Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8863 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-21-2018 2:34 AM
125 online now:
Hyroglyphx, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 122 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 838,723 Year: 13,546/29,783 Month: 992/1,576 Week: 204/303 Day: 1/27 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
8586
87
8889
...
193NextFF
Author Topic:   Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win.
edge
Member
Posts: 4392
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1291 of 2887 (829624)
03-10-2018 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1287 by Faith
03-10-2018 12:48 PM


Re: Grand Canyon Panorama Project
The idea about reducing a formation to dust is about how long it would take from its formation to be completely disintegrated.

But if the sedimentary deposits of the canyon were so soft, they would be easy to disintegrate to dust.

And yet, why do I have all of these hard gravels down here in Arizona? Did they come from flushing soft sediments down the Colorado River?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1287 by Faith, posted 03-10-2018 12:48 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1292 by Faith, posted 03-10-2018 1:52 PM edge has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 29541
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1292 of 2887 (829625)
03-10-2018 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1291 by edge
03-10-2018 1:28 PM


Re: Grand Canyon Panorama Project
Reducing a FORMATION to dust means a ROCK.

And don't exaggerate the softness of the sediments at the end of the Flood. They were three miles deep so certainly highly compacted.

And who knows what the gravel is you're sitting on anyway.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1291 by edge, posted 03-10-2018 1:28 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1300 by edge, posted 03-10-2018 7:24 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 29541
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1293 of 2887 (829626)
03-10-2018 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1289 by Tanypteryx
03-10-2018 1:09 PM


Re: Grand Canyon Panorama Project
Of course I get it. What is your problem?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1289 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-10-2018 1:09 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

    
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1483
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 5.4


(1)
Message 1294 of 2887 (829627)
03-10-2018 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1290 by edge
03-10-2018 1:24 PM


Re: Grand Canyon Panorama Project
There's a whole pile of rounded boulders, gravels and sand down here that say that's just silly. How did those boulders get to be so hard after they were washed away so easily?

Yes, that is exactly what I was talking about. All you have to do is actually look around the canyon area and it should be clear that a flood did not carve it out a few thousand years ago.

In case you didn't see the link I posted in Message 1265 to the Panorama Project (Since I did that post as a general reply) here it is again.

Grand Canyon Panoramic Project

I have been to the GC but only saw it from the South Rim, did not go down into it. It is not really possible to get a idea of the scale of the GC from images. The panoramic shots are better than static images, but it is still very underwhelming. Still there are some shots of the Redwall cliffs, well... just wow... In the Elves Chasm area there are some great shots of the Vishnu and what I believe is the Tapeats, which is composed of hundreds of laminated layers. They are really beautiful images - rivaling Tanypteryx's dragonfly images, although his deal with very small features and these deal with very large features. Anyway, check it out.

Have you ever been down in the canyon yourself? It is something I would really love to do someday.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1290 by edge, posted 03-10-2018 1:24 PM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1295 by Faith, posted 03-10-2018 2:01 PM herebedragons has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 29541
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1295 of 2887 (829628)
03-10-2018 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1294 by herebedragons
03-10-2018 1:57 PM


Re: Grand Canyon Panorama Project
Yes, that is exactly what I was talking about. All you have to do is actually look around the canyon area and it should be clear that a flood did not carve it out a few thousand years ago.

Depends on who is doing the looking. A biased evolutionist isn't going to see it correctly. Especially if you think gravel that has collected there was collected thousands of years ago when of course it was collected recently.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1294 by herebedragons, posted 03-10-2018 1:57 PM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1296 by herebedragons, posted 03-10-2018 2:02 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1483
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 5.4


(2)
Message 1296 of 2887 (829629)
03-10-2018 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1295 by Faith
03-10-2018 2:01 PM


Re: Grand Canyon Panorama Project
But, of course a biased creationist can...

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1295 by Faith, posted 03-10-2018 2:01 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17653
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 1297 of 2887 (829636)
03-10-2018 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1264 by Faith
03-09-2018 10:11 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
Replying to your last few messages...

Replying to your Message 1264 to me:

Faith in Message 1264 writes:

Yes I see the contact line in the blown up picture and it's knife-edge tight.

As others have noted, without knowing the nature of that inch-wide something (whether it belongs to the Coconino or Hermit or is a transitional zone), it can't be known whether the term "knife-edge tight" is appropriate. But for the sake of discussion let's say we agree that the Coconino/Hermit boundary is "knife-edge tight." Since many strata boundaries in the Grand Canyon and at many, many places around the world are "knife-edge tight," why do you believe this significant?

There are bits of the Coconino overhanging and causing shadows.

Hey, we agree on something!

But I was saying that the reason the contact is a darker fine line than the surrounding rock is that we're seeing the shadow that is IN the contact.

A "knife-edge tight" contact would be too narrow to have a shadow be cast that is in it.

And I can tell you don't get it, you don't get any of this and I guess nobody is going to straighten you out about it, nothing surprising there, but I'm tired of being the butt of your failures of comprehension.

Do you sense of pattern here of casting blame instead of deliberating towards a resolution?

No, if you still think the contact is an inch thick...

Well, *something* is an inch thick.

...or that the lighter band beneath the contact doesn't belong to the Hermit,...

No one is contending that you're wrong that the inch-wide something belongs to the Hermit. Edge also seems to lean in that direction. The question is how you know, from a photo, that it belongs to the Hermit? While it doesn't matter to the larger discussion whether it does or not, there is an important point here, and that's that people can't just declare things so. They have to show that they're so. That's why Edge and Tanyperyx and HereBeDragons tend toward characterizations couched in tentative terms when there is insufficient evidence for solid conclusions. So why do you think the "lighter band beneath the contact doesn't belong to the Hermit"?

...you are not getting it and I am not interested in discussing any of this with you.

If everywhere you go there's a problem...guess what?

Replying to your Message 1266 to HereBeDragons:

Faith in Message 1266 writes:

You should also be able to see that the process takes a lot of time. You don't turn that amount of material to dust in a few thousand years... there's just no way.

It sounds like you think somebody said that would happen.

We do understand that you believe the Grand Canyon was formed rapidly by receding flood waters through massive erosion of still unconsolidated sedimentary deposits. This raises a couple additional questions:

  • Your scenario requires repeated inundations of the land to build the individual sedimentary layers. Each inundation delivers and deposits the sediment for a new layer, followed by a recession, and then the next inundation delivers and deposits new sediments for the next layer. If receding flood waters carved the Grand Canyon, then how is it that the receding waters between each inundation did not carve canyons, even small ones?

  • Here's a thought experiment about receding flood waters carving the Grand Canyon. Imagine a bathtub with a massive drain that can empty the tub in seconds. Fill this bathtub with water. Build a pile of sand in the middle that doesn't quite reach the surface. Open the drain. Why is there no flow of water across the pile of sand and no erosion?

Reply to your Message 1268 to HereBeDragons:

Faith in Message 1268 writes:

I can't see bright white images with thinline writing or images on them and those are very common. Photos with decent lighting I can usually make out.

It feels insensitive to question anyone's health-related issue, but I have to agree with HereBeDragons that the timing of your lapses of vision has often seemed very convenient for you. Potentially productive lines of discussion have often been left hanging because you claim you can't see the images. You say images with a lot of white are difficult for you, but much text on the web is black on white, which doesn't seem to cause you a problem. Your frequent descents into sarcasm, complaint, blame and insult are often well-timed to thwart discussion, and this casts doubt on the sincerity of your commitment to reach mutual understandings, leading to the suspicion that your vision impairment claims might just be another arrow in your quiver of evasive tactics. I think we all want to be respectful of your vision challenges, but we don't want to be played for fools, either.

Replying to your Message 1270 to Tanypteryx:

Faith in Message 1270 writes:

If someone describes a contact between layers as the tightest they've ever seen or uses a descriptive term like "knife-edge" I know it is knife-edge tight and not an inch thick.

Something is an inch thick, and it lies right at the Coconino/Hermit boundary. Instead of taking the word of this "someone" you should accept the evidence before your eyes.

Why Percy doesn't know that I can't fathom...

Maybe it isn't that you can't fathom but that you can't see.

...but I had no problem at all just looking at the picture and knowing that the fine line is the contact.

What "fine line" are you talking about? Is this the "darker fine line" that you still haven't revealed whether it's the shadow or something else?

I read the lighter area beneath it as being at an angle that reflects the sun more directly than the rest.

Your eyes are telling you things that aren't there. The inch-side something is very unlikely to be at an angle. Here's the image that shows it best. The best that you can claim after viewing this image is that while it doesn't render it impossible that the inch-wide something is at an angle, it definitely doesn't look that way in the image. Click on it to expand:

But the important thing is that it is not the contact, the fine line is the contact.

Again, what do you mean by "fine line"? Where there's no shadow there's also no line. Look at the first vertical line from the left of sheered off rock in the Coconino layer. Where this vertical line meets the inch-wide something there is no shadow and no line. The Coconino transitions abruptly into this inch-wide something.

This particular image also has pretty fair resolution. Blowing it up reveals that the texture of the inch-wide something is different from the Coconino, and it is different in both texture and color from the Hermit. Whatever this thin layer is, it is unlike the layers that adjoin it. Now maybe it's just that the very earliest Coconino deposits were different from those that came later. Or maybe it's some mixing of the Coconino and Hermit. Or maybe it's something else. I don't know, I'm not a geologist and I'm not there where I could study it anyway.

No there is no rule that says a contact cannot be an inch thick,...

Is there a rule that says a "knife-edge tight" contact can be an inch thick?

Edge calls it a sharp contact, and I give informed views very serious consideration, but I also have to give serious credence to what I can see with my own eyes in that image. That inch-thick something is not the same as the layers above and below it. That will be obvious to anyone with decent eyesight and a high-resolution monitor. My Macbook Pro is 2880x1800.

As Edge says, the inch-wide something is slightly recessive, hinting that it belongs with the Hermit. Also, the slabs of Coconino broke off at the top of it instead of the bottom, also hinting that it belongs with the Hermit. But Edge also mentions that in color it looks sandy, which isn't like the Hermit at all.

There's no way to tell what's really going on from an image. A geologist would probably walk up to the rock face and take samples above, below and at the inch-wide something that he then subjects to multiple analyses, which would certainly include examination by both eye and under a microscope, and I don't know what else. But even though we sitting here in our easy chairs have to concede that we can't possibly know the answers, that doesn't change the fact that the image alone tells us the inch-wide something is not the same as either the Coconino or the Hermit.

...but follow the discussion: this contact line in this particular section of the GC is pointed out for its extreme tightness which wouldn't be the case if it were an inch thick.

Well, yes follow the discussion. There is an inch-wide something at a contact you've called "knife-edge tight." You've called this contact unique, yet I've shown you an image of an even longer stretch of the Coconino/Hermit contact that looks just like that one, and here's yet another image of a different location where the Coconino/Hermit contact is just as clear and obvious as it was at other locations:

But there are many, many miles of sharp contacts between layers in the Grand Canyon. They're just not as easy to see because they're not below the Coconino that breaks off in slabs, which makes it easy to see the boundary with the layer below. Many Grand Canyon strata contacts are just as tight, but it's harder to see them because the strata are softer or there's a lot of scree or they're the same color or there's vegetation obscuring it or something else or some combination. For example, this is Vasey's Paradise in the South Canyon of the Grand Canyon. It has a boundary between the Muav and the Redwall Limestone that has a sharp contact. Can you pick it out? I couldn't:

Replying to your Message 1272 to Tanypteryx:

Faith in Message 1272 writes:

The daftness here is what I'm up against in this utterly absurd conversation.

Not helpful.

All I mean by "the important thing" is that it's what we are talking about for cryin out loud. We're talking about the CONTACT LINE and the contact line is that very fine line just below the Coconino,...

Again, what "very fine line"? There's a shadow, but no line. There's a contact line between the bottom of the Coconino and the top of that inch-wide something. Is that what you're referring to?

...and not the lighter band beneath it no matter what the nature of that band might be. Sheesh. A one inch contact line would not be described as "knife-edge" tight even if it was tighter than others in the canyon. It's hard to believe the absurdities you're willing to sink to in trying to put me in the wrong about something as obvious as this.

Without knowing what that inch-wide something is, without knowing whether it belongs to the Coconino or the Hermit, how can you know whether "knife-edge tight" is an appropriate description?

Here's some irony. This paper by John Whitmore, a creationist (Sand injectites at the base of the Coconino Sandstone, Grand Canyon, Arizona (USA)), mentions "bedded sandstone clast breccias in structureless sandstone lenses at the base of the Coconino" in the abstract. I don't have access to the paper and can't get more detail, but maybe Edge or Tanypteryx or someone does. But clearly he's saying something is going on at the base of the Coconino.

This earlier paper by the same creationist author, Sandstone clast breccias, homogenized sand, and sand intrusions: Evidence of substratal liquefaction in the basal Coconino Sandstone (Permian), Grand Canyon, Arizona, says in it's abstract:

quote:
Field evidence and thin section analysis suggest the base of the Coconino Sandstone underwent substratal liquefaction prior to lithification of the unit. Previous work has indicated that the large sand-filled cracks often found at the base of the Coconino, penetrating into the Hermit Formation, are probably not mud cracks, but intrusions of liquefied sand.

I can't get at the actual paper, and interpreting the above excerpt is beyond my pay grade (what is "substratal liquefaction" and what causes it), but it is still easy to tell that it's saying something went on at the base of the Coconino, and I'm betting that whatever it was took place in that inch-wide something. That is, this creationist paper implies that the inch-wide something is part of the Coconino, which makes perfect sense since it seems sandy and is the same color.

Of course, I'd understand if you don't what to trust what a creationist author says.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1264 by Faith, posted 03-09-2018 10:11 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1298 by Faith, posted 03-10-2018 7:08 PM Percy has responded
 Message 1299 by Faith, posted 03-10-2018 7:23 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 1303 by Faith, posted 03-11-2018 3:40 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 29541
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1298 of 2887 (829639)
03-10-2018 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1297 by Percy
03-10-2018 3:52 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
There is no possible reasonable doubt that the fine line above the one inch strip you keep questioning is the contact line, absolutely none whatever, and that the one inch area belongs to the Hermit. Doubting the people who have used terms that describe extreme tightness of the contact line is unreasonable.

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 1297 by Percy, posted 03-10-2018 3:52 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1304 by Percy, posted 03-11-2018 6:14 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1306 by Percy, posted 03-11-2018 9:04 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 29541
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1299 of 2887 (829640)
03-10-2018 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1297 by Percy
03-10-2018 3:52 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
A "knife-edge tight" contact would be too narrow to have a shadow be cast that is in it.

What do you think makes it appear darker then? Do canyon employees come along and trace it with a pencil or what?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1297 by Percy, posted 03-10-2018 3:52 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4392
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1300 of 2887 (829641)
03-10-2018 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1292 by Faith
03-10-2018 1:52 PM


Re: Grand Canyon Panorama Project
Reducing a FORMATION to dust means a ROCK.

So, the GC sediments were lithified?

And don't exaggerate the softness of the sediments at the end of the Flood. They were three miles deep so certainly highly compacted.

I knew you'd say that. Okay, so they were kinda-sorta-mildishly-weakly-yet-strongly-more-or-less tentatively lithified. The point is that is becomes very difficult to see how soft rocks could so easily be eroded to depths and yet still form boulders, cobbles and gravel beds hundreds of miles away.

And who knows what the gravel is you're sitting on anyway.

Yah, well, I've only talked to people who have been studying this stuff for decades; and really, where else did it come from? It's right there along the river in stranded gravel beds and it occurs from there for miles in some directions. If you have a better idea, I'd just love to hear about it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1292 by Faith, posted 03-10-2018 1:52 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1301 by Faith, posted 03-10-2018 9:54 PM edge has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 29541
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1301 of 2887 (829642)
03-10-2018 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1300 by edge
03-10-2018 7:24 PM


Re: Grand Canyon Panorama Project
Reducing a FORMATION to dust means a ROCK.

So, the GC sediments were lithified?

I meant by "formation" the hoodoos and the Monument Valley buttes and that sort of thing. But perhaps they too weren't rock at the time they were eroded if I'm right that it was the receding Flood that did the first carving of them. So I've taken the position that compaction under miles of other sediments was enough consolidation to leave the buttes and take away all the material around them, to leave the whole limestone rock pretty much intact after exposure while starting the process of carving the hoodoos and so on, and left much of the Grand Canyon walls intact while washing away the less consolidated strata above the Permian and carving out the basic shape of the canyon.

And don't exaggerate the softness of the sediments at the end of the Flood. They were three miles deep so certainly highly compacted.

I knew you'd say that. Okay, so they were kinda-sorta-mildishly-weakly-yet-strongly-more-or-less tentatively lithified.

Compacted, not lithified yet, but compaction can produce a pretty hard formation anyway, in fact on a thread here quite a long time ago somebody found a site that said compaction does produce rock all by itself. Except for the very uppermost strata that got washed away I don't think it's right to describe any of the damp strata at the point the Flood receded as "soft" at all.

The point is that is becomes very difficult to see how soft rocks could so easily be eroded to depths and yet still form boulders, cobbles and gravel beds hundreds of miles away.

I'm not sure what you mean by "eroded to depths." You mean the cutting of the canyon? The amount of water involved that would have been rushing into the cracks in the strata would have sent chunks of material down the canyon to carve it out. But if the rocks weren't "soft" but highly consolidated or compacted they wouldn't just disintegrate, they'd break up into large pieces as well. Being washed down the canyon should do quite a bit of shaping wouldn't you think? But I'd also mention that you don't know WHEN any given boulders and gravel formed, do you?

And who knows what the gravel is you're sitting on anyway.

Yah, well, I've only talked to people who have been studying this stuff for decades; and really, where else did it come from? It's right there along the river in stranded gravel beds and it occurs from there for miles in some directions. If you have a better idea, I'd just love to hear about it.

I think I should have said you don't know WHEN the gravel you're sitting on arrived there, that is there's no reason to assume it washed there in the Flood water. Especially the gravel on the surface should have been deposited much more recently.

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 1300 by edge, posted 03-10-2018 7:24 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1302 by edge, posted 03-10-2018 10:56 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4392
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1302 of 2887 (829643)
03-10-2018 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1301 by Faith
03-10-2018 9:54 PM


Re: Grand Canyon Panorama Project
I meant by "formation" the hoodoos and the Monument Valley buttes and that sort of thing.

In geology, the word 'formation' has a very specific meaning, so I was reading something different, evidently.

But perhaps they too weren't rock at the time they were eroded if I'm right that it was the receding Flood that did the first carving of them. So I've taken the position that compaction under miles of other sediments was enough consolidation to leave the buttes and take away all the material around them, to leave the whole limestone rock pretty much intact after exposure while starting the process of carving the hoodoos and so on, and left much of the Grand Canyon walls intact while washing away the less consolidated strata above the Permian and carving out the basic shape of the canyon.

This is kind of garbled here. Not sure that it's important, but it doesn't exactly flow.

Compacted, not lithified yet, but compaction can produce a pretty hard formation anyway, in fact on a thread here quite a long time ago somebody found a site that said compaction does produce rock all by itself. Except for the very uppermost strata that got washed away I don't think it's right to describe any of the damp strata at the point the Flood receded as "soft" at all.

In that case how did the gravels from the canyon become so hard just laying around in stream deposits?

I'm not sure what you mean by "eroded to depths." You mean the cutting of the canyon?

I have always been discussing the canyon unless I specifically say otherwise. In this case, I mean erosion down to the metamorphic basement rocks including granite.

The amount of water involved that would have been rushing into the cracks in the strata would have sent chunks of material down the canyon to carve it out. But if the rocks weren't "soft" but highly consolidated or compacted they wouldn't just disintegrate, they'd break up into large pieces as well.

THen they would become harder after being broken up and transported?

Being washed down the canyon should do quite a bit of shaping wouldn't you think?

Over thousands of years and thousands of miles, yes.

But I'd also mention that you don't know WHEN any given boulders and gravel formed, do you?

Well, it's pretty clear that it would be during formation of the canyon. All I know is that people who study the Neogene deposits say that they are from the Colorado River and the greatest erosion along the Colorado is in the Grand Canyon. I also see the same beds above the current banks of the existing river.

Besides, you don't have all that much time to deal with it this all happened 4ky ago.

But I'm glad to see that you understand the post Permian rocks to be softer and less resistant and would be more readily worn away over the millions of years since their deposition; and that a peneplain might be developed on top of the Kaibab. This was the surface the allowed formation of the meanders that we see so prominent today.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1301 by Faith, posted 03-10-2018 9:54 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 29541
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1303 of 2887 (829661)
03-11-2018 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1297 by Percy
03-10-2018 3:52 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
What "fine line" are you talking about? Is this the "darker fine line" that you still haven't revealed whether it's the shadow or something else?

Just reading a post of yours is like visiting the Twilight Zone or entering some weird torture chamber. Didn't I post the picture with the arrow pointing to the fine line? The tip of the arrow is right smack ON the fine line.

HERE'S THE PICTURE WITH THE ARROW AGAIN:

You keep adding the lighter band of rock to it for some reason, this one-inch "something" you're obsessed about that is just part of the Hermit rock though lighter because of the reflection of the sun on it, which means it's at a somewhat different angle from the Hermit rock. A slight ledge, a slight "beveled" angle, something like that. But the contact itself, the fine line itself is the line at the top of that band where the tip of the arrow touches it.

I read the lighter area beneath it as being at an angle that reflects the sun more directly than the rest.

Your eyes are telling you things that aren't there. The inch-side something is very unlikely to be at an angle. Here's the image that shows it best. The best that you can claim after viewing this image is that while it doesn't render it impossible that the inch-wide something is at an angle, it definitely doesn't look that way in the image.

It does to me and my eyes are just fine for this photo. The depressing weird thing is that YOU are the one who is seeing things wrong and blaming it on me. That's why I'd better get out of this weird place that is your mind as soon as possible for the sake of my health.

Click on it to expand:

But the important thing is that it is not the contact, the fine line is the contact.

Again, what do you mean by "fine line"? Where there's no shadow there's also no line. Look at the first vertical line from the left of sheered off rock in the Coconino layer. Where this vertical line meets the inch-wide something there is no shadow and no line.

It's the line at the very top of the inch-wide "something" you keep confusing with it.

The Coconino transitions abruptly into this inch-wide something.
This particular image also has pretty fair resolution. Blowing it up reveals that the texture of the inch-wide something is different from the Coconino, and it is different in both texture and color from the Hermit. Whatever this thin layer is, it is unlike the layers that adjoin it. Now maybe it's just that the very earliest Coconino deposits were different from those that came later. Or maybe it's some mixing of the Coconino and Hermit. Or maybe it's something else. I don't know, I'm not a geologist and I'm not there where I could study it anyway.

It's just an illusion of the light angle, Percy.

Appearing to be the same color as the Coconino is probably due to its reflecting that color, which is a typical optical effect.

No there is no rule that says a contact cannot be an inch thick,...

Is there a rule that says a "knife-edge tight" contact can be an inch thick?

Absolutely not. The rule is the English language. Knives are not an inch thick or they wouldn't cut anything. I can't believe I have to say this.

Edge calls it a sharp contact, and I give informed views very serious consideration, but I also have to give serious credence to what I can see with my own eyes in that image. That inch-thick something is not the same as the layers above and below it. That will be obvious to anyone with decent eyesight and a high-resolution monitor. My Macbook Pro is 2880x1800.

It's just an illusion of the way the light is falling on the rock at that point. Even texture can show up differently under different lights. Edge must be referring to the actual fine line contact when he calls it "sharp."

As Edge says, the inch-wide something is slightly recessive, hinting that it belongs with the Hermit. Also, the slabs of Coconino broke off at the top of it instead of the bottom, also hinting that it belongs with the Hermit. But Edge also mentions that in color it looks sandy, which isn't like the Hermit at all.

It's just an illusion caused by the way the light is hitting a slightly angled area of the Hermit just below the contact.

There's no way to tell what's really going on from an image. A geologist would probably walk up to the rock face and take samples above, below and at the inch-wide something that he then subjects to multiple analyses, which would certainly include examination by both eye and under a microscope, and I don't know what else. But even though we sitting here in our easy chairs have to concede that we can't possibly know the answers, that doesn't change the fact that the image alone tells us the inch-wide something is not the same as either the Coconino or the Hermit.

It's the Hermit looking lighter where the sunlight is hitting it more directly because of how the rock is angled. You are having a terrible time with your eyes. I am not.

...but follow the discussion: this contact line in this particular section of the GC is pointed out for its extreme tightness which wouldn't be the case if it were an inch thick.

Well, yes follow the discussion. There is an inch-wide something at a contact you've called "knife-edge tight."

The inch-wide something is the rock just below the contact that happens to be reflecting brighter sunlight than the rest of the rock.

You've called this contact unique, yet I've shown you an image of an even longer stretch of the Coconino/Hermit contact that looks just like that one, and here's yet another image of a different location where the Coconino/Hermit contact is just as clear and obvious as it was at other locations:

Since you can't read the photo in question accurately you aren't going to get anything else right either.

I said I think that stretch of contact MAY be unique "as far as I know" because it is singled out for its tightness. If there are other places with the same tightness that's fine, it doesn't matter. I don't want to get into another discussion with you about other photos.

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 1297 by Percy, posted 03-10-2018 3:52 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17653
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 1304 of 2887 (829664)
03-11-2018 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1298 by Faith
03-10-2018 7:08 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
You replied three times to my Message 1297, so I'll reply to them all here:

Replying to your Message 1298:

Faith in Message 1298 writes:

There is no possible reasonable doubt that the fine line above the one inch strip you keep questioning is the contact line, absolutely none whatever, and that the one inch area belongs to the Hermit.

There's no question that it's *a* contact line, but what layers does that contact line lie between. Is that contact line between the bottom of the Coconino and the top of the Hermit? Or is it between the almost-the-lowest Coconino and the absolutely-lowest Coconino? If the latter then that would make the bottom of the one-inch something the contact line between the Coconino and the Hermit.

There's also those two papers from creationist author John Whitmore that imply that inch-wide something at the bottom of the Coconino is substratal liquefaction of the basal Coconino:

One of the abstracts says:

quote:
Field evidence and thin section analysis suggest the base of the Coconino Sandstone underwent substratal liquefaction prior to lithification of the unit.

So there *is* doubt. If you know the true situation, if you're somehow able to derive certainty from an image, then how do you know? Tell us.

Whatever the inch-wide something is, whichever layer it belongs to, the contact is indeed sharp. I think Edge is treating "knife-edge tight" as a synonym for sharp contact, because when I challenged your characterization of "knife-edge tight" he responded that in geological circles that contact would be characterized as a sharp contact.

But I'm finding myself increasing uncomfortable with that characterization, because images clearly show an inch-wide something between the Coconino and the Hermit but do not provide enough information to determine what it is. I also share HereBeDragons view that "knife-edge tight" isn't a meaningful geological term.

But the larger question is why you think that 20-foot stretch of Coconino/Hermit contact is significant. It's certainly not unique in the canyon, as shown by the images of other longer stretches of the Coconino/Hermit contact that appear the same. And the Coconino/Hermit contact is not unique in being sharp, as there are many other strata boundaries within the canyon that are equally sharp, miles and miles of them.

So if you think that particular Coconino/Hermit contact is in some way special in a way that provides support for your flood, then why is that, especially since a flood seems most unlikely to create sharp contacts?

Doubting the people who have used terms that describe extreme tightness of the contact line is unreasonable. Since you have doubts I am not in this discussion any more.

I'm just trying to get you to admit that you can't really know from an image whether that inch-wide something belongs to the Coconino, the Hermit, or is some kind of transition.

Replying to your Message 1299:

Faith in Message 1299 writes:

Faith writes:

But I was saying that the reason the contact is a darker fine line than the surrounding rock is that we're seeing the shadow that is IN the contact.

A "knife-edge tight" contact would be too narrow to have a shadow be cast that is in it.

What do you think makes it appear darker then? Do canyon employees come along and trace it with a pencil or what?

You said that the shadow lies "IN the contact", which you describe as "knife-edge tight." I was just making the point that something so narrow it can be described as "knife-edge tight" is far to narrow to have a shadow cast within it.

Replying to your Message 1303:

Faith in Message 1303 writes:

What "fine line" are you talking about? Is this the "darker fine line" that you still haven't revealed whether it's the shadow or something else?

Just reading a post of yours is like visiting the Twilight Zone or entering some weird torture chamber. Didn't I post the picture with the arrow pointing to the fine line? The tip of the arrow is right smack ON the fine line.

HERE'S THE PICTURE WITH THE ARROW AGAIN:

Yes, that's Baumgardner's image. Evidently in his opinion that represents the contact line between the Coconino and the Hermit. But in the opinion of Edge, HereBeDragons, Tanypteryx and myself that is only one of the possibilities, and the image doesn't provide enough information to tell with any certainty.

You keep adding the lighter band of rock to it for some reason, this one-inch "something" you're obsessed about that is just part of the Hermit rock though lighter because of the reflection of the sun on it, which means it's at a somewhat different angle from the Hermit rock.

That's not impossible, but that isn't what the images appear to show. If you expand my image you can tell that the texture of the inch-wide something is different from the Coconino, and both the texture and the color are different from the Hermit.

A slight ledge,...

Yes, we agree, there is definitely a slight ledge of Coconino above the inch-wide something across most of that image.

...a slight "beveled" angle,...

While not impossible, this is not how the inch-wide something appears in the image. It appears to be as vertical as the rest of the rockface.

But the contact itself, the fine line itself is the line at the top of that band where the tip of the arrow touches it.

I still don't know what you mean by "fine line." Is this the same as what you previously called the "darker fine line"? If so then that's a shadow. If instead by "fine line" you just mean the contact line, then yes, there is a contact line at the top of the inch-wide something.

I read the lighter area beneath it as being at an angle that reflects the sun more directly than the rest.

Your eyes are telling you things that aren't there. The inch-side something is very unlikely to be at an angle. Here's the image that shows it best. The best that you can claim after viewing this image is that while it doesn't render it impossible that the inch-wide something is at an angle, it definitely doesn't look that way in the image.

It does to me and my eyes are just fine for this photo.

The evidence says your eyes are not just fine for this photo.

The depressing weird thing is that YOU are the one who is seeing things wrong and blaming it on me.

That's a strange thing to say. I'm not the one with macular degeneration sufficiently severe to use as an excuse to avoid viewing evidence.

That's why I'd better get out of this weird place that is your mind as soon as possible for the sake of my health.

Do you sense a pattern here?

The Coconino transitions abruptly into this inch-wide something.

This particular image also has pretty fair resolution. Blowing it up reveals that the texture of the inch-wide something is different from the Coconino, and it is different in both texture and color from the Hermit. Whatever this thin layer is, it is unlike the layers that adjoin it. Now maybe it's just that the very earliest Coconino deposits were different from those that came later. Or maybe it's some mixing of the Coconino and Hermit. Or maybe it's something else. I don't know, I'm not a geologist and I'm not there where I could study it anyway.

It's just an illusion of the light angle, Percy.

No, it's not. Anyone with good eyesight and a good resolution monitor can see the difference between the Coconino, the Hermit, and the inch-wide something in between. There are differences in texture and color. Here's the image that best shows this again:

What is the resolution of your monitor?

Appearing to be the same color as the Coconino is probably due to its reflecting that color, which is a typical optical effect.

I won't say this is impossible, but it seems extremely unlikely.

Faith writes:

Percy writes:

Faith writes:

No there is no rule that says a contact cannot be an inch thick,...

Is there a rule that says a "knife-edge tight" contact can be an inch thick?

Absolutely not. The rule is the English language. Knives are not an inch thick or they wouldn't cut anything. I can't believe I have to say this.

Explaining the contradiction, you describe the contact as "knife-edge tight," then say there's no rule the contact couldn't be an inch thick.

Edge calls it a sharp contact, and I give informed views very serious consideration, but I also have to give serious credence to what I can see with my own eyes in that image. That inch-thick something is not the same as the layers above and below it. That will be obvious to anyone with decent eyesight and a high-resolution monitor. My Macbook Pro is 2880x1800.

It's just an illusion of the way the light is falling on the rock at that point. Even texture can show up differently under different lights.

You keep repeating this, but it just confirms the poor quality of your eyesight.

Edge must be referring to the actual fine line contact when he calls it "sharp."

I interpreted him as saying that even including the inch-wide something that the Coconino/Hermit boundary is a sharp contact. Quoting that exchange from Edge's Message 1251:

Edge in Message 1251 writes:

Percy writes:

Okay, let's call it the contact line. It's about one inch thick. How is that a "knife-edge tight" boundary? Here's the image for reference:


It is indeed called a 'contact'. And in geological circles this would be a 'sharp contact'. (Although in greater detail, it may not actually be so).

Back to your message:

As Edge says, the inch-wide something is slightly recessive, hinting that it belongs with the Hermit. Also, the slabs of Coconino broke off at the top of it instead of the bottom, also hinting that it belongs with the Hermit. But Edge also mentions that in color it looks sandy, which isn't like the Hermit at all.

It's just an illusion caused by the way the light is hitting a slightly angled area of the Hermit just below the contact.

This tells me that either your eyesight or your monitor or both make it impossible for you to see the textural difference in the inch-wide something, which contains speckles. It is not an illusion.

There's no way to tell what's really going on from an image. A geologist would probably walk up to the rock face and take samples above, below and at the inch-wide something that he then subjects to multiple analyses, which would certainly include examination by both eye and under a microscope, and I don't know what else. But even though we sitting here in our easy chairs have to concede that we can't possibly know the answers, that doesn't change the fact that the image alone tells us the inch-wide something is not the same as either the Coconino or the Hermit.

It's the Hermit looking lighter where the sunlight is hitting it more directly because of how the rock is angled. You are having a terrible time with your eyes. I am not.

The next time you refuse to look at some piece of evidence because of your eyes I'm going to refer you back to this. Anyway, you're clearly having trouble discerning fine detail in images.

...but follow the discussion: this contact line in this particular section of the GC is pointed out for its extreme tightness which wouldn't be the case if it were an inch thick.

Well, yes follow the discussion. There is an inch-wide something at a contact you've called "knife-edge tight."

The inch-wide something is the rock just below the contact that happens to be reflecting brighter sunlight than the rest of the rock.

Again, not impossible, but that's not how the image appears to everyone else.

You've called this contact unique, yet I've shown you an image of an even longer stretch of the Coconino/Hermit contact that looks just like that one, and here's yet another image of a different location where the Coconino/Hermit contact is just as clear and obvious as it was at other locations:

Since you can't read the photo in question accurately you aren't going to get anything else right either.

Well, you let me know when you can make out the speckles in the inch-wide something.

I said I think that stretch of contact MAY be unique "as far as I know" because it is singled out for its tightness. If there are other places with the same tightness that's fine, it doesn't matter. I don't want to get into another discussion with you about other photos.

I thought you introduced the Baumgardner image because you believed it provided support for the flood. Why do you think that?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1298 by Faith, posted 03-10-2018 7:08 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1305 by jar, posted 03-11-2018 7:09 PM Percy has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30842
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 1305 of 2887 (829666)
03-11-2018 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1304 by Percy
03-11-2018 6:14 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
Percy.

When one layer is deposited on another layer won't the contact between the two layers always be "knife edge" unless there is mixing? Is there even some known process where the contact between two layers could be anything other than a "knife edge"?

When we look at geological boundaries don't we always find the contact between two layers is "knife edge" unless there is evidence to show why it is not "knife edge" such as we see around intrusions?

Since the Coconino is not a flood deposit in the first place and in fact all the evidence shows it was wind blown sand with even surface living critter tracks preserved; what point could Faith possibly make regarding the Coconino?

If she wishes to claim the layer below is the result of the flood then is that not then evidence that the Coconino and all layers above the Coconino were post flood deposits and the canyon itself also a post flood creation?

Does Faith have any purpose other than obfuscation, wilful ignorance and deceit in any of the discussion relating to the boundary between the Coconino and all the layers below the Coconino?


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1304 by Percy, posted 03-11-2018 6:14 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1309 by Faith, posted 03-11-2018 11:12 PM jar has responded
 Message 1327 by Percy, posted 03-12-2018 10:42 AM jar has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
8586
87
8889
...
193NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018