Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8843 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-25-2018 3:38 PM
279 online now:
kjsimons, NoNukes, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), ringo (5 members, 274 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MrTim
Post Volume:
Total: 834,327 Year: 9,150/29,783 Month: 1,397/1,977 Week: 90/445 Day: 36/54 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
8788
89
9091
...
193NextFF
Author Topic:   Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win.
Faith
Member
Posts: 28588
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1321 of 2886 (829686)
03-12-2018 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1320 by edge
03-12-2018 9:05 AM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thickEros
The Mesozoic and Cenozoic layers look exactly the same and in fact there are lots of very tight contacts there.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1320 by edge, posted 03-12-2018 9:05 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1345 by edge, posted 03-12-2018 9:17 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30430
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 1322 of 2886 (829687)
03-12-2018 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1318 by Faith
03-12-2018 8:38 AM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thickEros
Faith writes:

The evidence is what you see when you look at the surface of the earth now. It looks nothing like what we see between layers of the geo column.

Except, as always, reality shows you are simply wrong. The fact is that what we see at each "geo column" actually does look very much like the surface of the earth today; we find evidence of sand dunes and forests and lakes and oceans and mountains and volcanoes and meteor strikes and floods and salt plains and rivers and everything we see on the surface today.

But that is reality Faith and not just the dogma of your cult.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1318 by Faith, posted 03-12-2018 8:38 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1323 by Faith, posted 03-12-2018 9:28 AM jar has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 28588
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1323 of 2886 (829689)
03-12-2018 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1322 by jar
03-12-2018 9:11 AM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thickEros
You are not talking about what anything LOOKS LIKE, you are talking about bits and pieces and odds and ends of stuff that are associated with particular sources and make the interpretive leap to the conclusion that those landscapes actually once existed there. You are NOT looking at the actual surface of the earth in any supposed "time period" but that is what we'd have to see for any of the geological timescale to be true..

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1322 by jar, posted 03-12-2018 9:11 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1324 by jar, posted 03-12-2018 10:08 AM Faith has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30430
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 1324 of 2886 (829690)
03-12-2018 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1323 by Faith
03-12-2018 9:28 AM


Evidence of long time passages
Faith writes:

You are not talking about what anything LOOKS LIKE, you are talking about bits and pieces and odds and ends of stuff that are associated with particular sources and make the interpretive leap to the conclusion that those landscapes actually once existed there. You are NOT looking at the actual surface of the earth in any supposed "time period" but that is what we'd have to see for any of the geological timescale to be true..

So you claim, yet reality says once again that you are simply wrong and that you and your whole cult have nothing in the way of evidence to support your fantasies except the writings of ignorant humans collected as part of your Bible. You have been sown fossilized stream beds, shore lines, embedded tree stumps, sand dunes all the things we find on the surface today. You have been shown fossilized tracks and casts of leaves; all evidence that they were originally on the surface and on the surface when they were buried.

Here is the Navajo Sandstone yet again; hardly flat, certain not deposited by your fantasy flud.


"The Wave" [CC BY 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], by Alex Proimos from Sydney, Australia, from Wikimedia Commons

We have the geology, we have the model, we have the fossils, we have the reef, we have the wind deposited dunes and all you have are stories made up by ignorant humans.

We win.

ABE:

Faith; you understand that even a single grain of sand is evidence of long, long, millions of years of time don't you?

Edited by jar, : see AbE and fix sub-title.

Edited by jar, : No reason given.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1323 by Faith, posted 03-12-2018 9:28 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1325 by Faith, posted 03-12-2018 10:14 AM jar has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 28588
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1325 of 2886 (829691)
03-12-2018 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1324 by jar
03-12-2018 10:08 AM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thickEros
Tracks occurred during the Flood between waves or when the tide was out, sand dunes were just transported sand, that isn't a stream bed, tree stumps were transported etc etc etc, and of course it was all "originally on the surface" but the Flood moved all kinds of things that were originally on the surface, and what we don't see is an actual earth surface in any of the layers, which would have to be there if the whole "time periods" notion had any truth to it. But there is only these flat slabs of rock one on top of another stretching for long distances. And again, The Wave sure looks like something that was shaped in water.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1324 by jar, posted 03-12-2018 10:08 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1326 by jar, posted 03-12-2018 10:23 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1328 by herebedragons, posted 03-12-2018 11:17 AM Faith has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30430
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 1326 of 2886 (829693)
03-12-2018 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1325 by Faith
03-12-2018 10:14 AM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thickEros
Faith writes:

Tracks occurred during the Flood between waves or when the tide was out, sand dunes were just transported sand, that isn't a stream bed, tree stumps were transported etc etc etc, and of course it was all "originally on the surface" but the Flood moved all kinds of things that were originally on the surface, and what we don't see is an actual earth surface in any of the layers, which would have to be there if the whole "time periods" notion had any truth to it. But there is only these flat slabs of rock one on top of another stretching for long distances. And again, The Wave sure looks like something that was shaped in water.

Again, you are just making up really stupid shit Faith.

You have never presented a single explanation of how any of those really stupid ideas could happen and in fact for a good reason; they are all nonsense.

There is no way a flood could carry an intact reef, intact cross bedded sand dunes, not wipe out tracks or any of the other sill things you post.

BUT WAIT, there's more.

Even if any of your stupid ideas were possible the fact that the reefs exist, the sand exists, is clear evidence that the Earth is old, very very very old.

Just one handful of sand is proof of an old Earth or a lying God; take you pick but them's the only choices possible.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1325 by Faith, posted 03-12-2018 10:14 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17361
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1327 of 2886 (829695)
03-12-2018 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 1305 by jar
03-11-2018 7:09 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
jar writes:

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 Faith first started using the "knife-edge tight" term I responded several times that most unconformity boundaries would be "knife-edge tight," that what was unique about the 20-foot stretch of Coconino/Hermit boundary in that image was how clearly discernible it was because of the flatness of the rock face, not that it was unique because it was a sharp contact, which are common throughout the canyon.

When we look at geological boundaries don't we always find the contact between two layers is "knife edge"...

My own inexpert understanding is that unconformities tend to be sharp contacts, while continuous deposition across a context change tend not to be. For example, a sea transgression gradually transforming a coastal depositional region of sand into an off-coast depositional region of silt and mud would be continuous deposition across a context change and would be unlikely to produce a sharp contact.

...unless there is evidence to show why it is not "knife edge" such as we see around intrusions?

I'd didn't know that a magmatic intrusion could reveal evidence about the nature of a contact.

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?

She avoids the subject.

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?

I think you're saying that if we accept Faith's premis that there was a global flood that deposited many of the world's strata that the first land-based strata in the sequence could only occur after the flood had receded, and that therefore all strata above that must be post-flood, and any erosion of those layers must also be post-flood. If I have that right then that would be the logical view that accepts the way the world really behaves.

But Faith does have answers for that. They don't have evidence or even make sense, but those aren't high priorities for her. I think her position is that the Coconino is marine and that the tracks were made during temporary recessions of the flood water. When pressed for evidence or explanations for how this could be possible I can only recall a couple of the ways she has answered this. One is that she provides no evidence or explanation and simply declares it so, as if she doesn't understand the need for evidence and rationale. The other is tides, which is another explanation that has no evidence and makes no sense.

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

I think Faith's beliefs are sincerely held but that she finds herself unable to suppress inner demons when her beliefs are challenged.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1305 by jar, posted 03-11-2018 7:09 PM jar has not yet responded

    
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1459
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 1328 of 2886 (829696)
03-12-2018 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1325 by Faith
03-12-2018 10:14 AM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thickEros
You use "looks like" as evidence of your claims an awful lot. I don't agree that the things you say "look like" this or that, actually do "look like" this or that. How about including something not so subjective.

Tracks occurred during the Flood between waves or when the tide was out

Remember that, according to you, the surface was violently stripped of materials during inundation by a flood that has no equal. How did animals survive that to be happily skipping around between waves? It doesn't add up...

and what we don't see is an actual earth surface in any of the layers,

What about the paleosols, termite nests and in situ root systems I presented in Message 993. Those were transported? To the location where apparent ancestral population migrated after the flood? Seems kinda speculative... actually beyond speculative and into nonsense.

which would have to be there if the whole "time periods" notion had any truth to it.

What you are imagining is landscapes being captured like a snap shot of time. And you say that if long periods of time existed we should find these "snap shots" throughout the geological record. But in reality, the type of process that would be required to capture a "snap shot" of time in a landscape is a major, rapid flooding event. But we don't see that. We see the result of slow, gradual processes that work to destroy the current surface and build up new surfaces. What you imagine doesn't line up with reality.

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 1325 by Faith, posted 03-12-2018 10:14 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1337 by Faith, posted 03-12-2018 3:34 PM herebedragons has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17361
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1329 of 2886 (829704)
03-12-2018 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1307 by Faith
03-11-2018 10:56 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
Faith writes:

Note that it labels the entire inch-wide something as the contact, and that it is just as vertical as the rest of the rock face. It is not "knife-edge tight," but it is certainly a sharp contact.

The arrow is indeed ambiguously placed but I can't see this any other way than I saw the others: the black shadowed line is the contact, the rock just beneath it is Hermit, whatever the cause of its appearing lighter.

You're stilll just repeating your opinion without evidence. What evidence tells you that the inch-wide something is part of the Hermit?

And it still looks like it could be at a slight angle to me.

I think everyone agrees that there are slight angles all across that entire Coconino/Hermit rock face. It is primarily vertical, but none of it is consistently at the same angle, including the inch-wide something.

You are simply not going to find a contact line dividing the bottom of a formation like the Coconino from a tiny portion of itself...

And you know this how?

...and if it did there would be another contact line beneath the lower portion of the Coconino dividing it from the Hermit anyway,...

Yes, of course. That's one of the possible scenarios I described. Let me be more clear about this. These are the possibilities I see (there may be more, but these are the ones I see):

  • The inch-wide something is a transition layer between the Hermit below and the Coconino above. There are two contact lines, one at the top of the inch-wide something at the boundary with the Coconino, and another at the bottom of the inch-wide something at the boundary with the Hermit.

  • The inch-wide something is part of the Coconino, but it is sufficiently different that there is a bedding plane contact line between the top of it and the rest the Coconino. There is another contact line at the bottom of the inch-wide something between it and the Hermit.

  • The inch-wide something is part of the Hermit, but it is sufficiently different that there is a bedding plane contact line between the bottom of it and the rest of the Hermit. There is another contact line at the top of the inch-wide something between it and the Coconino.

I'm not arguing for any of these possibilities. I'm just arguing that anyone who says they know for sure which it is needs to offer more evidence than just the images, because the images are inconclusive. And I say this even after having read to the end of the thread and seen Edge's, HereBeDragons and Tanypteryx's posts.

...and if it did there would be another contact line beneath the lower portion of the Coconino dividing it from the Hermit anyway, which is not there.

But it *is* there. The inch-wide something has a contact line at both its top and bottom. If it did not have these contact lines then it would not be discernible as an inch-wide something.

The identifying feature of a contact between two formations like the Hermit and the Coconino is that it does in fact divide the Hermit from the Coconino.

But what appears to divide the Hermit and the Coconino is an inch wide.

And again, since others have called this contact line remarkably or unusually tight that alone is reason to know the light section is NOT part of the contact line. I'm sure both Paul Garner and Baumgardner have seen this up close and personal and would not misidentify something so obvious.

What seems remarkable to me is that not only do neither Garner nor Baumgardner mention the inch-wide-something, at least on the Internet no geologist has mentioned it, either, that I can find.

This is from the paper Paleozoic stratigraphy of part of northwestern Arizona. I'm unable to get to the paper itself, so I can't get more detail. This quote comes via a Google Scholar search, and without more context a conclusive interpretation isn't possible, but it seems to imply that the contact between the Coconino and the Hermit is made of sandstone, which would make it part of the Coconino Sandstone, not the Hermit Shale:

quote:
The upper contact of the Hermit formation with the Coconino sandstone is abrupt and is marked by a sharply defined line separating pink and gray sandstones.

But

  • it clearly says the contact is "abrupt" and
  • "marked by a sharply defined line" which certainly doesn't include the lighter part

HereBeDragons got access to the paper and provided an excerpt revealing that the above quote is incomplete, but I'll get to that when I reply to HereBeDragons. For now let's just take that quote as I originally found it in my Google Scholar search. The quote says that there is "a sharply defined line separating pink and gray sandstones." Everything pink is below the inch-wide something. Everything gray is from the bottom of the inch-wide something upward into the Coconino.

The excerpt HereBeDragons provided also describes the "shale" in Hermit Shale as a misnomer, saying that it is really predominantly sandstone, but in my reply to HereBeDragons I'll point out that that there seems to be other opinions on that.

  • and that it is between the Hermit and the Coconino.

Well, if the Hermit is pink and the Coconino is gray, and since the inch-wide something is gray, guess where the line between the Hermit and the Coconino has to be?

  • If that is sandstone right beneath it, it is part of the Hermit, not the Coconino.

You use a lot of pronouns. I can't be sure what "that" and "it" refer to.

  • It also says it is a different color from the other sandstone, one being gray the other pink, showing that it is not part of the Coconino.

Similar to what I said above, if the Hermit is pink and the Coconino is gray, guess what the gray inch-wide something has to be part of?

  • It's absurd to think there would be a clear contact within the Coconino at that level rather than dividing the Hermit from the Coconino.

Bedding planes are incredibly common within layers. What is your rationale for calling it absurd?

So you would be right about it being a different color and sediment from the Hermit but wrong about everything else.

The majority of the arguments in your list were flawed, and I very much doubt that I'm wrong that the images contain insufficient information to make a conclusive determination.

ABE: And now I see that HBD has posted more information about this which says the Hermit is not shale but sandstone anyway.

But the paper I cited that HereBeDragons found cites a paper from 1922 as evidence that it's sandstone, so I wouldn't be too sure. See my reply to HereBeDragons.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1307 by Faith, posted 03-11-2018 10:56 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1335 by Faith, posted 03-12-2018 3:07 PM Percy has responded
 Message 1353 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-12-2018 11:34 PM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17361
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1330 of 2886 (829708)
03-12-2018 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1308 by herebedragons
03-11-2018 11:11 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
herebedragons writes:

Percy, here is the entire section on the Hermit shale from your reference.

Thanks for tracking this down. Your excerpt provides a clause that was missing from mine. Here's my excerpt that I got from a Google Scholar search:

quote:
The upper contact of the Hermit formation with the Coconino sandstone is abrupt and is marked by a sharply defined line separating pink and gray sandstones.

And here's your excerpt:

quote:
The upper contact of the Hermit formation with the Coconino sandstone is abrupt and is marked by a sharply defined line separating pink and gray sandstones from the conspicuously cross-bedded lower layers of the Coconino sandstone.

So my quote was missing the clause "from the conspicuously cross-bedded lower layers of the Coconino sandstone." Once that clause is added then it does seem to be saying that the pink layers and the gray inch-wide something are all part of the Hermit. I'm starting to lean this way myself because this image that I provided earlier does seem to show some interfingering of red Hermit into the inch-wide something:

The paper is in .htm format, so I don't think I can send it to you unless I copied and pasted it into a Word doc. But I don't think it really has much useful info in it anyway. I quote the relevant part above.

Yeah, I agree, I don't need the paper.

So it looks like, in context, this paper says the grey sandstone is part of the Hermit formation, which is primarily sandstone rather than shale.

I think the paper relied too much on Noble regarding that the Hermit is mostly sandstone. Most descriptions of it that I find vary in how they describe the Hermit, e.g., the Wikipedia entry on the Hermit Formation:

quote:
The Permian Hermit Formation, also known as the Hermit Shale, is a nonresistant unit that is composed of slope-forming reddish brown siltstone, mudstone, and very fine-grained sandstone. Within the Grand Canyon region, the upper part of the Hermit Formation contains red and white, massive, calcareous sandstone and siltstone beds that exhibit low-angle cross-bedding. Beds of dark red crumbly siltstone fill shallow paleochannels that are quite common in this formation.

A little brochure I picked up at the Grand Canyon 20 years ago called An Introduction to Grand Canyon Geology by Michael Collier says:

quote:
Hermit Shale, 300 feet. Slope former.
Early Permian (280 million years old)
Composed of bright red siltstones that are easily eroded to a low slope. Oriinally combined with the unerlying Supai Group, the Hermit was defined as a separate formation by Levi Noble in 1922. Like the Supai, the Hermit was deposited in swamps and lagoons.

So Collier knows about Noble, but he still says the Hermit is composed of siltstones.

And this from USGS Geology of National Parks: Hermit Shale:

quote:
Hermit Formation (Lower Permian)Red, slope-forming, fine-grained, thin-bedded siltstone and sandstone. Upper part contains red and white, massive, low-angle cross-bedded calcareous sandstone and siltstone beds in western one-quarter of map area. Siltstone beds are dark red and crumbly, and fill shallow erosion channels that are widespread. Siltstone beds form recesses between thicker sandstone beds; locally contains poorly preserved plant fossils in channel fills in lower part of formation. Sandstone beds thicken and thin laterally either as channel fill or low sand dune accumulations. Sandstone bleaches to yellow-white color in vicinity of breccia pipes throughout map area, and at upper contact with Coconino Sandstone or Toroweap Formation in western half of map area. Unconformably overlies Esplanade Sandstone. Dark-red, platy, thin-bedded siltstone of Hermit Formation fills channels as much as 60 ft (16 m) deep eroded into the underlying Esplanade in eastern part of map area, and as much as 130 ft (40 m) deep in Havasu Canyon area, south-central part of map area. Erosional relief is generally less than 10 ft (3 m) in northeastern part of map area. About 260 ft (80 m) thick along eastern edge of map area, increasing to about 850 ft (260 m) at western edge of map area.

They all describe the Hermit Formation differently, one mentioning sandstone a little, one a lot, another not at all. They all mention siltstone, only one mentions mudstone. Personally, I don't know what to think.

In this image, it looks like the Coconino sits right on top of the Hermit formation with no intermixing. To me, this suggests that the Hermit was pretty well lithified before the Coconino was deposited.

This differs from what Edge said earlier, where he doubted that much Hermit had been eroded and that the boundary might represent a diastem, which means the Hermit couldn't have been lithified when the Coconino was deposited upon it since it had nothing previously atop it to create the pressure necessary for lithification. I saw that Tanypteryx asked about the possibility of chemical hardening for near-surface deposits, and Edge replied "Certainly," but he also used the phrase "not well cemented," so I think he meant something that could be crumbled easily by hand.

There is also an issue with timing that Whitmore discusses in a paper you referenced earlier in Message 1297. If you PM me an email address, I can send you the paper. Maybe you could also share it with edge and he would be a better peer-reviewer.

Whitmore is writing from a YEC perspective. I only cited him because I thought Faith might give more serious consideration to what he said than to anything we might say, but she ignored both times I referenced his papers.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Clarify.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1308 by herebedragons, posted 03-11-2018 11:11 PM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1378 by herebedragons, posted 03-14-2018 10:45 AM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17361
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1331 of 2886 (829712)
03-12-2018 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1310 by edge
03-11-2018 11:32 PM


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

It's starting to look like there was some kind of seismic event or events, that liquified the base of the Coconino and caused injection into fractures forming in the Hermit near the Bright Angel Fault.

Well, this is different. What would have happened to the top of the Hermit during the seismic events? Does this have anything to do with the inch-wide something? Do you no longer think the Coconino sand penetrations into the Hermit were mud cracks?

Also, I looked up the Bright Angel Fault but couldn't find anything about whether there was slippage along the fault during deposition of the Paleozoic layers, something Faith would be interested in since she believes the region completely tectonically quiescent during the period.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1310 by edge, posted 03-11-2018 11:32 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1333 by Faith, posted 03-12-2018 2:59 PM Percy has responded
 Message 1346 by edge, posted 03-12-2018 9:42 PM Percy has responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1681
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 1332 of 2886 (829716)
03-12-2018 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1308 by herebedragons
03-11-2018 11:11 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
I think it is important to note the differences in thickness of the Hermit Formation at various locations around the region.

quote:
HERMIT FORMATION (LOWER PERMIAN)

The Hermit "shale" was named by Noble (1922, p. 26) for the red sandstones and siltstones lying between the Coconino sandstone and the Supai formation at Bass Trail. The designation "shale" to the unit is a misnomer, inasmuch as Noble (p. 28) in his description of the type section, used the term sandstone for the compact massive beds and "shale" for the thinly laminated soft beds, which are in reality fine-grained sandstones.

At Bass Trail the Hermit formation is 332 feet thick. At Kanab Canyon, 30 miles northwest of Bass Trail, it is 775 feet thick, according to a section measured by Walcott and compiled by Noble (1922, Pl. XIX). At South Hurricane Cliffs, approximately 32 miles southwest of Kanab Canyon, the formation is 933 feet thick. It decreases slightly in thickness westward and is approximately 700 feet thick at North Grand Wash Cliffs and Pakoon Ridge.

The upper contact of the Hermit formation with the Coconino sandstone is abrupt and is marked by a sharply defined line separating pink and gray sandstones from the conspicuously cross-bedded lower layers of the Coconino sandstone.


Emphasis mine.

This shows that this layer of sediment cannot be considered flat, level, parallel thickness, or uniform thickness in the Grand Canyon region and certainly not over thousands of square miles. When we look at surveys of many layers we find the same thing, evidence that we cannot judge the thickness, flatness, or levelness characters of these layers, over broad areas, based on what we see where they are exposed in cliffs within the Grand Canyon.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1308 by herebedragons, posted 03-11-2018 11:11 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1334 by Faith, posted 03-12-2018 3:02 PM Tanypteryx has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 28588
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1333 of 2886 (829719)
03-12-2018 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1331 by Percy
03-12-2018 1:33 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
Also, I looked up the Bright Angel Fault but couldn't find anything about whether there was slippage along the fault during deposition of the Paleozoic layers, something Faith would be interested in since she believes the region completely tectonically quiescent during the period.

Conventional Geology is always interpreting this or that event or phenomenon to have occurred during this or that time period, but just because some effects can be seen in those rocks doesn't mean that's when the event or phenomenon occurred. Especially since the whole stack was built by the Flood and there's not really any "when" to any particular layer unless you're counting in hours or days.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1331 by Percy, posted 03-12-2018 1:33 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1336 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-12-2018 3:31 PM Faith has responded
 Message 1341 by Percy, posted 03-12-2018 5:31 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 28588
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1334 of 2886 (829720)
03-12-2018 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1332 by Tanypteryx
03-12-2018 1:55 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
Flat and straight refers to the appearance of strata from a distance, has nothing to do with variations in thickness over thousands of square miles. The point as usual is that the apparance of flatness defies the idea of millions of years between layers.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1332 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-12-2018 1:55 PM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1339 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-12-2018 3:54 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 28588
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1335 of 2886 (829721)
03-12-2018 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1329 by Percy
03-12-2018 12:28 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
You're stilll just repeating your opinion without evidence. What evidence tells you that the inch-wide something is part of the Hermit?

THE APPEARANCE AND PLACEMENT OF THE KNIFE-EDGE TIGHT CONTACT ABOVE IT, WHICH IS ELABORATED IN MY BULLETED LIST. SHEESH.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1329 by Percy, posted 03-12-2018 12:28 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1342 by Percy, posted 03-12-2018 5:40 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
8788
89
9091
...
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