Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8790 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-23-2017 11:16 PM
359 online now:
Aussie, DrJones*, dwise1 (3 members, 356 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Post Volume:
Total: 819,334 Year: 23,940/21,208 Month: 1,905/2,468 Week: 414/822 Day: 24/50 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
130NextFF
Author Topic:   Evidence that the Great Unconformity did not Form Before the Strata above it
Faith
Member
Posts: 26306
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1 of 1939 (752801)
03-12-2015 12:42 PM


ABE: April 14: I'm surprised this thread kept going because I abandoned the argument in this OP not too far into it. But other arguments came up along the way that work as well or even better. /ABE

=============================

I see Percy just promoted the earlier thread and retitled it Origin of the Flood Layers. This proposal I just started putting together came off that thread but it's not about the Flood, it's about my usual attempt to disprove the Old Earth. I haven't exactly disproved it but I've made progress: I believe I now can show that the Great Unconformity at the bottom of the Grand Canyon was NOT formed before the strata were stacked above it.

If Percy thinks this belongs in the old thread, fine, I'll move it, but I'm putting it here for now because it seems like a different topic to me. Trying to prove the Flood is one argument, disproving the Old Earth is another.
=====================================

I'm back to my favorite cross section of the Grand Canyon. HERE's my last attempt to use this cross section at EvC, showing a variety of observations that I think undermine the Old Earth.

But I have a new emphasis this time, which needs a slightly different version of the cross section:

I may need to rewrite some of this as I go but here's my new approach:

I. THINGS TO NOTICE ABOUT THE CROSS SECTION:

1. The rounded rise into which the canyon is cut. I emphasized this shape with red lines following its contour above and below.

2. The rise or mound is also visible at the bottom of the canyon, not just the top, where the Great Unconformity butts up against it, right beneath the Tapeats.

3. All the strata as a block follow the contour of the mounded rise, from the Tapeats or Cambrian to the Kaibab or Permian.

II. OBJECTIONS THAT OCCUR

The cross section exaggerates the mounded rise vertically. In reality it stretches a long distance with a much more gradual slope. This is true but the rise is certainly a real feature of the area, and just to confirm this here is another cross section of the area:

This one is even more exaggerated vertically but I post it just to confirm that this mounded rise is definitely a real feature of the area.

III. THINGS TO CONSIDER:

1. The strata were already in place when the uplift occurred that created the mounded rise. Evidence for this is that the strata all follow the contour of the mound.

2. Whatever caused the rise lifted the whole stack of strata as a block. Evidence for this is that the rounded contour is at both the bottom and the top of the canyon: it rises over the Great Unconformity instead of the strata butting in to it, as they would if it was there before the strata were laid down.

3. This means that the Great Unconformity was NOT there before the strata were laid down. It was lifted right along with the whole stack, and probably tilted at the same time. Evidence is as above: the layers donít butt up against the GU as they would if they were laid down after it was there, they rise up over it in the mounded shape, and the GU is clearly pushed up into the mounded area.

Here's a perfectly horrible attempt to show how the layers would have butted up against the Great Unconformity if it was there before the strata were laid down. I moved the GU down, figuring none of it was raised. The drawing may be so bad it isn't a good idea to post it, but I decided to just because the idea seems to need some kind of attempt at showing what I mean.

IV: CONCLUSIONS

Again, the strata would not have risen in a mound up over the Great Unconformity if theyíd been laid down after it was already formed because then they would have butted up against it instead of going over it. My conclusion is that they were laid down flat and horizontal over the strata that became the GU, which at that time were also flat and horizontal, and some force from beneath then pushed the GU upward, tilting it, also pushing up the whole stack of strata so that the mound contour continues all the way to the top of the canyon, and thatís what caused the strata to mound over the Great Unconformity as the whole stack was raised. Whatever lifted the whole stack lifted and tilted the Great Unconformity at the same time.

I've tried to think of ways it could have happened according to the usual interpretation but it doesn't work. The mounded uplift is what makes the evidence. I kept working around all these things in former discussions but never got to the point of pinning down this one fact until now.

All this shows that the force, probably tectonic movement, occurred after ALL the strata were in place, including the then-horizontal strata of the Great Unconformity. This same tectonic force would also have been responsible for creating the canyon itself, and all the massive erosion that formed the Grand Staircase to the north and scoured off the Kaibab plateau.

So, did all the strata form according to the conventional time frames assigned to them, Precambrian for the strata that became the GU, 575 million years ago for the Tapeats on up to the Kaibab considered to have formed 270 million years ago?

This I canít prove one way or another just from these observations. To make the case against the Old Earth Iíd go back to my former post, linked above, to muster the evidence for the utter lack of any significant tectonic or volcanic disturbance during the entire laying down of the strata, NOW INCLUDING THE STRATA OF THE GREAT UNCONFORMITY, since I do think what Iíve shown above is that it could not have been there before the strata above it were laid down. Also that it had to have occurred at the same time as the pushing up of the strata in that mounded shape, and since that is the case, also at the same time as the cutting of the canyon and the Grand Staircase and ALL the tectonic and volcanic events Iíve spent so much time trying to show are nonexistent during the strata-building period.

So I conclude that now Iíve finally proved that the Great Unconformity did NOT preexist the laying-down of the strata.

ABE: There are of course many different reasons why the Geologists think the Great Unconformity was there long before the strata were laid down, but if what I've said above is true, it makes all the other reasons wrong.

ABE: On the subject of the Old Earth I should comment that I still think the fact that the strata are all together as a stack conforming to the contour of the mound shape suggests they aren't all that old. Old Earth dating says the lower strata are much much older than the higher and yet they all obviously have the same degree of ductility, and also have no apparent hint to a difference in their age in any other way. I've made this argument before and am told that rocks are a lot more plastic than I think, so the fact that the whole stack of strata curves together up over the Great Unconformity and curves together all the way up to the rim of the canyon, is supposedly not unusual. I still wonder about this, though, that's why I'm mentioning it here.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : change laid down to formed, for GU

Edited by Faith, : add last paragraph.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 03-13-2015 8:47 AM Faith has responded
 Message 8 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-13-2015 2:55 PM Faith has responded
 Message 38 by Percy, posted 03-14-2015 9:31 AM Faith has responded
 Message 63 by NoNukes, posted 03-14-2015 6:10 PM Faith has responded
 Message 103 by herebedragons, posted 03-15-2015 4:39 PM Faith has responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12528
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 2 of 1939 (752803)
03-13-2015 7:24 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Evidence that the Great Unconformity did not Form Before the Strata above it thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13122
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 3 of 1939 (752809)
03-13-2015 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
03-12-2015 12:42 PM


The argument seems to rest in the claims that the mounding must have occurred after all the strata were laid down and that the mounding and the tilting of the Great Unconformity must gave been the same event. I don't think that either has been shown to be true

However, there is good evidence to the contrary.

The tilted strata only survive where they have been lowered by faulting. Everywhere else they are gone.

These faults do not propagate into the strata above them.

It seems clear to me that these facts are best explained by the original tilting and the faults occurring long before the upper strata were laid down.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 03-12-2015 12:42 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by jar, posted 03-13-2015 9:48 AM PaulK has not yet responded
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 03-13-2015 12:46 PM PaulK has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29364
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 4 of 1939 (752811)
03-13-2015 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by PaulK
03-13-2015 8:47 AM


why it is called "Great"
The tilted strata only survive where they have been lowered by faulting. Everywhere else they are gone.

And that is where the designation "Great" came from.

There is so much missing that the whole structure must have been at the surface so that the missing parts could get eroded away. The layers in the part remaining end abruptly which show they were separated from the original through faulting. The fact that they remain shows tha they were lowered during a seismic even and so protected from the weathering that removed all the rest.

The fact that what remains is made up of layers also shows that it was not created during any single event but rather through normal deposition over time.

When all is considered it reveals a history, layers were deposited over time. Each lower layer remained undisturbed as the other layers were deposited.

There was a seismic event where part of the surface subsided.

The parts remaining at the surface were eroded away helping to cover and preserve the part that subsided.

Eventually additional deposition covered all, again involving separate events and rock types.

AbE:

an illustration that helps explain what is meant by "Great Unconformity".

It is not the rocks that are still there but rather the over one billion years of rock that are not there.

Edited by jar, : see AbE:


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 03-13-2015 8:47 AM PaulK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Faith, posted 03-15-2015 9:57 PM jar has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26306
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 5 of 1939 (752824)
03-13-2015 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by PaulK
03-13-2015 8:47 AM


The argument seems to rest in the claims that the mounding must have occurred after all the strata were laid down and that the mounding and the tilting of the Great Unconformity must gave been the same event.

Yes, that's what I'm claiming to have proved. There is no way that the mounding of the entire stack of strata could have occurred after the Great Unconformity was formed because strata are originally laid down horizontally and do not curve up over obstacles, they butt up against them -- or possibly throw sediment on and over them but in a very haphazard way. They couldn't just lie down horizontally.

The fact that the entire stack curves over the Gr.U. in exactly the same way from bottom to top shows that they were all in place when the force occurred that raised them as a unit.

I've seen this before but this is the first time I saw how it works in relation to the G.U. THAT's the obstacle that proves the strata were already there. Some force had to have pushed up the entire stack and the G.U. is smack up against the lowest layer of the stack, and since the stack wouldn't have climbed over it, the force must have pushed up the G.U. along with the stack.

I don't see how the G.U. could already have existed tilted as it is because, again, layers that were laid down afterward would have to have butted up against it. So the logical conclusion is that the G.U. was formed at the same time: that is, the strata of which it is composed were broken and tilted by the force that raised the stack. This is what I've been visualizing for some time but this is the first time I realized that the way the stack of strata curves up over it is the evidence for it.

I don't think that either has been shown to be true

Well, it has, as I just reiterated above.

However, there is good evidence to the contrary.

If what I've said is true, contrary evidence is going to have to yield to it.

The tilted strata only survive where they have been lowered by faulting. Everywhere else they are gone.

Not clear. "Lowered by faulting?"

These faults do not propagate into the strata above them.

No reason they should if the tilting occurred under the same force that raised the stack of strata above: apparently the G.U. strata were more violently affected, and that would include faulting that affected only that formation as it broke and tilted and probably slid under the Tapeats.

It seems clear to me that these facts are best explained by the original tilting and the faults occurring long before the upper strata were laid down.

Except that clearly it didn't happen in that order as I believe I have finally shown. The upper strata could not have been laid down in the usual way after the G.U. was there, as I've explained, because they couldn't have curved up over the G.U., they'd have to have butted up against it.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 03-13-2015 8:47 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by PaulK, posted 03-13-2015 2:12 PM Faith has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13122
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


(2)
Message 6 of 1939 (752829)
03-13-2015 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Faith
03-13-2015 12:46 PM


I will reply by pointing out the problems with your argument

First it is possible for sediment to drape over existing contours provided friction and adhesion are sufficient to keep it in place. The concept of "angle of repose" seems relevant.

Second, I haven,t seen you give any reason why there cannot be two instances of uplift - or more.

The faulting is quite obvious - you can even see that the two sections of tilted strata are not in the same level. Equally obviously the missing sections of those strata would have been higher.

And certainly we should expect the faults to propagate upwards - and if they did not, then how did the rock above move down ? And where is the rest of the tilted strata?

Until you can come up with a reasonable alternative, the position that the Great Unconformity strata were tilted long before the strata atop then were laid down seems quite secure.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 03-13-2015 12:46 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 03-13-2015 2:43 PM PaulK has not yet responded
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 03-13-2015 3:59 PM PaulK has responded
 Message 11 by edge, posted 03-13-2015 4:22 PM PaulK has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29364
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 7 of 1939 (752831)
03-13-2015 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by PaulK
03-13-2015 2:12 PM


bigger problem
A far bigger problem for Faith is to explain how all the the material eroded away if it did not get formed before the strata above it.

Faith has offered no explanation for the unconformity itself, for over two miles of missing material.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by PaulK, posted 03-13-2015 2:12 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11707
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 8 of 1939 (752832)
03-13-2015 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
03-12-2015 12:42 PM


3. This means that the Great Unconformity was NOT there before the strata were laid down. It was lifted right along with the whole stack, and probably tilted at the same time. Evidence is as above: the layers donít butt up against the GU as they would if they were laid down after it was there, they rise up over it in the mounded shape, and the GU is clearly pushed up into the mounded area.

Here's a perfectly horrible attempt to show how the layers would have butted up against the Great Unconformity if it was there before the strata were laid down. I moved the GU down, figuring none of it was raised. The drawing may be so bad it isn't a good idea to post it, but I decided to just because the idea seems to need some kind of attempt at showing what I mean.

The sides of what you're referring to as the Great Unconformity were already butted up against the Vishnu basement rock so the strata were just laid down on top of all that stuff.

As shown in this pic:

That far left side of the "Great Unconformity" butts up against the Vishnu, so the strata could not have butted up against the G.U. because there was already something there.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 03-12-2015 12:42 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 03-13-2015 3:38 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26306
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 9 of 1939 (752836)
03-13-2015 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by New Cat's Eye
03-13-2015 2:55 PM


Yes that occurred to me and I forgot to mention it. The only thing it changes is that any new layers would have butted up against the Vishnu rather than the GU itself, IF the Vishnu was there at the time, and that's a question I want to think about too. Same situation basically though. Originally depositng layers won't climb up over obstacles.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-13-2015 2:55 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-13-2015 7:49 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26306
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 10 of 1939 (752837)
03-13-2015 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by PaulK
03-13-2015 2:12 PM


I will reply by pointing out the problems with your argument
First it is possible for sediment to drape over existing contours provided friction and adhesion are sufficient to keep it in place. The concept of "angle of repose" seems relevant.

Angle of repose applies only to sand, and as you can see from a straight on view of the canyon walls the sandstone is just as flat and horizontal as any of the other layers.

The adhesive idea is pretty far-fetched. You aren't going to get a dozen layers all following the contour of a mound as they were being laid down. The only explanation for their conforming to the mound is uplift that occurred after they were all in place.

Second, I haven,t seen you give any reason why there cannot be two instances of uplift - or more.

There's just the one mounded formation. More than one instance of uplift is possible but wouldn't that just be saying that the mound occurred in stages?

If you mean the GU could have been uplifted in a separate event, I suppose so, but that wouldn't change the fact that the layers that subsequently deposited would have been disrupted by its presence. They need a flat surface to deposit on and I think the only way to explain how they had such a flat surface is that the GU didn't exist as they were depositing above the Precambrian, it too was just a block of flat horizontal layers and that's what the upper layers deposited on. If those lower strata were broken and tilted before the upper layers were laid down, again, it would have disrupted their laying down, but they are shown as quite undisturbed..

The faulting is quite obvious - you can even see that the two sections of tilted strata are not in the same level.

But again, it makes sense that only those blocks of layers were faulted as they were clearly separated from the upper and lower layers, tilted separately. They received more violence from the force beneath and that would have put stress on them.

Equally obviously the missing sections of those strata would have been higher.

If my scenario is correct those upper sections would have been sheared off in the abrasion between the GU layers and those above, in the force that uplifted it all.

I've suggested that the Vishnu schist that surrounds the GU could account for much of the material that was eroded away but the argument has been made that it doesn't show evidence of the right kinds of rock. But if there was rock above that sheared off we wouldn't know what that rock was, would we?

And certainly we should expect the faults to propagate upwards

Only if there was a continuous contact between the two blocks of layers. But the GU was formed separately.

and if they did not, then how did the rock above move down ? And where is the rest of the tilted strata?

What "rock above" are you talking about? And what do you mean by "move down?"

Until you can come up with a reasonable alternative, the position that the Great Unconformity strata were tilted long before the strata atop then were laid down seems quite secure.

Not if what I've shown above is true and you haven't shown it's not.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by PaulK, posted 03-13-2015 2:12 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by PaulK, posted 03-13-2015 5:00 PM Faith has responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 3969
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 11 of 1939 (752839)
03-13-2015 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by PaulK
03-13-2015 2:12 PM


I will reply by pointing out the problems with your argument
First it is possible for sediment to drape over existing contours provided friction and adhesion are sufficient to keep it in place. The concept of "angle of repose" seems relevant.

Second, I haven,t seen you give any reason why there cannot be two instances of uplift - or more.

The faulting is quite obvious - you can even see that the two sections of tilted strata are not in the same level. Equally obviously the missing sections of those strata would have been higher.

And certainly we should expect the faults to propagate upwards - and if they did not, then how did the rock above move down ? And where is the rest of the tilted strata?

Until you can come up with a reasonable alternative, the position that the Great Unconformity strata were tilted long before the strata atop then were laid down seems quite secure.


The biggest single problem for Faith is the principle of cross-cutting features.

The faults, which down-drop and preserve the GC Supergroup, cross-cut both the Vishnu and the GC Supergroup; and are therefor younger than both. In turn, the faults are cross-cut by the Great Unconformity and are therefor older than the unconformity which is then superseded the overlying Paleozoics.

The rest is just a bunch of details. Faith's story crashes ... burns ... suddenly and spectacularly.

It is ironic to me that Faith complains how the GC rocks can exist for so long without disturbance, but when we show her a period of disturbance prior to the Paleozoic rocks, she has to deny that it exists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by PaulK, posted 03-13-2015 2:12 PM PaulK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 03-13-2015 4:51 PM edge has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26306
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 12 of 1939 (752843)
03-13-2015 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by edge
03-13-2015 4:22 PM


Interesting that nothing you say addresses anything I said.

The biggest single problem for Faith is the principle of cross-cutting features.
The faults, which down-drop and preserve the GC Supergroup, cross-cut both the Vishnu and the GC Supergroup; and are therefor younger than both.

But there's no problem with this. Of course they'd be younger. So what? That doesn't mean they have to be millions of years younger, just younger than the rocks they cut through. You can build a stack of clay and then crack it. Same timing.

In turn, the faults are cross-cut by the Great Unconformity and are therefor older than the unconformity which is then superseded the overlying Paleozoics.

Which as I've said could not have deposited in a curve over these Precambrian formations. You still have to explain that.

The rest is just a bunch of details. Faith's story crashes ... burns ... suddenly and spectacularly.

Wishful thinking edge. You haven't addressed one thing I said.

It is ironic to me that Faith complains how the GC rocks can exist for so long without disturbance, but when we show her a period of disturbance prior to the Paleozoic rocks, she has to deny that it exists.

I don't "complain" about that, I consider it prime evidence against the Old Earth that they could exist so long without disturbance, and the assertion that it's not at all unlikely I find to be just that, an assertion that flies in the face of all the claims about this being such an active planet and all that. "Oh it was placid here for hundreds of millions of years while it was shaking and twisting elsewhere." Nope, that placidity here is good evidence against the Old Earth, and if it's been disproved in one place it must also be the case all over the globe that the Old Earth is a false interpretation. All the shaking and twisting came after the strata were in place. You can see this in the fact that everywhere you look the twisted strata are all strata that were originally horizontally laid down and then distorted in a block.

And of course I am rethinking the Precambrian disturbance as having occurred after all the strata were in place along with the disturbances that are so visible from the Kaibab on up. I've been seeing it this way for a long time but now I see solid evidence for it: how the curvature of the mound of strata above it shows that it couldn't have been tilted before those strata were laid down.

And you've completely failed to address this argument.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by edge, posted 03-13-2015 4:22 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by edge, posted 03-13-2015 6:28 PM Faith has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13122
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 13 of 1939 (752844)
03-13-2015 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Faith
03-13-2015 3:59 PM


quote:

Angle of repose applies only to sand, and as you can see from a straight on view of the canyon walls the sandstone is just as flat and horizontal as any of the other layers.

The same concept applies to other sediment. And really, looking at the strata side-on is irrelevant.

quote:

The adhesive idea is pretty far-fetched. You aren't going to get a dozen layers all following the contour of a mound as they were being laid down. The only explanation for their conforming to the mound is uplift that occurred after they were all in place.

No, adhesion is a real thing. But more importantly, why wouldn't they conform? If the deposition comes from above - as we'd expect, and is evenly spread - as we expect the it would naturally follow the contours. You need to show that there has to be something that would level it out, and you haven't.

quote:

There's just the one mounded formation. More than one instance of uplift is possible but wouldn't that just be saying that the mound occurred in stages?

Even if it did, I don't see that it matters. Looking at the strata it looks to me as if any mounding from the first uplift would have been largely flattened by the time the upper strata were deposited - a lot of erosion has happened. And that answers your other objection, too.

quote:

But again, it makes sense that only those blocks of layers were faulted as they were clearly separated from the upper and lower layers, tilted separately. They received more violence from the force beneath and that would have put stress on them.

Which doesn't make sense of it's all one event. Not to mention the question of what happened to the rest of the strata.

quote:

If my scenario is correct those upper sections would have been sheared off in the abrasion between the GU layers and those above, in the force that uplifted it all

Which is a very good reason for rejecting your scenario. Do you have grounds for thinking that it is even possible?

quote:

I've suggested that the Vishnu schist that surrounds the GU could account for much of the material that was eroded away but the argument has been made that it doesn't show evidence of the right kinds of rock. But if there was rock above that sheared off we wouldn't know what that rock was, would we?

We're talking about the missing parts of strata that we do have, so of course we know what sort of rock it is.

quote:

Only if there was a continuous contact between the two blocks of layers. But the GU was formed separately.

No. The question is why is there contact now. How did the rock above move down without faulting? Assuming a void before the fault hardly seems to help.

quote:

What "rock above" are you talking about? And what do you mean by "move down?"

The rock that is immediately above the tilted blocks now - which you say was in place when the faults occurred. And moving down is hardly a difficult concept. The tilted rocks moved down because of the fault. The rock above must therefore also have moved down to be in contact with the faulted rock.

quote:

Not if what I've shown above is true and you haven't shown it's not.

No, having a better argument is quite sufficient. The mere possibility that you might somehow be right doesn't help you. Your scenario has major problems and you haven't shown anything equally problematic with my views.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 03-13-2015 3:59 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Faith, posted 03-13-2015 5:16 PM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26306
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 14 of 1939 (752845)
03-13-2015 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by PaulK
03-13-2015 5:00 PM


Sediments make layers over mounds?
No, adhesion is a real thing. But more importantly, why wouldn't they conform? If the deposition comes from above - as we'd expect, and is evenly spread - as we expect the it would naturally follow the contours. You need to show that there has to be something that would level it out, and you haven't.

I can't believe the nonsense you are willing to say in defense of your Old Earth. Leaving aside for the moment your strange idea that it would come from above, one doesn't have to be a physicist to know that sediment is NOT going to neatly spread itself out over a contour. If you sprinkle sediment on a mounded surface it's going to slide off the surface and pile up at the bottom of the slopes. It is not going to form an evenly distributed layer that follows the contour. If the sediment is wet some if it might stick but it's still going to follow gravity down the slope and be a lot thicker at the bottom than along the slope. The striking thing about all the cross sections of the Grand canyon is how even the layers look climbing up and over this mound.

Oh well.

I don't have time right now for the rest of your post. Just had to say something about this.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by PaulK, posted 03-13-2015 5:00 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by PaulK, posted 03-13-2015 5:23 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 16 by jar, posted 03-13-2015 5:33 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 17 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-13-2015 5:42 PM Faith has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13122
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 15 of 1939 (752847)
03-13-2015 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Faith
03-13-2015 5:16 PM


Re: Sediments make layers over mounds?
It's considerably more sensible than some of the things that you are suggesting. Sediment is deposited, so of course it is going to come from above. Friction is real. Things don't automatically descend slopes. Drop a stone on a hillside and it will often just stay where it lands. You need to deal with these facts, instead of just calling reality nonsense.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Faith, posted 03-13-2015 5:16 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
1
23456
...
130NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017