Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 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:   Why the Flood Never Happened
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 181 of 1896 (713660)
12-15-2013 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by herebedragons
12-14-2013 7:31 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
It does look like faulting to me. The vertical divisions are the faults, which have caused the strata on both sides to slip vertically away from their original position and lose their alignment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by herebedragons, posted 12-14-2013 7:31 PM herebedragons has not replied

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


Message 182 of 1896 (713661)
12-15-2013 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Dr Adequate
12-14-2013 8:37 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
CLEARLY the picture shows the interbedding of a grey rock with a red rock, red-dyed or whatever is irrelevant . There's no way the red just sort of landed on alternating layers, they are INTERBEDDED. And I'd like to hear an explanation for that too.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-14-2013 8:37 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2013 8:17 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 186 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-15-2013 10:15 AM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(3)
Message 183 of 1896 (713664)
12-15-2013 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Faith
12-15-2013 1:45 AM


Re: speleothems demonstrate slow geological erosion of the canyon
No Faith -- you have the problem
It's already figured out in my worldview system, because I have no problem with the world being old.
Yeah well the speleothems may take a LOOOOOOONNNNG time for form, but the Canyon itself couldn't have. So figure that one out.
The speleothems are information that the canyon was still being formed when they were laid down.
These type of speleothems form underwater, the cave erode from the sides of the canyon after it was cut to that level,
So the level of the river was near the elevation of these formations when the caves formed and flooded the caves
Then the speleothems formed
Then the river cut deeper and the cave dried out, the speleothems dried out nd layer deposits stopped
Lower down another cave formed and filled with water and another speleothem was formed
and the river cut deeper and the cave dried out, the second speleothem dried out and layer deposits stopped
Lower down another cave forms and the sequence is repeated again
and down again
and these caves do not form by rapid erosion -- rapid erosion leaves scoured sides -- carries large boulders that are massive grinders of walls and bottoms chewing out a wide flat channel (see scablands again)
these cave branch away from the river into the sides of the canyon likely caused by water flowing through the rock eroding it away
pools of water form in the cave and the speleothems form in the pools - underwater
as the river cuts deeper into the ground the water table drops, the pools dry up and the speleothems stop growing.
The age of each speleothem is greater than a young earth fantasy
The ages between speleothems is greater than a young earth fantasy
They form a consistent pattern of age and depth in the canyon walls consistent with long erosion of the canyon by the river we see today, still cutting, still eroding into the earth.
The canyon formed over millions of years as an observable fact.
Why do the speleothems have different ages that correlate so well with the long formation of the canyon Faith?
Uranium is carried in water and so particles are in the water when the speleothems form, It gets incorporated with other minerals in the calcite formations, part of what gives them colors, and the uranium decays into thorium and lead, elements that are not soluble in water, so their presence inside the speleothems is due to uranium decay after the uranium was deposited. This observation of thorium and lead tells us how old the speleothems are.
This decay occurred after your flood fantasy ended -- after the cave formed -- after the canyon was cut to that depth.
Why are they so old, why is there so much age difference between them?
Enjoy.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Faith, posted 12-15-2013 1:45 AM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 184 of 1896 (713665)
12-15-2013 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Faith
12-15-2013 2:51 AM


Then there are the volcanic lava dams ...
There were many volcanoes near the western end of the canyon, and the evidence of their existence is observable
Geologic Activity - Grand Canyon National Park (U.S. National Park Service)
quote:
In the recent geologic past, volcanic activity dramatically impacted the Grand Canyon. In the western Grand Canyon hundreds of volcanic eruptions occurred over the past two million years. At least a dozen times, lava cascaded down the walls of the Inner Gorge, forming massive lava dams that blocked the flow of the Colorado River. Three of these lava dams were over 1,000 feet high, forming lakes similar to reservoirs such as Lake Powell or Lake Mead. Some of the lakes were over 100 miles long and filled the lower portion of the Grand Canyon for many years before finally over-topping the dam and eroding much of it away. Cinder cones and the remnants of lava flows and dams are visible in the Toroweap area and from the river near Lava Falls.
Just southeast of Grand Canyon, near Flagstaff, is Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument, where in A.D. 1064 a series of eruptions built the park’s namesake cinder cone. About 45 earthquakes occurred in or near the Grand Canyon during the 1900’s. Of these, five registered between 5.0 and 6.0 on the Richter Scale. Dozens of faults cross the canyon, with at least several active in the last 100 years.
These are visible disturbances that have occurred in the area.
How long does it take lava rock to erode away Faith?
How long does it take to erode away 3 different lava dams that were over 1,000 feet high when the lava stopped flowing?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2008/02/080205100014.htm
quote:
John Wesley Powell wrote in 1895: ...what a conflict of water and fire there must have been [in western Grand Canyon]! Just imagine a river of molten rock running down over a river of melted snow.
Share This:
12
Over 110 years later, a synthesis of new and existing dates on these lava flows shows that many are significantly younger than initially thought and all are less than 725 thousand years old. The geochronology data indicates four major episodes when lava flows either erupted into the canyon or flowed over the rim into it: 725-475 thousand years ago (ka), 400-275 ka, 225-150 ka, and 150-75 ka.
These flows formed lava dams in western Grand Canyon that had dramatic impact on the Colorado River.
What water eroded through these lava dams, when you have the flood out-rush already used to carve the canyon is one massive fantasy flow cutting event -- you are now out of water to erode through one dam, to say nothing of 3 such major dams and several smaller ones. How do these erode except by slow geological erosion processes we see ongoing today?
Not only have they been eroded away Faith, but the river has continued to cut into the bottom rock and the canyon now extends below the levels of these lava dams -- a bottom depth deeper than what was there when the dams formed.
'splain it to me.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : d

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Faith, posted 12-15-2013 2:51 AM Faith has not replied

  
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 2997 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


(2)
Message 185 of 1896 (713668)
12-15-2013 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Faith
12-14-2013 11:59 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Nothing I have said contradicts the Bible.
Technically correct, but only because (as has been pointed out) none of it is in the Bible at all. You could also claim that during the Flood the sky smelled of strawberry cheesecake. Doesn't contradict the Bible, but like the rest of your extra-Biblical claims, you don't even have the flimsy support of the Bible behind you.
And while what you've said doesn't contradict the Bible, it does contradict the laws of physcics, something we both agree is a big problem for any theory. So why do you continue to so cravenly avoid discussing the physical impossibilities your theory requires?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Faith, posted 12-14-2013 11:59 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 186 of 1896 (713671)
12-15-2013 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Faith
12-15-2013 2:51 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
CLEARLY the picture shows the interbedding of a grey rock with a red rock, red-dyed or whatever is irrelevant . There's no way the red just sort of landed on alternating layers, they are INTERBEDDED. And I'd like to hear an explanation for that too.
The explanation for the thing you made up in your head is that you made it up in your head.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Faith, posted 12-15-2013 2:51 AM Faith has not replied

  
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 2997 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


(1)
Message 187 of 1896 (713672)
12-15-2013 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Faith
12-15-2013 12:58 AM


Re: speleothems demonstrate slow geological erosion of the canyon
The OBSERVABLE overall structure of the strata clearly disproves the Old Earth, which is engtirely a matter of interpretation, not observation, as is all the evidence you've come up with. I'll take mine.
Wow, what a surprise; Faith discounts yet another "minor" detail that shows it is not physically possible for the Flood to have been responsible for what she thinks it has. It is really astounding to me that you have managed to convince yourself that a good theory is characterized by focusing only on the big picture and ignoring all the details that prove the theory wrong. I know you've been told this before, but if your theory fails over and over to account for actual observations, your theory is obviously wrong. If your theory requires again and again that you invoke a physically impossibility, your theory is obviously wrong.
The only way you can account for the number of physical impossibilities required by your fantasy is if you prove that the laws of physics could have been (let alone were) different in the past than they are now. in other words, you have to disprove uniformitarianism, which is approximately where this started in the last thread. To disprove uniformitarianism, you have exactly no observations on which to base that disproof whereas we have every single observation ever in support of uniformitarianism.
Edited by Atheos canadensis, : uniformitarianism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Faith, posted 12-15-2013 12:58 AM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 188 of 1896 (713673)
12-15-2013 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by herebedragons
12-14-2013 2:00 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
I used an image from a Biblical site thinking Faith might find it more credible as an example of interbedding, but it looks like I walked right into the middle of some creationist hanky panky. Take a look at this discussion from EvolutionFairyTale where this image was posted and critiqued in Message 21:
The author of Message 21 noticed the white scattered about the canyon and thought it might be snow and that therefore the claims about interbedding between the Redwall and Mauv didn't really hold up.
It's a little hard to tell, but if you look carefully you'll see that the image I posted is a cropped area of this same image. I didn't pay any attention to the labeling in that image, but obviously it is wrong. There could be no interbedding between the Mauv and any layer above because the top of the Mauv is an erosion layer that was once overlain by other ancient now-gone layers. The Wikipedia article on the geology of the Grand Canyon area says, "deep channels were carved on the top of the Muav Limestone," by either streams or marine scour. The top of the Mauv was obviously eroded down and could never have interbedded with any above layer.
There could also be no interbedding between the top of the Temple Butte and the bottom of the Redwall because the top of the Temple Butte is also an erosion interface.
But hey, add a dusting of snow that selectively remains on some layers and not others and you can claim that the white layers are the Mauv interbedded with the Redwall.
I'll add a note to the message where I posted the image.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by herebedragons, posted 12-14-2013 2:00 PM herebedragons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2013 11:39 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 189 of 1896 (713675)
12-15-2013 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Percy
12-15-2013 10:19 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Another thing to add to the Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes thread ...
Why do Creationists lie Faith?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Percy, posted 12-15-2013 10:19 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

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


(2)
Message 190 of 1896 (713678)
12-15-2013 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Faith
12-14-2013 2:42 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Faith writes:
the horizontality is an issue because it demonstrates the lack of disturbance to the individual layers over their millions of years, no tectonic distortion, no jagged irregular erosion such as would be seen during exposure at the surface for a long period. OF INDIVIDUAL LAYERS. Erosion which would be VISIBLE FROM A LONG DISTANCE AWAY AND NOT REQUIRE PEERING AT IT FROM CLOSE UP>
You're just repeating your claim and not answering the question: Why do you expect more disturbances in the geological record than we actually find? Why wouldn't large undersea regions go for millions of years without experiencing a volcano? As I said before, most of the world's surface does not and never did contain a volcano, and a volcano under the ocean (remember, we're talking about marine layers) can influence only a much smaller surface area than on land because the lava cools very rapidly and there's no ash blown miles up into the atmosphere.
Also, once more, volcanoes are an expression of tectonic and magma forces, not a cause of them. Volcanoes can contribute lava and ash to layers, but magma rising through geologic layers causes very little deformation because it melts through them like a red hot poker. Examine the vertical magma intrusion on the left side of this image again and note the complete lack of deformation around it:
Magma pushing up through layers and eventually forming a volcano at the surface does not cause much if any bending or deformation of layers, except at the surface. The bending and deforming of buried layers is due to uplift and subsidence which is caused by tectonic forces.
I would expect magma to disturb the layers IF THE VOLCANO OCCURRED AT ANY POINT IN THEIR FORMATION, BEFORE THE WHOLE STACK WAS LAID DOWN, but the evidence is that it all occurred afterward.
Well, yes, if a volcano occurred while a layer was forming then the lava and ash would tell us that a volcano occurred, so if there's no lava or ash then we conclude there was no volcano. But the geologic layers in this region of the US go on for miles and miles and miles, while the lava effect of a volcano is fairly local, especially under water, and there would be no ashfall such as would occur on land.
And iff I'm right about the effect of the volcano beneath the GC it caused the Great Unconformity, of course also made the granite and the schist, also the quartzite in the Supergroup Shinumo,...
Well, this should be an interesting story. How is it that you imagine a volcano caused deeply buried layers to tilt and form the Great Unconformity, and to do this hundreds of miles in all directions. Here's a diagram to help you with your explanation:
Keep in mind that the Great Unconformity is huge in extent. The Grand Canyon is one place where it is exposed, but so is Frenchman Mountain in Nevada near Las Vegas, about 160 miles away, but of course the Great Unconformity extends for great distances in all directions. Parts of the Great Unconformity are also exposed all over the place, and a quick Google revealed examples in Utah, South Dakota and New York State. It's huge extent is why it's referred to as the Great Unconformity. Just how do you imagine this volcano at the Grand Canyon causing the Great Unconformity that extends beneath a great deal of what is now the US? By the way, Hutton found an equivalent unconformity in Scotland.
...AND it casued the uplift of the entire canyon area,...
Again, volcanoes by themselves do not cause uplift.
...it uplifted the entire stack above the unconformity,...
The geologic history of the Grand Canyon does include uplift, but it was not caused by a volcano. Think about it. If volcanoes caused uplift, then there would be deformation upward of the layers immediately around that magma intrusion at the left of the diagram at the top of this message. But there's no such deformation, because the magma melted through. There will only be deformation upward when the magma reaches the surface layer, which has no overlying layers holding it in place.
Also consider that any deformation a volcano might cause would be circular and centered at the volcano, but the majority of bending and folding and faulting is roughly linear. That's because tectonic forces are largely responsible, and the margins between tectonic plates tend to be roughly linear for very large distances, and where they curve it is often with huge radii.
Yes, that's my favorite cross-section, the one from Wikipedia, thanks for putting it up.
Glad you like it. Hopefully you'll think about its implications one day.
Since the northernmost part of the Grand Staircase also appears to be uplifted where the magma dike penetrates the layers, and the strata to the north of the fault line are appreciably lower and tilted, it suggests that the volcano there is also the cause of the uplift in that region.
Again, the uplift is far to the north of the magma intrusion and could not have caused the uplift. Had it caused uplift then the area around the magma intrusion would be highest, but it's not, and the layers where nearest the intrusion would have been deformed upward, but they're not. That's because, again, the magma melted through the layers without having to exert enough force to deform the layers. Also, again, were the magma intrusion responsible the uplift would have been circular, but it's not. It's roughly linear and stretches hundreds of miles east and west along the Hurricane Fault. It is in no way centered at the magma intrusion.
And all those long even layers depicted on the cross-sections DO demonstrate my point about the lack of disturbance over millions of years to the individual layers in their laying down phase,...
You're simply repeating your claim again and not answering the question. Look again at the the diagram at the top of the message and notice how many magma intrusions were significant enough to deserve representation: just one. And how many significant bends do you see: maybe two or three. The question, again, is why you expect so many disturbances during a layer's formation? And what do you imagine they should look like, because we do find evidence of volcanic eruptions.
About bending during layer formation, there will never exist any evidence of a sedimentary layer that resulted after an uplift. That's because once a region is uplifted it becomes an area of net erosion rather than net deposition.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Faith, posted 12-14-2013 2:42 PM Faith has not replied

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


(2)
Message 191 of 1896 (713680)
12-15-2013 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Faith
12-14-2013 11:37 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Faith writes:
THIS IS TH IDEA: The volcanic release formed a magma bubble beneath the canyon and I actually saw that illustrated somewhere years ago on a canyon diagram but haven't been able to find it again. Which becomes a pluton. The extrusion of the magma creates pressure by displacement which along with the heat made the granite and the schist and the quartzite, forced the strata to tilt into the Great Unconformity.
I already pointed out in my previous message how a volcano local to the Grand Canyon could not possibly have caused the Great Unconformity that extends across much of the length and breadth of our continent, so I won't dwell on this further. You go on to say something that is an improvement in that it is less impossible:
At BOTH the GC and the GS there is a volcano associated with the uplift. Seems to me they're likely related but tectonic action is fine with me: same result. Uplift, displaced strata, great unconformity in GC, uplift and unconformity to north of GS, broken upper strata that have eroded away, canyons cut etc etc etc.
So let me interpret this as you setting aside the possibility that a volcano caused the Great Unconformity to instead consider the possibility that it was caused by uplift. How is it that you imagine uplift tilting the deeply buried layers of the Grand Canyon supergroup, and then creating an erosion layer on top of them just below the Tapeats Sandstone. Here's a diagram again to help you visually:
The point is that the UPLIFT caused the breaking of the strata and this happened at both the GC and the GS, and this uplift is what distorted the lay of th4e whole land, ALONG WITH the shaking caused by the tectonic movement AND the volcanoes, all together breaking up the higher strata.
Why do you require the strata to be broken up? As I keep telling you, on a scale of miles rock is very pliable. It's going to bend, not break. Where around the world have you ever heard it reported that volcanoes or earthquakes broke up sedimentary layers into little pieces that then begin eroding away at the enormous rate your scenario requires. You have the layers at the Grand Canyon being deposited by the flood, then remaining in place long enough to lithify into solid rock, then the layers being uplifted and broken up, then a mile or so of layers being eroded away to reveal the topography we see today, which is an unheard of rate of erosion in a region that gets little rain.
One point I raised that you haven't addressed yet: most of the layers of the Grand Canyon are marine layers with fine-grained sediment. There are no land lifeforms in these layers, and there are none of the large particle sediment types associated with floods. Many of the layers are limestone, which is particularly finely grained.
Let's say I believed you and wanted to be convinced by you, but I knew that floods don't lay down fine grained sediments, and I couldn't understand how a global flood could create layers containing only marine life. How are you going to help me past these obstacles without insulting my intelligence?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Faith, posted 12-14-2013 11:37 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by PaulK, posted 12-15-2013 1:28 PM Percy has replied
 Message 198 by Faith, posted 12-15-2013 2:33 PM Percy has replied

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


(1)
Message 192 of 1896 (713681)
12-15-2013 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Faith
12-14-2013 11:45 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Hi Faith,
I'll just accept it whenever you say you never said something. Whatever you want to claim you meant all along will be fine with me.
Nothing of that sort has ever occurred to the individual layers showing that none of them was ever on the surface of the earth.
But the tops of some layers are clearly eroded, so they must have been on the surface at some point. These are unconformities. Unconformities occur when an area of net erosion subsides sufficiently to become an area of net deposition.
Also, the layers of the Grand Canyon are the same types of layers that we see forming all around the world today, and they form at the surface, either on land or on the seafloor (actually, much more often the seafloor because sediments accumulate at the lowest elevation, which in most regions is at the bottom of a body of water).
Let me ask you to consider a possibility about your scenario. After the flood the area around the Grand Canyon was uplifted, then tectonic forces and earthquakes broke the layers up so that they could be easily eroded down to what we see today. How do you know it was a single uplift? How do you know it wasn't uplift with accompanying erosion, followed by subsidence with accompanying deposition, followed by another period of uplift with accompanying erosion. Wouldn't this help you explain why the boundaries between some layers are unconformities? Wouldn't explaining the unconformities be a better approach then simply denying their existence?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Faith, posted 12-14-2013 11:45 PM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 193 of 1896 (713682)
12-15-2013 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Faith
12-15-2013 12:05 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Faith writes:
OK you've convinced me about the volcanoes.
I'll treasure this moment always.
They wre a result of tectonic movement, so was the faujlt, so was the uplift in both GC and GS areas, so was the Great Unconformity, so was the cracking and breaking of the upper strata ets. That's fine. Same result.
My previous message contains detailed questions about this scenario so I won't take up space repeating them here.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Faith, posted 12-15-2013 12:05 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 194 of 1896 (713683)
12-15-2013 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Percy
12-15-2013 1:01 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
quote:
Why do you require the strata to be broken up? As I keep telling you, on a scale of miles rock is very pliable. It's going to bend, not break.
Because she wants to "explain" why the strata laid on top of angular unconformities are NOT bent. It seems pretty silly to me - but so long as she wants those strata to be there and lithified when the angular unconformity is created, she's stuck with it.
Guess that's why she needs to invent her "eroded band". Every angular unconformity would have to have one - if she was right. I've never heard of one, and she doesn't seem to have produced any examples. So much for "observable evidence".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Percy, posted 12-15-2013 1:01 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Percy, posted 12-15-2013 2:10 PM PaulK has replied

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


(1)
Message 195 of 1896 (713686)
12-15-2013 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Faith
12-15-2013 12:21 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Faith writes:
Seems to me that displacement of the strata AND the Hurricane fault itself which divides the two sections, AND the volcano, were ALL caused by the same tectonic movement at the same time.
Could be. Or they could have had independent causes. Or there could have been a sequence of events with complex histories. What evidence are you drawing upon in order to reach your conclusion?
Looks to me like the faulting was produced by a tectonic movement that both caused the uplift to the GS and the dropping of the tilted strata north of it as well as the volcano and I see no "mountain building" in the area. It looks to me like the fault simply split the strata and both were uplifted to some extent but the north side actually dropped, but remained tilted up against the fault.
Could be. From what little I've read about it the Hurricane Fault is pretty complicated. I wouldn't jump to any conclusions.
I agree with the great many more layers part because that IS necessary to bury it under great pressure, but since the Clarion layer exists on both sides of the fault line at completely different levels clearly it was NOT deposited AFTER the fault line occurred, it was already there,...
Yes!
...and the whole stack above it was already there,...
Could be. There's not enough evidence in the diagram to tell.
...and was eroded away along with all the rest of it that formed the Grand Staircase and scoured the Kaibab plateau and all that,...
Yes!
... and it looks like the fault occurred after all that dividing the uplifted side of the GS from the strata on the other side.
Could be. Again, I don't think there's enough evidence in the diagram to assign an order of events at this level of detail.
Even the partially eroded layer above the Clarion is identical on both sides of the fault line,...
The diagram is a little hard to interpret on this point, but it appears that there's an additional unnamed layer above the Claron (not Clarion) to the north of the fault, and it sounds like you noticed that, too. But south of the fault it looks like the Claron is exposed at the top of Brian Head Peak and has no layer overlying it.
Couldn't happen that way, happened as I just described. It was already there, continuous with the Clarion layer on the other side of the fault, and so was the whole stack above it, all before the fault occurred.
I was not revising what I agreed with earlier about the Claron layer being deposited before the Hurricane Fault occurred, but you have no evidence to support the claim that nothing was deposited after the Hurricane Fault. But why do you care? What does it matter whether more layers formed after the fault or not? Whether more layers formed or not, they obviously eroded away. What difference does it make to you?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Faith, posted 12-15-2013 12:21 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 12:28 AM Percy has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024