Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Motley Flood Thread (formerly Historical Science Mystification of Public)
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 601 of 877 (834861)
06-13-2018 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 600 by edge
06-13-2018 10:20 PM


Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done with
oes not appear to be any evidence for this. Certainly, there is evidence of flash floods, but there is no evidence for Lake Missoula-type flooding or meanders around the buttes. I specifically looked for such things while there and all you can see is radial erosion away from the buttes and the usual desert washes in between.
But you do have to account for the fact that the entire valley area was washed/eroded clean around each of the monuments, and before the talus of each was formed too. Whatever eroded away the sediments covering all the bare spaces between the monuments, on the Old Earth slow erosion over millions of years model, would have eroded away the talus too but clearly quite a bit has accumulated since the valley floor was cleaned off. Suggests water washing it all away to me, followed by normal erosion of each monument after that, probably, oh let me guess, about 4500 years' worth of accumulated talus. But perhaps you have a better explanation.
In any case the point I was making is confirmed: Strata laid down followed by erosion.
You'll forgive me for not calling Scientific American about your discovery. But I think that to find erosion after deposition of a layer would be a lot more likely than erosion of a stratum before it is deposited.
Cute. But of course the point is that there was no erosion BETWEEN layers, ALL the layers were first laid down and then ALL were eroded together as a unit, a unit such as in this case the monuments, or in other cases hoodoos etc. As I keep saying over and over.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 600 by edge, posted 06-13-2018 10:20 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 603 by edge, posted 06-14-2018 8:48 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 602 of 877 (834862)
06-14-2018 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 521 by Percy
06-10-2018 9:32 AM


Re: Video on the formation of the Grand Canyon
Don't faults qualify, in your lingo, as a disturbance? The Hurricane Fault along the western perimeter of the Kaibab Uplift, and the Toroweap Fault along the eastern, occurred during the uplift.
Yes faults qualify as a disturbance, as discussed many times in the past, such as in Message 260 for example where I list it among the effects of the tectonic disturbance I associate with the Kaibab Uplift. That post is a pretty good summary of what I'm arguing here too.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 521 by Percy, posted 06-10-2018 9:32 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 643 by Percy, posted 06-15-2018 3:53 PM Faith has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 603 of 877 (834868)
06-14-2018 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 601 by Faith
06-13-2018 11:41 PM


Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done with
But you do have to account for the fact that the entire valley area was washed/eroded clean around each of the monuments, and before the talus of each was formed too. Whatever eroded away the sediments covering all the bare spaces between the monuments, on the Old Earth slow erosion over millions of years model, would have eroded away the talus too but clearly quite a bit has accumulated since the valley floor was cleaned off. Suggests water washing it all away to me, followed by normal erosion of each monument after that, probably, oh let me guess, about 4500 years' worth of accumulated talus. But perhaps you have a better explanation.
As I indicated, there is surprisingly little talus. And, of course, water has washed away a lot of sediment, but there is no indication that it happened during anything other than what is going on now. If you think otherwise, then show us your evidence.
Cute. But of course the point is that there was no erosion BETWEEN layers, ALL the layers were first laid down and then ALL were eroded together as a unit, a unit such as in this case the monuments, or in other cases hoodoos etc. As I keep saying over and over.
This does not agree with the evidence that has been presented here.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 601 by Faith, posted 06-13-2018 11:41 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 604 by Faith, posted 06-14-2018 8:56 AM edge has not replied
 Message 605 by Faith, posted 06-14-2018 9:03 AM edge has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 604 of 877 (834870)
06-14-2018 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 603 by edge
06-14-2018 8:48 AM


Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done with
What evidence would you expect to see if water that started out well above the current tops of the monuments, when the entire area was filled with sediments to a level higher than those tops, and then all that washed away leaving the monuments? If it simply carved those monuments and washed off the surface of the valley between them, what evidence would there be? It wouldn't be like the Missoula flood which wasn't deep enough and more forceful and one-directional by comparison. The Flood would have been a huge amount of water carrying a huge amount of sediments decreasing level by level over some months and carrying away all that sediment between the monuments. Any marks it might have left on the monuments themselves would have been eroded away by now. And those flash floods and desert washes you mentioned would have erased some evidence too. So what evidence would you expect to see?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 603 by edge, posted 06-14-2018 8:48 AM edge has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 605 of 877 (834871)
06-14-2018 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 603 by edge
06-14-2018 8:48 AM


Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done with
This does not agree with the evidence that has been presented here.
Such as? (If you mean the UK cross section that's still moot in my opinion.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 603 by edge, posted 06-14-2018 8:48 AM edge has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


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

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 607 of 877 (834876)
06-14-2018 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 606 by Percy
06-14-2018 9:17 AM


Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done with
Unconformities in the sense of nonexistent layers you expect to be there but aren't is totally irrelevant to the point I'm making. You see no erosion there either, you just "know" there should be a layer there that isn't there. The visible appearance is of a stack of strata with no break there or any kind of sign or indication whatever that something is missing; and what I'm saying remains true: there are examples galore of whole blocks or units of strata that are eroded or deformed together as a unit.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 606 by Percy, posted 06-14-2018 9:17 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 609 by PaulK, posted 06-14-2018 11:22 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 645 by Percy, posted 06-15-2018 4:08 PM Faith has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


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

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


Message 609 of 877 (834880)
06-14-2018 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 607 by Faith
06-14-2018 9:28 AM


Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done with
quote:
Unconformities in the sense of nonexistent layers you expect to be there but aren't is totally irrelevant to the point I'm making. You see no erosion there either, you just "know" there should be a layer there that isn't there
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 607 by Faith, posted 06-14-2018 9:28 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


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

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


Message 611 of 877 (834889)
06-14-2018 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 610 by Percy
06-14-2018 1:48 PM


Re: Smith diagram showing underground strata
quote:
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 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 610 by Percy, posted 06-14-2018 1:48 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 612 of 877 (834890)
06-14-2018 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 610 by Percy
06-14-2018 1:48 PM


Re: Smith diagram showing underground strata
Duplicate
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 610 by Percy, posted 06-14-2018 1:48 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


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: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


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: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024