too, wasn't certain which part of the diagram PaulK was referring to, but he described it as beneath and to the left the "Jurassic" label and that it was the lowest strata. I think this is it right in the center, and PaulK can correct me as necessary and I can adjust the image, but for now my discussion will assume I've identified the right place. Again, it's in the center of the image:
In the center you can see a stratum that bends upward and suddenly terminates at an overlying stratum that has many little circles inside it (I'm not sure what the little circles indicate, but presumably they indicate something about the type of rock that stratum is made of). Your reaction:
HOWEVER, here's the problem. You are trying to convince me that you can tell what the original horizontal strata looked like...
The original strata were deposited mostly flat and horizontal. This is a rule that you cite over and over again, so it's surprising to see you questioning what it would look like.
...from this area of extremely deformed strata underground, and I don't see it.
The strata that bends upward and suddenly terminates used to be flat and horizontal and then buried at sufficient depth to turn it to rock. While still buried, tectonic forces bent it into its current shape. Where the stratum terminates now it used to continue onward and upward to the right, but erosion gradually wore away the portion that is no longer there. At this point it was the surface landscape, likely covered with a layer of soil.
Next there was a sea transgression, either because of subsidence of sea-level rise or a combination. As the sea gradually transgressed over the landscape it left behind a new layer of sediment - my guess would be sand that turned to sandstone once buried deeply enough.
It's most likely that the deformation itself accounts for what you are imputing to the original deposition.
For just this one stratum that PaulK is focussing on, how do you imagine deformation causing it to terminate at an overlying layer? Where do you imagine the rest of that stratum that extended upward and to the right disappeared to?
"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.
Here's a link to that short little 10 second video showing tilted strata being eroded. Please watch it because it should help you visualize what tilted strata being cut by erosion looks like: Tilting, Faulting and Eroding of the Grand Canyon Supergroup
Now just imagine more sedimentary layers being deposited upon the tilted strata.
"..clearly 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.
Deformation is not just another magic spell for you to invoke - it cannot create surface irregularities between strata that were not there originally. Tectonic forces are broad and unfocused - they cannot create small irregularities between strata. If you piled flat slabs of clay upon one another and then pushed a dowel up vertically into the bottom (don't push too hard or the dowel will poke through) then you could create a little bump between layers of clay, but tectonics cannot focus a force on a small area like that dowel can.
Deposition will follow the surface contours but also tend, in the long term, to fill in the deepest areas first. That little bump you see near the center of my cropped version of PaulK's image could probably be explained several ways, but tectonic forces isn't one of them.
And it's interesting you say the deposited layer filled in the irregularity rather than following it because somebody, you I think, was insisting that the strata followed the Kaibab rise of the Paleozoic strata in the Grand Canyon.
I don't recall PaulK saying this, but everything indicates that the layers of the Kaibab Plateau, like the rest of the region, were deposited mostly flat and horizontally in a marine environment. The region was later uplifted and became terrestrial during the Laramide orogeny.
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.
If your invocation of deformation for "pinching out" cannot explain where the "pinched out" material went, then you haven't got an explanation. Deformation can't be an explanation for disappearing expanses of strata. Imagine deforming that stack of clay layers in ways that decrease the clay's total volume. Can't be done.
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,...
You're probably looking at the bottommost gray layer on the right in this image:
The layer becomes skinny at that point not because of deformation but because it was deposited that way. We know that is true because of the Law of Conservation of Matter. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed (not counting nuclear processes). This has been told to you many times, and sometimes you even seem to understand this and have offered an explanation for where the missing matter has gone. I think you said it abraded into rubble between the Supergroup and the Tapeats. But the Supergroup/Tapeats contact is exposed and open to inspection at the Grand Canyon, and there is no rubble. Plus rock turned into rubble doesn't decrease in volume. In fact, it must take up more space because of the inevitable spaces between the rubble.
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?
That's not only what we're going to tell you, that's what we have been telling you. For years.
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.
There's no logic in this, but you mean like this - this is Hutton's Jedburgh Unconformity:
That's an idealized representation. Here's what it really looks like:
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 564 by Faith, posted 06-10-2018 8:19 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 611 by PaulK, posted 06-14-2018 2:03 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 612 by PaulK, posted 06-14-2018 2:04 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 626 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-14-2018 10:36 PM Percy has replied
 Message 652 by edge, posted 06-15-2018 9:59 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 613 of 877 (834891)
06-14-2018 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 566 by Faith
06-11-2018 12:05 AM


Re: Smith diagram showing underground strata
Faith in reply to edge writes:
??? 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.
Edge quoted your words before each of his responses, which all seemed to address what you said. This is just your old and familiar way of bringing discussion of topics where you've painted yourself into a corner to an end while blaming someone else.
Persisting down a path you find uncomfortable would go a long ways toward keeping discussions with you from repeatedly going over the same ground.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 566 by Faith, posted 06-11-2018 12:05 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 614 of 877 (834892)
06-14-2018 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 568 by Faith
06-11-2018 6:18 AM


Re: Smith diagram showing underground strata
Faith writes:
ABE: I can make abolustley no sense of your reasoning about strata being "cut off."
Could I again suggest you watch this short 10 second video. At the very end the tilted Supergroup strata are eroded down leaving a flat surface, which is what PaulK means by "cut off". Just click on the image and the video will start: Tilting, Faulting and Eroding of the Grand Canyon Supergroup.
Later a sea will transgress the region and deposition of the Tapeats atop the "cut off" Supergroup strata will begin.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 568 by Faith, posted 06-11-2018 6:18 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 615 of 877 (834896)
06-14-2018 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 570 by Faith
06-11-2018 7:02 PM


Re: Smith diagram showing underground strata
Faith writes:
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.
But we can't address what makes no sense if you don't tell us what it is. If some law of logic or nature is being violated then you have to tell us what it is. Otherwise claiming it makes no sense is just your way of saying you reject it but can't say why.
As I said, I think what we see in the deformed stack happened after all the deformation had occurred.
By definition this must be true - what we see today can only be the result after all the deformation. You were maybe trying to say something else?
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.
Since buried strata cannot be eroded, any erosion must have occurred while the strata were exposed at the surface and before any overlying strata were deposited. The degree of deformation isn't taken as an indicator of when erosion happened, but it is of course true (and self-evident) that older strata will have experienced the most deformation in a stratigraphic column.
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.
But "already-deformed strata" can be eroded if they become exposed at the surface. Erosion tends to flatten landscapes. Sure erosion can create mountains and cliffs and canyons and incisions by rivers and streams, but the ultimate endpoint of erosive processes is a coastal plain.
In the case of that diagram we have deposition deeply enough to create the pressure necessary to turn it to rock, then deformation, then uplift above sea level that expose these layers to erosion, then subsidence below sea level to cause more deposition of sediments that turn to rock, then deformation, then uplift and more erosion. The order of deformation and uplift can be reversed, and they can even happen simultaneously:
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 570 by Faith, posted 06-11-2018 7:02 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 616 of 877 (834897)
06-14-2018 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 575 by Faith
06-12-2018 1:08 AM


Re: Smith diagram showing underground strata
Faith writes:
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.
Erosion can only happen at the surface, so if erosion didn't cause the truncation of the Grand Canyon Supergroup strata and the buried layers in this diagram:
If it was instead deformation that did it, then where did deformation put the now missing stretches of strata?
I don't understand how your knowledge of science can be so limited that you don't realize that matter disappearing into thin air turns your scenario into a complete non-starter.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 575 by Faith, posted 06-12-2018 1:08 AM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024