Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2017 5:43 PM
444 online now:
Asgara (AdminAsgara), dwise1, jar, PaulK, Tangle (5 members, 439 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Happy Birthday: OnlyCurious
Post Volume:
Total: 801,967 Year: 6,573/21,208 Month: 2,334/2,634 Week: 522/572 Day: 8/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
125126127
128
129130Next
Author Topic:   Evidence that the Great Unconformity did not Form Before the Strata above it
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1906 of 1939 (762883)
07-17-2015 9:22 AM


I think I've said all I have to say on this thread. Take it or leave it.
    
ThinAirDesigns
Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 02-12-2015


(4)
Message 1907 of 1939 (762885)
07-17-2015 10:43 AM


Observation
It's been informative (but not surprising) to see the rejection of the clear and unambiguous testing. Those of us who have high regard for evidence have a difficult time imagining how something so obvious can be so utterly minimized and yet ... .

Because I went through it, I know it's a long process going from "I just believe because I must" to "I want to understand how the physical world actually operates before drawing my conclusions." It's something I'm dealing with every day with my YEC friends and family. Thankfully, there are many out there who are gradually accepting the evidence in front of them.

In addition to the "Strata only forms horizontal", I'm particularly baffled by the belief that there is some process for producing weathered and eroded (missing material) surface while buried. Simply astonishing.

JB


  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12390
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1908 of 1939 (762887)
07-17-2015 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1902 by Faith
07-16-2015 11:00 PM


Re: Resuming Discussion
Faith writes:

You may certainly be able to show that they are the same kind of rock in different forms, but the idea that the layer eroded from the mountain rock is pure conjecture.

This is a legitimate objection, and Edge should provide the evidence trail that leads to the conclusion that the rocks actually come from the Ancestral Rockies and are not just rocks of the same type as the Ancestral Rockies.

How about the possibility that the Pennsylvanian deposits were lithified when the mountains were uplifted?

Just to clarify, the question Edge asked wasn't about when they lithified. The question was how a single flood could create a stack of alluvial fans eroded from the Ancestral Rockies.

What Faith is saying is essentially, that this cannot be done.

That what can't be done?

Edge thinks you're saying that it isn't possible to trace a specific age of strata across a broad region. That wasn't my interpretation, which is that what you said is too ambiguous to know what you actually meant, so some clarification from you would be helpful.

I, obviously disagree. Here is an outline of the Paradox Basin in between the Grand Canyon on the lower left and the Uncompahgre Uplift in the upper right.

Unfortunately that diagram is totally invisible to me. I put it in Paint and expanded it so I now can at least see the blue patch in the center and basic outlines but can't make out the words.

Yes, the lettering in Edge's diagram can't be made out:

But here's the same region as Edge's map, but from Google Earth. It should help you locate the region:

And here is Edge's diagram showing the Cutler fans:

I wouldn't doubt that there is some relation between the uplifting of the mountains and the rocks at their base but of course I have to put the timing off to the end of the Flood, the mountainbuilding disrupting the already-deposited strata, not during the laying down of one of the buried layers. So in my hypothesis it would be the mountain-building itself that caused the rubble or conglomerate fans, also lithified or even metamorphosed the sedimentary rock where the tectonic pressure occurred.
...
Again I don't have a problem with the idea that the erosion of the mountains could have created the conglomerate fans or rubble, only with the timing, so that the raising of the mountains itself could have created the rubble. That tectonic action would have compressed the strata it was pushing upward, and erosion of chunks off its rising surface would make sense.

First you say you can accept that erosion could create the fans, but deeply buried fans exist where erosion could never take place in your scenario. That mountain building could create fans of alluvial sediments in deeply buried strata without ever exposing them to erosive forces at the surface seems impossible. You (or someone) have to explain how this is actually possible, otherwise I have to to disallow this argument.

Edited by Admin, : Minor clarification in last para.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1902 by Faith, posted 07-16-2015 11:00 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1912 by edge, posted 07-17-2015 2:21 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply
 Message 1913 by edge, posted 07-17-2015 2:34 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12390
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1909 of 1939 (762890)
07-17-2015 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1903 by Faith
07-16-2015 11:16 PM


Re: Resuming Discussion
Faith writes:

Nothing biblical at all about my hypothesis. As usual the Biblical framework defines what is possible but the interpretation of the rocks doesn't come from the Bible.

This is a science thread where you have to let the evidence "define what is possible," not your personal interpretation of the Bible.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1903 by Faith, posted 07-16-2015 11:16 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12390
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.9


(4)
Message 1910 of 1939 (762895)
07-17-2015 12:18 PM


The Experiment That Keeps On Giving
Here again is the last image from my experiment showing how sediments accumulate on a slope just as easily as on the level. Notice the cloudy water, which became cloudy from the bottom layer of sand which was just ordinary play box sand:

I kept the experiment sitting on my desk and gradually the water cleared, and while it's a little hard to tell, a new and very thin layer of sediment has formed from the tiny particles that gradually fell out of suspension:

This new layer is more easily seen from above. It is thinnest where the water column was most shallow and therefore contained the least sediment, and it is thickest where the water column was deepest and therefore contained the most sediment. This new layer of sediment had no trouble accumulating on the sloped portion:


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 1911 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 07-17-2015 12:22 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
ThinAirDesigns
Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 02-12-2015


(2)
Message 1911 of 1939 (762896)
07-17-2015 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1910 by Admin
07-17-2015 12:18 PM


Re: The Experiment That Keeps On Giving
That's sorta like science

Nicely done.

JB


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1910 by Admin, posted 07-17-2015 12:18 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

  
edge
Member
Posts: 3711
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 1912 of 1939 (762897)
07-17-2015 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1908 by Admin
07-17-2015 10:57 AM


Re: Resuming Discussion
Faith writes:
You may certainly be able to show that they are the same kind of rock in different forms, but the idea that the layer eroded from the mountain rock is pure conjecture.

This is a legitimate objection, and Edge should provide the evidence trail that leads to the conclusion that the rocks actually come from the Ancestral Rockies and are not just rocks of the same type as the Ancestral Rockies.

Yes, and that is exactly why I mentioned that I can accept the argument that someone believes this can't be done.

I disagree with it of course.

There are a few misconceptions along the way, though. First of all, they are not 'the same kind of rock in different forms', they are different rock types demonstrating different depositional environments in existence at a same time. Remember Walther's Law...

Now, if we just propagate the environments upward, we get the same picture as the cross-section shows.

(This may be hard to visualize, but, by 'propagating upward', what I'm really saying is that the basin is subsiding rather than having the sea transgress across the continent ... does this make sense?)

So, as the mountains on the left rise, they shed alluvial fans into the basin. If the basin keeps subsiding the fans keep forming through time (upward).

As a point of clarification, note that the wavy horizontal lines represent specific points in time.

So, the point of the argument is, can we trace from one contemporaneous rock-type to another? I think with transitional contacts and interlayering units, it is easily done by simple geological mapping; and with fossil evidence, we can confirm the conclusion that one formation is the time-equivalent of another. I do not intend to 'prove' this for the Pennsylvanian formations of the Colorado Plateau, but I will accept previous work of others because of the predictive pattern it creates. As further confirmation, these basin models are used extensively in the successful exploration for oil and gas resources along with certain types of copper and uranium deposits.

Feel free to ask questions if I'm not being clear.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1908 by Admin, posted 07-17-2015 10:57 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

  
edge
Member
Posts: 3711
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 1.7


(2)
Message 1913 of 1939 (762898)
07-17-2015 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1908 by Admin
07-17-2015 10:57 AM


Re: Resuming Discussion
How about the possibility that the Pennsylvanian deposits were lithified when the mountains were uplifted?

Just to clarify, the question Edge asked wasn't about when they lithified. The question was how a single flood could create a stack of alluvial fans eroded from the Ancestral Rockies.

More to the point, how do you get these deposits, which signify rapid erosion (conglomerate fans) during a time when Faith says that there was no tectonism, or erosion?

And clearly, something was going on to create lateral changes in rock type and thickness right there in the middle of a single, global flood.

Even if you don't accept the equivalence of the Cutler rocks to the Supai rocks, you need to wonder just why these deposits formed long before the end of the flood. After the Cutler. there is still a long geological history recorded in the rocks as the continent shows a change from marine deposition to more terrestrial rocks of Mesozoic time. How does that fit into the 'one-flood, one-volcano, one mountain-building event such as Faith proposes?

ETA:

First you say you can accept that erosion could create the fans, but deeply buried fans exist where erosion could never take place in your scenario. That mountain building could create fans of alluvial sediments in deeply buried strata without ever exposing them to erosive forces at the surface seems impossible. You (or someone) have to explain how this is actually possible, otherwise I have to to disallow this argument.

This is exactly the point.

In the past, Faith has demanded that we restrict the discussion to the Grand Canyon area, but if she is saying that there was no tectonism or erosion on a global scale that makes her argument specious.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1908 by Admin, posted 07-17-2015 10:57 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 1914 by Faith, posted 07-17-2015 6:40 PM edge has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1914 of 1939 (762904)
07-17-2015 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1913 by edge
07-17-2015 2:34 PM


How the Flood REINTERPRETS the Cutler et. al.
How about the possibility that the Pennsylvanian deposits were lithified when the mountains were uplifted?

Just to clarify, the question Edge asked wasn't about when they lithified. The question was how a single flood could create a stack of alluvial fans eroded from the Ancestral Rockies.

AS I ALREADY SAID, I don't accept that they are "ancestral" to the strata, I applied my hypothesis which says the mountains were tectonically pushed up after all the strata were in place and in that process shed the rocks that formed the fans. It is relevant to MY hypothesis if not to anything anybody else thinks, that the strata would have been lithified in the process of being raised, because that shows a view of the order of things that puts the strata first and the mountain-building afterward, makes the strata not the result of erosion of the mountains but the mountains an interruption in the path of the strata and a source of the conglomerate fans AFTERward.

edge writes:

More to the point, how do you get these deposits, which signify rapid erosion (conglomerate fans) during a time when Faith says that there was no tectonism, or erosion?

I thought this was answered too, and again you show how hard it is for you to think outside your geological box, which makes conversation with you so frustrating.

As my own separate model suggests, since the strata do NOT represent time periods the mountain-building with its resultant erosion into the alluvial fans occurred AFTER THE FLOOD, which is when I've said ALL ALONG that according to my hypothesis the tectonic activity occurred that created all the massive erosion in the GC area AND the Rockies. The fans had to have been pushed into the different layers of the strata as seen on the cross section, at the same time the strata were being compressed and raised into the mountains. I can picture it but it would be hard to describe.

And clearly, something was going on to create lateral changes in rock type and thickness right there in the middle of a single, global flood.

IT WAS NOT "IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FLOOD" for crying out loud. The Flood had come to an end; all the strata were already laid down all the way across the continent. The change in rock type is easily explained by the tectonic forces that raised the mountains, the thickness, if I'm getting what that refers to, explained by the shedding of chunks of rock from the rising mountains.

I thought you were talking about how the Pennsylvanian layer was the result of the erosion which implied the same kind of rock in different forms, to which I reply that the Pennsylvanian sediments, not yet lithified, GOT lithified by the tectonic force that raised the mountains and turned them into solid rock, shedding chunks in the process that built up into the fans. I already said all this I thought. But perhaps it involves different kinds of rock, not just the Pennsylvanian. That's OK too, I just wasn't clear what you are referring to.

Even if you don't accept the equivalence of the Cutler rocks to the Supai rocks...

But I have no reason not to accept that and I thought I said that loud and clear tloo.

...you need to wonder just why these deposits formed long before the end of the flood.

I wonder no such thing because I don't accept your timeline, and really, that much ought to be very clear by now. The fact that you can't seem to break out of your own presuppositions long enough to grasp this simple fact I've repeated a bazillion times makes communication IMPOSSIBLE.

I'M OFFERING A DIFFERENT EXPLANATION ON DIFFERENT TIMING for how those deposits formed --AFTER THE FLOOD.

After the Cutler. there is still a long geological history recorded in the rocks as the continent shows a change from marine deposition to more terrestrial rocks of Mesozoic time. How does that fit into the 'one-flood, one-volcano, one mountain-building event such as Faith proposes?

Edge, it doesn't fit into the Flood, it can't fit into the Flood, it's your own model, not mine. I do not accept that supposed "long geological history" and all that utter nonsense about changing "depositional environments" from "marine deposition" to later "terrestrial rocks" and so on. NONE OF THAT HAPPENED on the Flood model, that's all just the Geological Fantasy Time Scale. It's all the result of peering too closely at the rocks and inventing entire landscapes out of bits and pieces of Flood flotsam and jetsam that you misinterpret in terms of long periods of time.

ETA: First you say you can accept that erosion could create the fans, but deeply buried fans exist where erosion could never take place in your scenario.

the strata are spread or expanded vertically in that cross section, which suggests that the fans had space or created the space to intrude or force the conglomerate into or between the layers. Again, I can picture it but describing it isn't easy. Sort of how the bristles of a stiff brush spread out if you push it hard against a solid surface. Best I can do at the moment.

That mountain building could create fans of alluvial sediments in deeply buried strata without ever exposing them to erosive forces at the surface seems impossible. You (or someone) have to explain how this is actually possible, otherwise I have to to disallow this argument.

Oh of course. If you don't understand something you call it "nonsense" and disallow it. You're quite the "neutral" moderator.

Well, I just now tried to explain how I visualize them being forced into the spread-out strata that butts up against the mountains after they've been raised or during their raising, abrasion at that point contributing to the shedding of the conglomerate rock.

This is exactly the point.
In the past, Faith has demanded that we restrict the discussion to the Grand Canyon area, but if she is saying that there was no tectonism or erosion on a global scale that makes her argument specious.

This is so ludicrously false I hardly know what to say. I certainly never "demanded" anything, but I did say that the Grand Canyon has the virtue of CLARITY that makes it easier to argue the order of things, whereas most other geological formations are messy enough to make it difficult to show the same order of things. BUT I'VE NEVER EVER DENIED, and in fact I believe I've affirmed, that THE VERY SAME EVENTS HAD TO HAPPEN EVERYWHERE IN THE SAME ORDER. There certainly DID have to be tectonism and erosion on a global scale and wherever I've been able to figure out the geological situation at all I've made that case.

You and Percy are the blind leading the blind, taking turns at it, Abbot and Costello, Mutt and Jeff.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1913 by edge, posted 07-17-2015 2:34 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1915 by edge, posted 07-17-2015 7:36 PM Faith has responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 3711
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 1915 of 1939 (762906)
07-17-2015 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1914 by Faith
07-17-2015 6:40 PM


Re: How the Flood REINTERPRETS the Cutler et. al.
the strata are spread or expanded vertically in that cross section, which suggests that the fans had space or created the space to intrude or force the conglomerate into or between the layers.

Wow...

Intrusive conglomerates.

I wonder why no one ever thought of that before.

Again, I can picture it but describing it isn't easy. Sort of how the bristles of a stiff brush spread out if you push it hard against a solid surface. Best I can do at the moment.

You're right, it's not easy.

I'm just trying to imagine how these conglomerates were deposited after the flood and then, somehow, forced themselves down the fault zone and then out into sediments that were deposited midway through the flood.

A difficult thing to visualize.

Edge, it doesn't fit into the Flood, it can't fit into the Flood, it's your own model, not mine. I do not accept that supposed "long geological history" and all that utter nonsense about changing "depositional environments" from "marine deposition" to later "terrestrial rocks" and so on. NONE OF THAT HAPPENED.

So, all of these things happened after the flood.

That's kind of odd since these processes are happening to old layers within the rock record.

... on the Flood model, that's all just the Geological Fantasy Time Scale. It's all the result of peering too closely at the rocks and inventing entire landscapes out of bits and pieces of Flood flotsam and jetsam that you misinterpret in terms of long periods of time.

So, the record of eroding mountains in the record was injected or produced by some kind of alteration of the original rocks?

Please proceed with explaining your idea that conglomerates are intrusive. And remember to explain why they are found close to older rocks that are the source of the rock fragments.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1914 by Faith, posted 07-17-2015 6:40 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1916 by Faith, posted 07-17-2015 9:01 PM edge has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1916 of 1939 (762911)
07-17-2015 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1915 by edge
07-17-2015 7:36 PM


Re: How the Flood REINTERPRETS the Cutler et. al.
So, all of these things happened after the flood.
That's kind of odd since these processes are happening to old layers within the rock record.

The Flood hypothesis denies that they are old.

I made a drawing that I'll post despite your snarky attitude:

I figure the contacts between layers could have been opened up by the abrasion to admit the chunks abraded off the mountain side and ends of the strata. That's how I can imagine a fan shape being formed.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1915 by edge, posted 07-17-2015 7:36 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1917 by Admin, posted 07-17-2015 9:31 PM Faith has responded
 Message 1922 by edge, posted 07-17-2015 10:15 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12390
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1917 of 1939 (762915)
07-17-2015 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1916 by Faith
07-17-2015 9:01 PM


Re: How the Flood REINTERPRETS the Cutler et. al.
From Message 1914:

Faith in Message 1914 writes:

I thought you were talking about how the Pennsylvanian layer was the result of the erosion which implied the same kind of rock in different forms, to which I reply that the Pennsylvanian sediments, not yet lithified, GOT lithified by the tectonic force that raised the mountains and turned them into solid rock, shedding chunks in the process that built up into the fans.

From Message 1916:

Faith in Message 1916 writes:

I made a drawing that I'll post despite your snarky attitude:

I figure the contacts between layers could have been opened up by the abrasion to admit the chunks abraded off the mountain side and ends of the strata. That's how I can imagine a fan shape being formed.

Alluvial fans are sedimentary deposits. Sediments can only be deposited on land surfaces or upon lake and sea floors - in other words, sediments can only deposit upon exposed surfaces, be they on land or under water. Unless you can explain how alluvial fans can form within deeply buried strata, I'm disallowing this argument. This problem with your scenario has been called to your attention in a number of messages, so please do not raise this point again without providing the requested explanation.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1916 by Faith, posted 07-17-2015 9:01 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1918 by Faith, posted 07-17-2015 9:34 PM Admin has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1918 of 1939 (762916)
07-17-2015 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1917 by Admin
07-17-2015 9:31 PM


Re: How the Flood REINTERPRETS the Cutler et. al.
Then they are misnamed.

I wish you'd stay out of this. I have more than enough trouble with edge without your intrusions and misguided rulings against my comments.

All you are doing is ruling in favor of the arguments of my opposition. That ought to disqualify you from playing moderator on this thread. Or anywhere for that matter.

I am disallowing all your disallowings. You can suspend me of course. Fire away.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1917 by Admin, posted 07-17-2015 9:31 PM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1919 by Admin, posted 07-17-2015 9:55 PM Faith has responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12390
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1919 of 1939 (762919)
07-17-2015 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1918 by Faith
07-17-2015 9:34 PM


Re: How the Flood REINTERPRETS the Cutler et. al.
Faith writes:

Then they are misnamed.

This is a statement, not evidence and an explanation. If what the evidence tells us are the sedimentary deposits of rivers and streams are actually something else, then you need to explain the evidence that leads you to believe this.

Faith writes:

All you are doing is ruling in favor of the arguments of my opposition.

This is, of course, untrue. I am ruling against claims that have no evidence and make no sense (that in fact appear to run counter to the facts and be impossible), unless you can provide the evidence and rationale for your position.

That ought to disqualify you from playing moderator on this thread. Or anywhere for that matter.

I am disallowing all your disallowings. You can suspend me of course. Fire away.

Please take concerns about moderation to the Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0 thread.

If you continue to ignore moderation you *do* risk suspension. As I have explained many times, the goal is to prevent discussion from bogging down on points not germane to the main topic. In this case you are asserting that mountains while being uplifted force broken off material into adjacent strata that precisely resemble alluvial fan sedimentary deposits. Naturally a diversion onto this subtopic is fine, but only if you can provide evidence and explanation. Simply declaring it so is disallowed.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1918 by Faith, posted 07-17-2015 9:34 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1920 by Faith, posted 07-17-2015 9:57 PM Admin has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1920 of 1939 (762920)
07-17-2015 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1919 by Admin
07-17-2015 9:55 PM


Re: How the Flood REINTERPRETS the Cutler et. al.
I don't want to fight with you any more. You are way out of line and can't see it. Either get off the thread or suspend me, I don't care which.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1919 by Admin, posted 07-17-2015 9:55 PM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1921 by Admin, posted 07-17-2015 10:00 PM Faith has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
125126127
128
129130Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017