|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Motley Flood Thread (formerly Historical Science Mystification of Public) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
No I CANNOT see that there were "multiple episodes of deformation and erosion," NO, I can see how you think there are but no, I do not see it that way.
Why not? Please describe your reservations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
This attempt to prove the order of events from severely deformed rocks strikes me as a desperate attempt to prove my simple point wrong at all costs.
So, your reasoning is that Paul is desperate? And just what are the 'costs'?
The simple explanation is that the strata were laid down flat and horizontal and then deformed as seen, period.
But this is an assertion, not a reason or evidence.
The strata beneath the UK are parallel in their deformation which is evidence that it occurred as a block all at one time.
Quite wrong. No one sees this but you. The layers are not parallel across unconformities just as the Old Red Sandstone beds are not parallel to the underlying Silurian rocks at Siccar Point. Or do you deny that, also?
And I would guess that those blank unidentified areas to the right are probably schist and granite similar to the situation under the Grand Canyon, which I would guess formed at the same time as all the other deformation in that area too.
So, just feet away from granite and schist, you have unmetamorphosed sediments that were deformed at the same time as the schist? Please explain.
Can't find anything on a quick google about it so it remains a guess.
There could be a reason for that ...
But I already said I can't fight this no matter what I happen to think, and said PaulK wins the debate. I do not want to argue things when they get this weird.
You are the only one to find it 'weird'. Perhaps it's time to reconsider some of your preconceived notions about geology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
The erosion that PaulK argues proves that the upper strata were deposited on the already eroded and deformed lower strata is not something I've ever seen on any stack of straight horizontal strata.
Of course not. If you were shown such a situation in conformable strata, you'd simply deny the fact of an unconformity because the layers would be parallel. By showing deformed situations, you can see the effect more clearly in angular unconformities.
that's my reservation in a nutshell.
Then you are reaching. You position is unbelievable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
I spent about a half hour with Google Images yesterday looking for an image showing more of that fold but no luck. I was hoping that if I could see more of what happened to the layers further to the right I could become more certain (or not) of my conclusion. What can be seen in the image is that the layers appear to be stretched by different amounts (because they thin out by different amounts).
Here is a schematic diagram showing the formation of flexural flow folds. This requires a degree of plasticity and usually occurs in a dynamic metamorphic situation. There are other types of fold mechanisms.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
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).
The little circles are traditional symbology for a conglomerate. The fact that they are round shapes refers to the rounded nature of conglomeratic fragments.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
I'm sure that most of us find Faith's casual dismissals and misplaced air of superiority to be offensive. However, I think that we need not worry. Such distortions of reality are self-defeating. No one is going to be convinced by such anti-science denial that we see here, and if Faith wishes to cling to a distorted reality, we have the satisfaction of knowing that she represents but one person. An oddity, not a great hindrance to knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
I believe I've not said NONE of the contacts, but VERY FEW, VERY VERY VERY FEW, ...
And why should be believe you over our own observations and those of geologists who have made thousands of observations previously? By the way, how many exceptions would it take for you to abandon your take on erosion?
... and I believe they can be explained as having occurred after the strata were deposited.
No, you have not explained it, you have only asserted it.
As for missing "time," no, missing layers that often occur at a location but didn't in a particular case, yes.
Most of us would say that there is a missing record, but not missing time.
Again the point is that deformation or erosion as a unit is just one of the many ways it can be shown that the Time Scale is false, ...
Again, this is just an assertion. You do not show an understanding of the time scale in the first place.
... and yes of course it's another way of saying all disturbances occur after all the strata were in place and no you have not proved anything to the contrary, what a silly thought, it's obvious in a million places.
Again, an assertion. You do not explain angular unconformities nor why deeper strata are more deformed that shallow strata.
Actually the Paleozoic strata deformed as a unit in that they all rise over the uplift.
And yet the older rocks are more disturbed. How is that to occur within your 'block of sedimentary rocks"?
The Supergroup deformed in two blocks of strata. Since I think all these things occurred at the same time in a sense the whole thing deformed as a unit.
Another assertion. Why are the Supergroup rocks more disturbed than the Paleozoic sequence and less disturbed than the Vishnu series?
--->>>>But if you might remember, I also said that angular unconformities are the single exception to this rule of deformation as a unit which would resolve your "contradiction." .
So, how many such exceptions do you want before your notion collapses? And just how may blocks do you have? Please define a single block for us so that we can get some idea of your neighborhood.
I hope you enjoyed the Twilight Zone theme, it so fits the circumstances.
I get that Twilight Zone feeling every time I read one of your posts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Explained it many times. See Message 419 The Grand Canyon itself. Various layered formations. The Monument Valley buttes, the hoodoos, the Grand Staircase etc etc etc. So, is a 'block' the same as a 'unit'?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Yes
And your blocks are unchanging as far as size and composition?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Realized I don't know what you mean by "unchanging." I'm sure they will go on eroding but that's the only change I can think of.
Fine. All I mean is that they change in time. In size or composition, etc. Just trying to figure out how someone could be so confused. So when the GC Supergroup was deformed (faulted and tilted), they were still part of the block that contained the Paleozoic rocks above, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Yes that is my theory/hypothesis of how angular unconformities are formed: that tectonic pressure buckles or tilts a lower section of strata beneath the strata above which remain horizontal, which in the case of the GC remained intact up to the Permian/Kaibab level, while strata above that level broke up and washed away; though in other cases they got broken up at a much lower level, such as at Siccar Point.
The fallacy there is that if the upper and lower parts of the block are deformed separately, are they still a block? I thought that you said they deformed and eroded as a unit, but your narrative here rejects that.
I think this was a worldwide event, this tectonic pressure and it caused all the angular unconformities everywhere and most of the deformation of strata everywhere and even the major erosion events that left isolated buttes standing. Because it occurred at the same time as the receding of the Flood water.
Perhaps you can describe this 'tectonic pressure'. What mechanism would cause a 'global scale' deformation?
It's a nice theory really.
A cute theory, perhaps. Something fit for a 'nice' science fantasy novel, but not a theory grounded in reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
As I understand it, the great sea transgressions and regressions in geologic history were indeed largely caused by ocean floor rises and falls. This is the reality that ties into the "catastrophic plate tectonics" fantasy. Over the years I've tried and failed to find good (or even mediocre) internet literature on this process. Perhaps to be discussed further in later messages.
This is true and demonstrably so. We know that the oceanic crust slowly subsides away from the mid-ocean ridges based on depth of the abyssal plains and the subsidence of the Hawaii-Emperor seamount chain. So the principle of isostatic adjustments due to cooling and thickening of the oceanic crust is established. It isn't hard to imagine that increasing the temperatures of the upper mantle over time will cause a rise in the elevation of the oceanic crust thereby displacing seawater across the continents (or cooling for the reverse effect). This is probably the cause of the stratigraphic mega-sequences recognized in the geological record. These are global events even though the may not show up on all continents (as per Pressie). I think what Percy was envisioning was a catastrophic collapse of the sea floor after flood waters were supposedly vented violently to the surface. Of course, this doesn't work. You can't just leave a vacuum where the water had resided ... the seafloor must collapse. But this is an interesting topic even outside of the biblical flood debate. So many things come together with with grand theories such as mega-sequences.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
No, I've specifically said that angular unconformities are NOT a block, specifically said that more than once. Angular unconformities are the ONLY exception to the rule I keep talking about, that LLhe strata were laid down before being eroded or deformed as a whole block or unit; said that many times, I guess you missed it. Angular unconformities are an exception. NOT a block/unit. ONLY exception.
Well, then, the Paleozoic and Precambrian sedimentary rocks are in different blocks because they are not undergone the same deformation, yes? And also, PLEASE explain the unconformities to us.
The splitting of the ocntinents was a worldwide event, that's what I'm talking about.
Please document this. Is the East African Rift part of that break-up?
A lot of tectonic bashing and crashing going on. The breaking up must have been fairly jolting, but then there was the subduction on the west side of the Americas that pushed up mountains etc. I happen to think it occurred in conjunction with the beginning of the receding of the Flood, because of the effects like the cutting of the Grand Canyon and Grand Staircase and the other massive erosion events in that area; and the dramatically deformed rocks in other places would be a natural result of such a tectonic bashing.
So, the deformation occurred before the Tertiary rocks were deposited.
Yes a very nice theory. Puts together a lot of phenomena in one nice neat elegant package. Yes, cute.
Except for the problem of not conforming to the facts, sure. So you had the mountains forming in western North America and the continents breaking up in eastern North America. When did the Appalachians form?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
So you've got a mechanism for the rising and falling of the sea floor, and you recognize that "stratigraphic mega sequences" are "global events," and all that is really interestingly suggestive of a worldwide Flood ...
Except that there was no world-wide flooding, and there were six transgressions, and there were mountain-building events going on at the same time. And it has taken about a half billion years to happen.
... and all there is against it is your assumption of millions of years..
That does not follow. Edited by edge, : No reason given. Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Ah, it must be bliss to be unconstrained by facts.
"Block" is a term I use to describe the strata eroded or deformed all together at one time and I don't apply it to angular unconformities because they are the single exception to the point i'm making about erosion or deformation to blocks or units.
So you just handwave away all angular unconformities. That's convenient.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024