Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 123 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-28-2017 9:22 AM
468 online now:
jar, kjsimons, PaulK, RAZD, Stile, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (7 members, 461 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 799,599 Year: 4,205/21,208 Month: 2,600/1,605 Week: 237/563 Day: 21/90 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
123124
125
126127
...
130Next
Author Topic:   Evidence that the Great Unconformity did not Form Before the Strata above it
edge
Member
Posts: 3711
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 1861 of 1939 (762446)
07-12-2015 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1860 by petrophysics1
07-12-2015 11:01 AM


Re: How you figure this out
Some time ago I asked you what exactly you do to determine the depositional environment of rocks.

The first thing you do is measure a section. This has all the descriptions of the rocks and exactly how thick they are.


I think that we might have mentioned some of this in passing, although without any quantification. Since sedimentary environments change laterally, there must be some change in water depth. Ergo, there is a slope.

We also know the thickness of units changes even in the Grand Canyon region where Faith says that they are all straight and level. This would be hard to imagine given the fact of variable thicknesses.

Someone is also suggested that since the ocean gets deeper as you go away from shore there simply has to be a slope.

This is, of course, pretty basic stuff. But Faith has made so many errors that it's hard to know where to start and explain things in a simple manner.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1860 by petrophysics1, posted 07-12-2015 11:01 AM petrophysics1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1862 by Faith, posted 07-12-2015 12:28 PM edge has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 23470
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1862 of 1939 (762451)
07-12-2015 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1861 by edge
07-12-2015 11:32 AM


Re: How you figure this out
I know the thicknesses vary and I've said so many times. That doesn't stop them from being visibly straight and horizontal over huge distances, even with knife-edge tight contacts. .

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1861 by edge, posted 07-12-2015 11:32 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1864 by edge, posted 07-12-2015 12:59 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23470
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1863 of 1939 (762452)
07-12-2015 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1859 by Admin
07-12-2015 9:04 AM


Re: Sedimentation on a slope, take 2
The rougher rock is a sort of hinge point where the layers start the sag to the left, the whole stack as a matter of fact, and to the right of it they are narrower, showing pinching against the basement rock.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1859 by Admin, posted 07-12-2015 9:04 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1865 by Admin, posted 07-12-2015 1:20 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 3711
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 1864 of 1939 (762454)
07-12-2015 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1862 by Faith
07-12-2015 12:28 PM


Re: How you figure this out
I know the thicknesses vary and I've said so many times. That doesn't stop them from being visibly straight and horizontal over huge distances, even with knife-edge tight contacts.

In your very next post, you say this:

The rougher rock is a sort of hinge point where the layers start the sag to the left, the whole stack as a matter of fact, and to the right of it they are narrower, showing pinching against the basement rock.

So, what is the case?

Were the sagging rock layers deposited horizontally or not?

Your own experiment shows that they need not be originally horizontal.

And just what are the 'huge distances' that you talk about? Are you saying that the Tapeats Sandstone at the Grand Canyon does not vary over even a few feet? Are you saying that the Coconino is straight and horizontal all the way to Vermont?

C'mon, Faith, you are creating an argument where none is necessary by making vague and outlandish pronouncements. Ask yourself if you are not just being stubborn for the sake of stubbornness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1862 by Faith, posted 07-12-2015 12:28 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12388
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 1865 of 1939 (762455)
07-12-2015 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1863 by Faith
07-12-2015 12:37 PM


Re: Sedimentation on a slope, take 2
Hi Faith,

I'm going to continue ruling that those arguments that are not directly relevant to the main topic and that you're unable to support with evidence can no longer be used in this thread. Feel free to propose new threads over at Proposed New Topics to discuss them further. The goal is to remove obstacles to discussing the original topic.

Faith writes:

The rougher rock is a sort of hinge point...

Unless you can present evidence that the rougher rock has some geologic origin rather than is just the result of blasting the road cut, please don't present this argument anymore.

Faith writes:

...where the layers start the sag to the left, the whole stack as a matter of fact, and to the right of it they are narrower, showing pinching against the basement rock.

I presented an image showing a sublayer that gradually peters out as you look from left to right. Unless you can present evidence of actual pinching, which means the rock in the thinner section became denser or the material was squeezed elsewhere, please don't present this argument anymore.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1863 by Faith, posted 07-12-2015 12:37 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12388
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 1866 of 1939 (762469)
07-12-2015 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1860 by petrophysics1
07-12-2015 11:01 AM


Re: How you figure this out
petrophysics1 writes:

Do you know that if you actually measured sections of rocks you would know how insane the stuff Faith is saying actually is.

I think I already know how outlandish Faith's ideas are. She seems to have no criteria by which to distinguish valid from invalid ideas, no way of judging which details are important and which extraneous, and now we see that even her own experimental results dissolve in her eyes amidst a maze of irrelevant details of her own random choosing.

If you think it would help to discuss the evidence for depositional environments by examining measured sections then by all means respond to Faith. I'm trying to stay out of the main discussion and am only focusing on bringing diversions to a quick resolution.

Edited by Admin, : Fix grammar in 1st sentence of 2nd para.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1860 by petrophysics1, posted 07-12-2015 11:01 AM petrophysics1 has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23470
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1867 of 1939 (762478)
07-12-2015 4:12 PM


Goodbye to this utterly ridiculous thread. Good grief what nonsense you all spout. "Science?" And what an absolutely disgusting excuse for moderation on this thread. Appalling.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 1868 by JonF, posted 07-12-2015 4:49 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1869 by edge, posted 07-12-2015 8:03 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3443
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 1868 of 1939 (762482)
07-12-2015 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1867 by Faith
07-12-2015 4:12 PM


Yeah, not being allowed to repeat claims that you have personally debunked is just like Stalin.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1867 by Faith, posted 07-12-2015 4:12 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 3711
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


(2)
Message 1869 of 1939 (762500)
07-12-2015 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1867 by Faith
07-12-2015 4:12 PM


Goodbye to this utterly ridiculous thread.

What makes it ridiculous?

Good grief what nonsense you all spout. "Science?"

Why is it nonsense?

And what an absolutely disgusting excuse for moderation on this thread. Appalling.

Do you think that being less combative on your part might help?

Could it be possible that it is your interpretation and application of the Bible is what's making the thread ridiculous and nonsense?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1867 by Faith, posted 07-12-2015 4:12 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12388
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 1870 of 1939 (762631)
07-14-2015 9:03 AM


Resuming Discussion
To help discussion resume I'll reintroduce the main topic. Faith's contention is that the Great Unconformity at the Grand Canyon was formed in this way:

  • All the layers of the Grand Canyon, including missing layers that have eroded completely away, were deposited by the flood.

  • Tectonic forces tilted the layers below the Great Unconformity, leaving the layers above undisturbed.

If discussion doesn't resume then I'll throw this thread into summation mode in a week or so.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 1871 by Faith, posted 07-14-2015 9:13 AM Admin has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23470
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1871 of 1939 (762634)
07-14-2015 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1870 by Admin
07-14-2015 9:03 AM


Re: Resuming Discussion
All the layers of the Grand Canyon, including missing layers that have eroded completely away, were deposited by the flood.

Except I don't accept the idea that whole layers eroded away. Itr's possible even in the Flood, but basically that's an idea necessary to the integrity of the Geologic Time Scale for which the evidence isn't exactly present.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1870 by Admin, posted 07-14-2015 9:03 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1872 by jar, posted 07-14-2015 9:25 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1873 by Admin, posted 07-14-2015 9:48 AM Faith has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 28221
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 1872 of 1939 (762636)
07-14-2015 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1871 by Faith
07-14-2015 9:13 AM


Re: Resuming Discussion
Faith writes:

Except I don't accept the idea that whole layers eroded away.

Too funny Faith.

The layers are missing, miles and miles of them.

If they were not eroded away how do you propose they went? Did thy go "walk about" or "Poof" or are they magical like the Biblical Floods?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1871 by Faith, posted 07-14-2015 9:13 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12388
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 1873 of 1939 (762644)
07-14-2015 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1871 by Faith
07-14-2015 9:13 AM


Re: Resuming Discussion
Faith writes:

All the layers of the Grand Canyon, including missing layers that have eroded completely away, were deposited by the flood.

Except I don't accept the idea that whole layers eroded away. Itr's possible even in the Flood, but basically that's an idea necessary to the integrity of the Geologic Time Scale for which the evidence isn't exactly present.

I think you must have misunderstood what I said. There *are* layers at the Grand Canyon that were once present and now are completely missing at the Grand Canyon. I'm referring to layers like, for example, the Claron and the Carmel that exist in the Brain Head region but not at the Grand Canyon:

That layers like these are missing at the Grand Canyon is something you've explicitly said yourself.

So let's make sure we have a very clear and accurate statement of your basic position, please provide any necessary corrections:

  • All the layers of the Grand Canyon, including missing layers that have eroded completely away, were deposited by the flood.

  • Tectonic forces tilted the layers below the Great Unconformity, leaving the layers above undisturbed.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1871 by Faith, posted 07-14-2015 9:13 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1874 by Faith, posted 07-14-2015 10:08 AM Admin has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23470
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1874 of 1939 (762649)
07-14-2015 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1873 by Admin
07-14-2015 9:48 AM


Re: Resuming Discussion
OK, yes, I definitely have referred many times to the layers that were once above the Kaibab in the GC region, all the way to the Claron level at least, eroded away.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1873 by Admin, posted 07-14-2015 9:48 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1875 by Admin, posted 07-14-2015 10:52 AM Faith has responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12388
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 1875 of 1939 (762659)
07-14-2015 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1874 by Faith
07-14-2015 10:08 AM


Re: Resuming Discussion
So is this an accurate statement of your basic position or not? You just objected to part of it a short while ago, and while you've provided assent to my clarification you haven't actually endorsed that statement, and I'm trying to avoid leaving things in a state of ambiguity:

  • All the layers of the Grand Canyon, including missing layers that have eroded completely away, were deposited by the flood.

  • Tectonic forces tilted the layers below the Great Unconformity, leaving the layers above undisturbed.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1874 by Faith, posted 07-14-2015 10:08 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1876 by Faith, posted 07-14-2015 11:26 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply
 Message 1877 by edge, posted 07-14-2015 11:45 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
RewPrev1
...
123124
125
126127
...
130Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017