Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Motley Flood Thread (formerly Historical Science Mystification of Public)
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 481 of 877 (834635)
06-09-2018 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 479 by PaulK
06-09-2018 8:30 AM


Re: The Smith cross-section
Don't talk about images you are not producing yourself as evidence. I've made my point, you are just trying to sound like you know something you don't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 479 by PaulK, posted 06-09-2018 8:30 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 483 by PaulK, posted 06-09-2018 8:44 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 482 of 877 (834636)
06-09-2018 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 453 by edge
06-08-2018 1:57 PM


Re: one fault line stream tributary vs meandering canyon
It is curious to me how you can be so hyper-skeptical of modern science and yet accept an ancient myth without question.
Perhaps it's you who misjudge the Word of God as an "ancient myth." If it ever hits you what it really is you may find yourself riveted to the floor in amazement as I did when I first discovered that God is real and no myth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 453 by edge, posted 06-08-2018 1:57 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 488 by jar, posted 06-09-2018 10:30 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 558 by Percy, posted 06-10-2018 5:59 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 483 of 877 (834637)
06-09-2018 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 481 by Faith
06-09-2018 8:35 AM


Re: The Smith cross-section
quote:
Don't talk about images you are not producing yourself as evidence.
All the images I referred to are present in this thread. And whether I produced them or someone else is irrelevant.
quote:
I've made my point
If your point is that you are a liar you certainly have. You have not in any way provided any reason to think that you have any real evidence.
quote:
you are just trying to sound like you know something you don't.
On the contrary, I am talking about things that I do know. And that you know too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 481 by Faith, posted 06-09-2018 8:35 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 484 by Faith, posted 06-09-2018 8:47 AM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 484 of 877 (834638)
06-09-2018 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 483 by PaulK
06-09-2018 8:44 AM


Re: The Smith cross-section
You are being purposely vague it seems to me. You talk about a "1910" something or other without bothering to be clear what you mean and I have no reason to think you know anything worth tracking down. I told you I can't see any fold in the Smith diagram. If you want me to see it you have to do something to make it possible.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 483 by PaulK, posted 06-09-2018 8:44 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 485 by PaulK, posted 06-09-2018 8:53 AM Faith has replied
 Message 559 by Percy, posted 06-10-2018 6:05 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 485 of 877 (834639)
06-09-2018 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 484 by Faith
06-09-2018 8:47 AM


Re: The Smith cross-section
quote:
You are being purposely vague it seems to me. You talk about a "1910" something or other without bothering to be clear what you mean and I have no reason to think you know anything worth tracking down.
That is the cross section I produced at the start of this sub-thread.
As you can see it hardly agrees with your assertions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 484 by Faith, posted 06-09-2018 8:47 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 486 by Faith, posted 06-09-2018 8:55 AM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 486 of 877 (834640)
06-09-2018 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 485 by PaulK
06-09-2018 8:53 AM


Re: The Smith cross-section
No idea what you are referring to, you're still being vague.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 485 by PaulK, posted 06-09-2018 8:53 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 490 by PaulK, posted 06-09-2018 10:54 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 487 of 877 (834642)
06-09-2018 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 453 by edge
06-08-2018 1:57 PM


Re: one fault line stream tributary vs meandering canyon
I looked at all your links, which was a lot to ask of me since I had to move them to a Word document and zoom them to be able to see them, but anyway. Also keep looking at the diagram. While the pictures show something more irregular than most of the examples I've seen they are still nowhere near the irregularity of the Kaibab curve and I'm still unable to see it as a meander. Itg just looks like a river that is running through an area of tributaries and something like small side canyons, nothing like the meanders in your pictures or the diagram, except the overall curve. But the terrain could cause the curve; meanders form where the land is flat.
The diagram looks like any diagram of meanders and I'm not sure what I'm supposed to get out of it. It doesn't suggest anything like the Kaibab curve to me.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 453 by edge, posted 06-08-2018 1:57 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 560 by Percy, posted 06-10-2018 6:16 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 488 of 877 (834643)
06-09-2018 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 482 by Faith
06-09-2018 8:39 AM


Re: one fault line stream tributary vs meandering canyon
Faith writes:
Perhaps it's you who misjudge the Word of God as an "ancient myth." If it ever hits you what it really is you may find yourself riveted to the floor in amazement as I did when I first discovered that God is real and no myth.
And so it gets admitted; you are simply spouting the nonsense dogma of your Cult rather than honestly pointing to what the Bible actually says or what the evidence actually shows.
You are just making shit up and doing it poorly. You never explain how your flood does anything and you keep adding in stuff that simply is not in either Biblical flood myth like mountains rising and earthquakes and continents splitting and oceans opening and still never address the problems with your fantasies.
How did the flood deposit material under already existing material without disturbing the older layer?
Faith, you keep making assertions that the flood did things but never explain how the flood did those things.
FACT: There are stone age sites all over the world and even pre-stone age sites.
FACT: Those sites existed before the flood is claimed to have happened.
FACT: None of those layers are more than a few tens of meters below the current surface.
FACT: All of those sites were are ground/surface level.
FACT: The evidence shows the site was at ground level at the time it was created by leaving evidence like fire pits and food remains and personal objects and man made objects.
FACT: All of those sites were buried by known observable processes.
Question: How could your flood deposit any material under an already existing layer without disturbing it?
Do you have anything to offer other than the bald silly assertion that the dates are wrong?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 482 by Faith, posted 06-09-2018 8:39 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 494 by edge, posted 06-09-2018 11:43 AM jar has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 489 of 877 (834644)
06-09-2018 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 413 by Faith
06-06-2018 4:49 PM


Re: The Smith cross-section
I don't know why Edge didn't answer this one, so I'll give it a try.
Faith writes:
Neverthelss, the contacts are not straight and flat, nor is the GU; even if you took out the deformation.
Are you talking about the diagram of England? The contacts have nothing to do with this point. The tilting IS deformation and I don't expect contacts to survive it.
If you trace back the discussion then yes, Edge is talking about the diagram of England, this one:
Tilting is not deformation. Deformation is bending, folding, stretching, compression or faulting. Both tilting and deformation can be present (as seems to be the case in the diagram but that you probably can't see), but they are not synonyms. Maybe Edge or Moose can be more definitive.
You've said that strata tilt as a block, so it makes no sense for you to say the contacts would not survive the tilting. Of course they survived the tilting. The geologists could see the contacts and place them on the diagram, so obviously they survived the tilting (and deformation). Perhaps what you mean is that the flatness of the strata would not survive, and of course the contacts would follow the contours of the deformed strata.
Sidenote: It is very easy to include an image in a post, there is no overhead to the website, once downloaded for the first time it remains in the cache and doesn't have to be downloaded again, it is very useful in discussion, so I recommend that everyone include the image under discussion in every post. The URL for any image can be obtained simply by placing the cursor on the image, right clicking to bring up the context menu, then selecting "Copy Image Address" (Chrome and Safari), "Copy Image Location" (Firefox), "Copy Link" (Microsoft Edge) and "Copy Shortcut" (Internet Explorer).
Faith writes:
... it's only about the inclusion of all the strata in one block.
In that case, the block was getting bigger (thicker) with time. There are at least three major unconformities shown in the section.
Missing rocks do not affect the point I'm making, as I've said all along here; sorry you missed it. The point is only to show that the whole RANGE of the time periods is included without any VISIBLE signs of erosion or deformation at any given layer.
If strata are missing, how could the "whole RANGE of the time periods be included"?
The obvious unconformities are very visible signs of erosion, and the deformation of the layers is just as obvious. Clearly you cannot discern even the grossest details in the diagram and are just making things up in your head.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 413 by Faith, posted 06-06-2018 4:49 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 504 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-09-2018 9:10 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 490 of 877 (834645)
06-09-2018 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 486 by Faith
06-09-2018 8:55 AM


Re: The Smith cross-section
You can follow the thread back to Message 396 you can see the diagram there, you can see that it shows that there is a lot more to the cross section than Smith shows - largely because Smith only shows the uppermost rocks, and not what is going on lower down.
All you have to do is look.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 486 by Faith, posted 06-09-2018 8:55 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 512 by Faith, posted 06-10-2018 12:49 AM PaulK has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 491 of 877 (834646)
06-09-2018 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 414 by Faith
06-06-2018 4:55 PM


Faith writes:
The point is that all of the geological processes in the record are still going on today. So, why would sedimentation stop?
Sedimentation didn't stop, the column stopped, the "time scale" stopped.
I have to agree with Capt Stormfield's assessment that you're batshit crazy, though the words I would use would be irrational, illogical and ignorant.
I have already explained how the Quaternary (current geologic period) extends on into the future, so obviously the timescale has not stopped and will never stop. We may at some point millions of years from now decide we've entered a new geologic period after the Quaternary, but the timescale will never stop. Saying that the timescale has stopped is an incredibly ignorant thing to say, right up there with, "The Earth is flat," or "The sun orbits the Earth."
Sedimentation that is going on today has nothing to do with that.
Current sedimentation is occurring in the Quarternary, so of course it is related to the geologic timescale.
Sedimentation on top of the rocks in the Smith cross section would not continue the strata as laid down there,...
How could sedimentation atop a stratigraphic column not be adding to the strata of that column?
...sedimentation on top of the Claron would not add to the Grand Staircase.
The Claron is exposed in elevated regions that are highly likely to be regions of net erosion, not deposition. There is not likely any net deposition occurring atop the Claron. But were there to be any deposition atop the Claron then it would definitely add to those stratigraphic columns.
This is definitional, Faith. Get a clue.
Sedimentation on top of a twisted formerly horizontal block of strata would not contribute to that block of strata.
Your definition of a "block of strata" remains unclear to me. Can a block of strata include an unconformity? Anyway, I'll use standard geological terminology. Sedimentation atop a stratigraphic column, twisted or otherwise, would be adding to it.
But I understand I'm making a point that's hard to prove given the standard assumptions.
I think you're underestimating the difficulty of your task. Ideas that are dead wrong are impossible to prove.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 414 by Faith, posted 06-06-2018 4:55 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 492 of 877 (834647)
06-09-2018 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 465 by Percy
06-08-2018 9:05 PM


Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done with
There's two parts of this I don't understand. First, I don't know what Faith is referring to when she says "block," so I'm surprised that you do. The reason for my uncertainty is what she's said over the past few messages using the word "block", like this:
Well, I'm not sure. I'm kind of guessing based on my own idea of structural blocks, but could be way off considering Faith's mangling of terminology.
The closest I can come to Faith's terminology is tectonostratigraphy. But according to her, this does not happen (i.e., only one deformational event) even though various tectonostratigraphic terranes have been successfully mapped and used for decades.
Second, Faith does not consider the Supergroup to be part of the same block as the block from the Tapeats to the Kaibab, and it isn't clear whether her definition of "block" would place the Vishnu Schist as part of either block, but let's call them three separate blocks in Faith-land. What were the separate deformations these three blocks experienced? Are you considering the tilting of the Supergroup to be a deformation, because that would surprise me since it isn't how a couple sites I checked define it - bends, folds and faults seem to be considered types of deformation, but not tilting.
As you look at the cross sections, usually one side of the Supergroup is bound by a fault. When there is offset along a fault such as these, you often get tilting, particularly of the downdropped side. If you look up the term 'lystric faulting', you will get a good explanation. These types of faults are common in extensional terranes.
And Isn't the uplift of the Colorado Plateau a deformation experienced by all three blocks together rather than separately?
Exactly so. The only difference is that some layers have been added between deformational events.
And yes, in the pure sense, simple uplift is a type of deformation, in this case it is 'translational deformation'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 465 by Percy, posted 06-08-2018 9:05 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 561 by Percy, posted 06-10-2018 6:38 PM edge has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 493 of 877 (834648)
06-09-2018 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 416 by Faith
06-06-2018 5:12 PM


Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done with
Faith writes:
I don't really see how you can make an argument that there is no sign of tectonic disturbance prior to all sedimentary strata being in place by looking at only two examples. If every other pile of rocks in the world looks difference, this isn't much of a basis on which to make statements about the entire globe.
They are the only two end to end geo columns I know of,...
You're misusing the term geologic column again. The geologic column is conceptual, an amalgamation of all the information gathered from stratigraphic columns around the world. It isn't something real that you can find somewhere on Earth.
What I think you mean to say is that there are only two end to end stratigraphic columns that you know of. If you're referring to the Grand Staircase and Smith's diagram of England, and if by "end to end" you mean they represent the entire geologic timescale from the Cambrian forward, then you are wrong. There are unconformities (missing time) in both.
...all clearly deformed as a whole unit after all having been laid down.
Since you think that layers are deformed and tilted as a whole unit, how can you also believe that that the Supergroup, which you think was once horizontal and part of the whole unit of horizontal layers above it, tilted independently?
I use them to demonstrate what I'm talking about since I know I can't prove it from them.
Since you say things about the diagrams that are demonstrably untrue, you either can't see them or can't interpret them or both.
But I certainly think all the truncated columns follow the same principle,...
It's not clear what you mean by "truncated columns." Are you referring to the tilted strata of the Smith diagram?
...though all I can demonstrate is that what is actually there does follow it, being deformed or eroded as a block.
We'll get to "eroded as a block" when I reply to your next message.
I've said angular unconformities are the only exception, and otherwise I don't see anything in your pictures that suggests anything different than the deformation or erosion having occurred after they were in place.
This is self-evidently true - why do you feel the need to say it. Of course strata cannot be deformed or eroded until they are "in place,", i.e., they exist.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 416 by Faith, posted 06-06-2018 5:12 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 494 of 877 (834649)
06-09-2018 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 488 by jar
06-09-2018 10:30 AM


Re: one fault line stream tributary vs meandering canyon
And so it gets admitted; you are simply spouting the nonsense dogma of your Cult rather than honestly pointing to what the Bible actually says or what the evidence actually shows.
It was easier than I thought to extract this from Faith. It shows that there is no overcoming the revealed 'facts' of a religious myth.
This is the reason that I no longer respond to all of Faith's posts. It's really annoying to be be dismissed so easily with denials and unsupported assertions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 488 by jar, posted 06-09-2018 10:30 AM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 513 by Faith, posted 06-10-2018 1:25 AM edge has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 495 of 877 (834651)
06-09-2018 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 419 by Faith
06-06-2018 6:21 PM


Re: Strata deformed or eroded as block
Faith writes:
Just to make clear what I mean by deformation or erosion as a block or unit, with some pictures. These are only partial because that's all that's out there. I just want to point out that ALL examples exhibit this principle, with the one exception of angular unconformities:
ERODED AS A BLOCK AFTER STRATA ALL LAID DOWN
One we're already seen:
The ambiguity wasn't really about what "eroded as a block" means or what "folded as block" means. It was much more about what you mean by "block". You say that that hill from the Painted Desert was eroded as a block. To make sense the block could only be those strata that are above ground and exposed to erosion.
To add to the ambiguity, the strata included in your block will vary from location to location according to which strata are exposed. The Tapeats is exposed at the Grand Canyon (in some places) and so is part of your block, but it is not exposed at the Vermillion Cliffs and so is not part of your block. This is very confusing, because the Tapeats is definitely part of all stratigraphic columns where it exists extending all the way up to the surface.
Adding to the confusion is that you also say strata are folded as a block. But folding mostly only happens to buried strata, so now a block is buried strata.
At one point you also said these blocks were neatly demarcated, but of course there is no clear line of demarcation between what strata of a column happen to be buried and which happen to be exposed. Which strata are exposed is a function of how much erosion has occurred.
I think it would be easier on all concerned, including yourself, if you adopted standard terminology. You're describing stratigraphic columns, and sometimes you're focused on the exposed portion of a stratigraphic column that is vulnerable to the forces of erosion, at other times you're focused on the buried portion of a stratigraphic column that is most vulnerable to the tectonic forces of bending, stretching and compression, and at yet other times you're focused on the complete stratigraphic column from top to bottom.
You can still use the word block or unit to refer to a sequence of strata or formations or groups, but you can't say things like "strata are eroded as a block" or "erosion occurs to a block of neatly demarcated strata" (I'm paraphrasing) and be making much sense.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 419 by Faith, posted 06-06-2018 6:21 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024