Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,906 Year: 4,163/9,624 Month: 1,034/974 Week: 361/286 Day: 4/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Have any Biblical literalists been to the American Southwest?
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3941 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 39 of 183 (241404)
09-08-2005 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Faith
09-07-2005 1:48 PM


Re: World wide
1. We have had the conversation about soft sediments before. I showed that the sediments were hard when they deformed. This is a fact. Remember? The facts are not debatable.
2. Nuggin was talking about granite which is not a sedimentary rock and thus your reply makes absolutly no sense. But again we have talked about this....

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Faith, posted 09-07-2005 1:48 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 09-08-2005 3:48 PM Jazzns has replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3941 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 50 of 183 (241435)
09-08-2005 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Faith
09-08-2005 3:48 PM


Re: World wide
You did not discuss the Appalachians, but gave another example as if it applied and never showed that it did. You have said nothing about what condition the Appalachians were in when they were folded, and your examples of stressed rocks were not from the Appalachians.
What the heck are you talking about? Nuggin asked a question about granite. You responded with a paragraph about sedimentary structures. Two completely different beasts.
Oh by the way. I also went back and read your post over. You are wrong about the angles of the deformation making the Appalacians erode slower. A steeper surface causes a structure to erode faster. In other words, right now the Rockies are eroding faster than the Appalacians. How then did the Appalacians wear down to nubs while the more erodable Rockies still stand tall?
You yourself admitted that had the rocks actually been soft
Absolutly false. I stated that in extrodinarily rare instances we see deformation happen to unlithified rocks. Either you didn't understand or you are misrepresenting me. Please clarify and correct.
the stress indicators would not have been so dramatic as they are on hardened rocks, but microscopic. Someone posted a site a long time ago showing the folded strata of the Alleghenies that exposed them to erosion. You never addressed that, then or now.
I have no idea what that has anything to do with this conversation. I often interact with the forum using a text based browser so I can't see pictures. If I have time when I get home I will look at the Alleghenies formation but even if it one of the rare examples of deformation without lithification it is still only the minorty of the fact that most rocks are lithified when bent.
Nuggin has not yet addressed anything I've written. If he's talking about granite he doesn't bother to say where.
It is right there in his post to which you responded. Either you didn't read it, chose not to engage the point honestly, or you don't understand the difference between granite and sediment.

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 09-08-2005 3:48 PM Faith has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3941 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 51 of 183 (241441)
09-08-2005 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Faith
09-08-2005 4:10 PM


Re: World wide
Or, as it happens to look to me at the Grand Canyon area, the entire stack could have been laid down already, even up to the height of the Grand Staircase, and already compressed greatly, after which magma from beneath displaced some of the lower stack and forced them in a vertical direction. This force was not great enough to displace the entire stack because of its enormous weight. So the weight of the upper stack was a counterforce that prevented the verticalized lower stack from doing more than uplifting the upper stack at the area of the Grand Canyon. This is what is seen on a cross section of the area.
Are you talking about the strata beneath the great unconformity? I appologize if we are talking about different things here. I can't see pictures.
If you are talking about the deformation below the great unconformity then what you state is factually impossible. When I get my thread on relative dating off the ground you are welcome to join and see why. Under no circumstances were the layers below the great unconformity deformed after the higher layers were laid down. This is a fact and again not debatable.

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 09-08-2005 4:10 PM Faith has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3941 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 79 of 183 (241599)
09-09-2005 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Faith
09-08-2005 7:11 PM


Re: Humble chutzpah maybe?
without demonstrating any connection to the actual point in question. Jazz has been doing that with his stressed rocks bit.
The times I have brought this up were in response to YOU making the claim that sediments were soft when they bent. YOU made the claim. I am rebutting you with facts. Why is this not a legitimate point to you?

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Faith, posted 09-08-2005 7:11 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Faith, posted 09-09-2005 12:30 AM Jazzns has replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3941 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 86 of 183 (241614)
09-09-2005 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Faith
09-09-2005 12:30 AM


Re: Humble chutzpah maybe?
Nothing suprising. The hill is just an eroded syncline. They happen all over the place. In fact, I believe Wyatts "Ark" is is also a syncline eroded in a unique way. Syncline/anticline combinations are found everywhere there has been compressional tectonic activity. Plus, those layers MUST have been hard prior to deformation.
http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/Display.cfm?Term=syn...
As long as you say something that I know is false I will correct you. If you don't like it then stop repeating it when you have been shown to be incorrect.
You still haven't addressed the issue of the erosional potential of the Rockies versus the Appalacians. You made an incorrect statement when you said:
The Rockies were thrust up at steep angles, their highly compressed strata remaining parallel and intact. The Appalachians were buckled and folded, which exposed more surfaces to erosion.
The Rockies, having more surfaces at steeper angles actually produce more sediment via erosion than the shallow angled Appalacians. This is a fact.
Being that that is a fact, how do you then explain why the Rockes, which are eroding faster than the Appalacians, are so much less eroded? This is especially interesting since they must be the same "age" for YECism to be true when in fact the real answer is that the Appalacians are FAR older than the Rockies.

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Faith, posted 09-09-2005 12:30 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Faith, posted 09-09-2005 3:06 PM Jazzns has replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3941 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 150 of 183 (241894)
09-09-2005 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Faith
09-09-2005 3:06 PM


Re: Humble chutzpah maybe?
If you don't address the actual example, you can't claim to have shown me to be incorrect.
I don't even understand what you are trying to show with that example that is so suprising. All it is is an eroded syncline. So what? They are everywhere.
I am very sorry Faith but you continually make no sense. Mostly I am just responding to the parts of your posts that are just blatantly wrong like how sediments need to be soft when they fold.
You haven't shown the stress marks caused by the buckling in the Appalachians that you say are there when rock is bent or otherwise stretched, only in other places, you are merely asserting that such folding occurred in hard rock. Why not show the stress marks as you did in the other examples?
Well that is why I was telling you that the rule is bent rocks are bent before lithification. If you need specific references for strain in the Appalachians then here is a few that I was able to dig up.
{ABE} Removed gsa link due to weirdness. {/ABE}
Strain in the Appalachian Plateau
This approached was used to map strain over 45,000 km2 of the Appalachian Plateau. The Devonian Catskill Delta of the Appalaachian Plateau contains many beds in which crinoid columnals parallel the bedding plane. Their elliptical shape on pavement surfaces testifies to the deformation of the Appalachian Plateau.
Evans K.F., Engelder T., Plumb R.A., (1989): Appalachian stress study 1: A detailed description of in-situ stress variations in Devonian shales of the Appalachian Plateau, J. Geophys. Res., 94, 7129-7154..
Evans K.F., Oertel G., Engelder T., (1989): Appalachian stress study 2: Analysis of Devonian shale core samples; Implications for the nature of contemporary stress variations and Alleghanian deformation, J. Geophys. Res.,94, 7155-7170.
Should be enough to convince you I hope. When rocks deform they always do so lithified. Once again, fact. Would you like me to find references that show that the sedimentary rocks of the Rockies were lithified before they deformed too or will you finally understand that we are talking about evidence that is pervasive? It is the rare occurrence that deformation happens to unlithified sediment. So rare that I try as I might I cannot even find an example on the internet of it happening. Maybe rox or someone can help with a good example of what it looks like when unlithified rock is put under tectonic stress. I can tell you one thing, it is not going to look like you neat syncline/anticlines of your Appalachian example.
Also, you apparently didn't look at the entire page at the link I gave, as your link merely repeats the same information there, and again fails to address the actual example of the Appalachians.
I did look at the whole page. What is there to address? What is so weird about it? Those kinds of formations are common. Did you expect me to be suprised by an example of a syncline?
Did YOU look at the whole page? Do you understand what a syncline is and how they form? If you don't then please ask because it seeming more and more like you really have no idea how to interpret geologic information. I will be happy to answer any questions you have about syncline formation. What is nice about that is their method of formation is entirely factual so once again we will be talking about facts rather than theory. No room to argue.
It is also a fact that the Appalachians HAVE BEEN eroded enormously from their original folded configuration, to judge by the link I gave, where it appears you only glanced at the road cut illustration and didn't see the diagrams of how the area was eroded.
I saw it just fine. I just don't know what the big deal is. That still doesn't address why the Appalacians "beat" the Rockies in terms of erosion given that the Rockies today are eroding faster than the Appalacians. if the Appalacians started out with more erosional potential than the Rockies then why did it continue as it has rather than slow down once it was eroded enough to reach the same potential as the Rockies. You have a race condition here that is impossible. Even if it rained 24/7 on teh Appalachians and there was no wind or rain at all on the Rockies you would still be hard pressed to erode millions of tons of granite and other types of rock over a couple thousand years since their formation.
One thing is for sure. You are better off proposing some kind of other outrageous, mid/post flood craziness for why those two ranges look the way they do in comparision because the alternative that the Appalachians simply eroded faster post flood is a no go.
{ABE}Tried to fix the gsa link, failed. {/ABE}
This message has been edited by Jazzns, 09-09-2005 02:27 PM

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Faith, posted 09-09-2005 3:06 PM Faith has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3941 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 155 of 183 (241910)
09-09-2005 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Faith
09-09-2005 3:06 PM


Not to mention!
How does the flood explain why the evidence for Appalachian Orogony is spread out over 3 continent?. In other words, why do the Appalachians exist in North America, Western Europe, and Northern Africa?
This message has been edited by Jazzns, 09-09-2005 02:37 PM

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Faith, posted 09-09-2005 3:06 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Faith, posted 09-09-2005 8:12 PM Jazzns 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