Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8950 total)
74 online now:
caffeine, Tangle, vimesey (3 members, 71 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,211 Year: 22,247/19,786 Month: 810/1,834 Week: 310/500 Day: 9/64 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Depositional Models of Sea Transgressions/Regressions - Walther's Law
Percy
Member
Posts: 19110
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 166 of 533 (726597)
05-10-2014 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by NoNukes
05-10-2014 9:06 AM


Re: complexity of geology
If you follow the message trail or do a search in that thread for "infall*" and read the messages after Message 1255 you'll see that Faith gives another of her rhetorically confusing answers. She says no, of course she doesn't think she's infallible, but then she says she knows she's right, then she chastises everyone for taking her literally, see Message 1269.

While looking at those messages I came across a mention of the sedimentary layers being deposited now in Message 1770:

Percy in Message 1770 of the "Why the Flood Never Happened" Thread writes:

The strata we find in the geologic column are pretty much the same as those being deposited today beneath our lakes, seas and oceans all around the word. Sedimentary layers were formed by the same processes in the past as they are today.

And of course this wasn't the first mention, it's probably come up in many of the old flood threads, yet Faith ignored it for over a decade until this thread. I wonder how she reconciles knowing her prior views were right now that she has to change them.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Add missing close quote.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by NoNukes, posted 05-10-2014 9:06 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by NoNukes, posted 05-10-2014 12:00 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 167 of 533 (726606)
05-10-2014 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Percy
05-10-2014 9:30 AM


Re: complexity of geology
I wonder how she reconciles knowing her prior views were right now that she has to change them.

She does not have to reconcile anything. You (and I) just don't understand how she has been right all along.

Ultimately being right means that the Flood created the Grand Canyon and all of its details in some period lasting between 10 seconds and ten months after it started raining for 40 days and nights and the fountains of the deep opened. Missteps about exactly how that can be explained are just teats on a bull.

And instead of thinking of yourself as a peer arguing with another peer on an internet forum, imagine yourself as a middle school student in Faith's Sunday school class who is rejecting this Sunday's lesson about a T-Rex and a triceratops being buddies in the Garden of Eden.

I think that about captures the mindset I'm seeing from Faith.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Percy, posted 05-10-2014 9:30 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33905
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 168 of 533 (726619)
05-10-2014 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by edge
05-09-2014 11:10 AM


To edge: no tectonic activity in Grand Canyon Paleozoic
Faith writes:

The REGION is one thing, the separate layers is another. I'm talking about the separate layers between the Tapeats and the Claron, which certainly cover the Paleozoic and Tertiary, remain so neatly parallel if the region really did undergo several risings. Clearly the rising of the land created higher and lower areas, yet the individual layers remain parallel to each other.

edge writes:

I'm not sure why this is a problem. Please explain. Is it just personal incredulity on your part?

Are you actually thinking about the fact that the layers are PARALLEL? Of course not, you can't be. You said there were separate uplifts during the Paleozoic. That includes all the strata visible in the Grand Canyon, and shown on that diagram to extend hundreds of miles north through the Grand Staircase area as well, all shown to be parallel to each other (I would expect variations in thickness not to be shown, but that wouldn't affect the fact that the layers are parallel). On the diagram we see the strata as a block following the contour of the mounded rise into which the Grand Canyon is cut. It's exaggerated on the diagram, in reality it is much more gradual, but still it is a rise in the land and the strata as a block follow its contour while remaining parallel. (Questions: 1. does lithified rock do that? Wouldn't it crack and break if the land rose beneath it? 2. If that rise occurred before the Kaibab at the rim of the canyon was laid down, how could any layers subsequent to that one where the rise occurred have been laid down parallel to the lower layers which would have been lifted: subsequent depositions would butt up against the rise, rather than following its contour. And if there were more than one such rise, there should be even more layers butting up against previously uplifted layers. I wish I had a way to draw this and post it.

Faith writes:

This is the evidence I've been using that the tectonic activity had to have occurred after the layers were all in place. You are talking about uplifts occurring during periods when the layers were still being laid down, which at least would have distorted the block that was already in place if only as gently as is seen in the diagram, so you have to account for the fact that layers that were deposited after that tectonic activity are parallel with the layers that were already there.

edge writes:

Once again, I'm not seeing a problem here.

Well, you should be. That you aren't just means you aren't really getting what I'm talking about.

edge writes:

Uplift is an effect of tectonism and is, in structural geology, a type of deformation.

In which case what I've said above should be easy enough to recognize: layers that were deposited after any of the uplifts would not follow the contour of the deformation, would not be parallel to the formerly deposited layers, but would butt up against the rise of the deformation.

edge writes:

That it was gentle is not material. There are still some faults and clearly some erosion, as I have shown.

Which I believe also bear out what I'm saying, but first you have to account for what I'm describing here, because if there were uplifts at different times during the Paleozoic you would not have the block of parallel strata that we see on the diagram, you would have deformations at different levels lower in the stack subsequent depositions would butt up against, not being parallel with the lower layers, and you'd see this wherever you say there was an uplift during that time period. But what in fact is shown there is the whole block of Paleozoid strata from bottom to top as a block of parallel layers that remain parallel as they follow ALL the contours of the land together AS a block.

Faith writes:

Had there already been some distortion of the region, some parts higher, some parts lower, new layers should have been deposited more deeply in the lower areas and more thinly where the block rises, or in fact it would have butted up against any rises. And if this went on a number of times you have to explain this for all those different periods of tectonic activity followed by deposition. But all those layers are depicted as very neatly parallel, and no geological draftsman is going to draw them parallel if they weren't.

edge writes:

Still not seeing a problem.

I wish I had some drawings as I said, but if you just follow what I'm describing and see it on the diagram you certainly should see a problem.

edge writes:

And if you look at the thicknesses of the various units, you will see that they are highly variable in some cases, so while the layers look 'perfectly parallel' on the scale of the entire canyon, there are plenty of discrepancies; and if you go outside of the GC vicinity, you will see that there is even more variability in thickness to the point that some completely disappear.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Variations in thickness that occurred during the horizontal laying down of a layer is something else. Even with all the variations in thickness ALL the strata follow the contours of the uplifts shown in the diagram, the one over the Grand Canyon itself and the one at the far north end of the Grand Staircase, not to mention the gradual rise in the land between those two locations. If tectonic activity had occurred before any of those layers had been deposited, those later layers would have deposited horizontally and not parallel to the lower layers.

edge writes:

In any case, the evidence indicates tectonic activity. The fact that the region acted as a block is not important in the context of your model.

It's absolutely essential. It shows that there could not have been any tectonic activity at all during that Paleozoic era.

Next you bring up faults and I believe they too bear out this view of the situation, but I'd rather see if you are able to recognize the implications of what I've described so far.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by edge, posted 05-09-2014 11:10 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by edge, posted 05-10-2014 8:12 PM Faith has responded
 Message 176 by Percy, posted 05-11-2014 7:24 AM Faith has responded

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 169 of 533 (726642)
05-10-2014 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Percy
05-05-2014 11:51 PM


Everything in the world is not made of dried mud
Percy writes:

You can no more deposit sedimentary layers in a month than you could age a fine wine in an hour.

That's a great way of putting it. If I'm a reasonable fundy lurking out there, this is the kind of statement that gets me thinking.

Could I make wine in an hour? If I've insisted it had been done all over the world in the past, I should at least try. It's reasonable of others to ask me to do it if I expect to be convincing.

Has any creationist made limestone from mud in one year? They insist it's been done. So why don't they show us? It's the best way to show there's no violation of physical laws involved in the concept.

They never do this.

Give Baylor University a lot of credit. It's a Baptist university in Texas that offers the excellent Baylor Geology FAQ page. It should be required reading for all Bible thumpers.

Take it from the Baptists: science has the goods.


Archer O

All species are transitional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Percy, posted 05-05-2014 11:51 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by RAZD, posted 05-10-2014 4:34 PM Archer Opteryx has responded
 Message 174 by edge, posted 05-10-2014 8:20 PM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20331
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 170 of 533 (726645)
05-10-2014 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Archer Opteryx
05-10-2014 4:19 PM


Re: Everything in the world is not made of dried mud
Has any creationist made limestone from mud in one year? They insist it's been done. So why don't they show us? It's the best way to show there's no violation of physical laws involved in the concept.

Well there is the fossilized cowboy boot ...

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/boot.htm

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 169 by Archer Opteryx, posted 05-10-2014 4:19 PM Archer Opteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Archer Opteryx, posted 05-10-2014 5:35 PM RAZD has responded

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 171 of 533 (726649)
05-10-2014 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by RAZD
05-10-2014 4:34 PM


Re: Everything in the world is not made of dried mud
A fossil boot from Paluxy, eh?

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by RAZD, posted 05-10-2014 4:34 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by RAZD, posted 05-10-2014 5:44 PM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20331
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 172 of 533 (726650)
05-10-2014 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Archer Opteryx
05-10-2014 5:35 PM


Re: Everything in the world is not made of dried mud
Yep. It's supposed to be in the 'double wide' creation museum. I went by it when I went to walk in the footsteps of giants (actually dinos, actually got my foot down into the depression - it was an awesome feeling)

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 171 by Archer Opteryx, posted 05-10-2014 5:35 PM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 48 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 173 of 533 (726661)
05-10-2014 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Faith
05-10-2014 1:45 PM


Re: To edge: no tectonic activity in Grand Canyon Paleozoic
Are you actually thinking about the fact that the layers are PARALLEL? Of course not, you can't be.

Once again, I'm not sure what the problem is. Why should they not be parallel at this scale?

You said there were separate uplifts during the Paleozoic.

Yes, and?

That includes all the strata visible in the Grand Canyon, and shown on that diagram to extend hundreds of miles north through the Grand Staircase area as well, all shown to be parallel to each other (I would expect variations in thickness not to be shown, but that wouldn't affect the fact that the layers are parallel). On the diagram we see the strata as a block following the contour of the mounded rise into which the Grand Canyon is cut. It's exaggerated on the diagram, in reality it is much more gradual, but still it is a rise in the land and the strata as a block follow its contour while remaining parallel.

And your point is?

(Questions: 1. does lithified rock do that? Wouldn't it crack and break if the land rose beneath it?

Certainly. There are cracks all through the GC section. Why wouldn't there be?

2. If that rise occurred before the Kaibab at the rim of the canyon was laid down, how could any layers subsequent to that one where the rise occurred have been laid down parallel to the lower layers which would have been lifted: subsequent depositions would butt up against the rise, rather than following its contour. And if there were more than one such rise, there should be even more layers butting up against previously uplifted layers. I wish I had a way to draw this and post it.

Yes, but I'm still not getting your point.

Well, you should be. That you aren't just means you aren't really getting what I'm talking about.

No, I understand completely what you are saying, but I'm not getting your meaning other than that you agree with mainstream science.

n which case what I've said above should be easy enough to recognize: layers that were deposited after any of the uplifts would not follow the contour of the deformation, would not be parallel to the formerly deposited layers, but would butt up against the rise of the deformation.

In fact, some of that happens. We see it in the Temple Butte Formation for instance. The problem you are having is that you look at this on a regional scale and all of the details disappear. You also miss the point, even though it has been repeated several times, that the region has been uplfted as a block.

If you are talking about uplift of the Kaibab Plateau, that happened well after the Paleozoic. I'd have to check the actual age, but I'm pretty sure it's in the late Tertiary.

Which I believe also bear out what I'm saying, but first you have to account for what I'm describing here, because if there were uplifts at different times during the Paleozoic you would not have the block of parallel strata that we see on the diagram, you would have deformations at different levels lower in the stack subsequent depositions would butt up against, not being parallel with the lower layers, and you'd see this wherever you say there was an uplift during that time period.

But what in fact is shown there is the whole block of Paleozoid strata from bottom to top as a block of parallel layers that remain parallel as they follow ALL the contours of the land together AS a block.


Still not a problem. I have said that tectonism was gentle and probably occurred near sea level. Your original statement was that there was NO tectonism.

I wish I had some drawings as I said, but if you just follow what I'm describing and see it on the diagram you certainly should see a problem.

No, there is no problem. I'm not sure why, if I move a stack of pancakes from one table to another why they should be visibly deformed.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Variations in thickness that occurred during the horizontal laying down of a layer is something else. Even with all the variations in thickness ALL the strata follow the contours of the uplifts shown in the diagram, the one over the Grand Canyon itself and the one at the far north end of the Grand Staircase, not to mention the gradual rise in the land between those two locations. If tectonic activity had occurred before any of those layers had been deposited, those later layers would have deposited horizontally and not parallel to the lower layers.

Of course. They were deposited and then warped by regional uplifts.

Are you saying that there should be more unconformities? Have we gone through 18 pages of posts to finally figure this out?

If so, I"m confused as to why you invoke this idea of flat layers overlying unconformities and yet deny it, and say that the underlying layers were independently deformed when we discuss the GC Supergroup. This is the kind of inconsistency that you come up with when using ad hoc arguments. They start to contradict.

If so, then you need to look at the details of the deposition, not a regional cross section. As I have mentioned several times the Temple Butte Formation is an example of such a feature. It's base cuts the Muav Formation and the top is cut by the Redwall. Those are just two unconformities.

You do realize that unconformities do not have to be accompanied by deformation, don't you? We call some of such unconformities 'diastems'. The represent a period of non-deposition or erosion of a plane that is parallel to bedding.

It's absolutely essential. It shows that there could not have been any tectonic activity at all during that Paleozoic era.

Well, you are welcome to your opinion, but the evidence indicates changes in sea level and that would be tectonism, sensu lato. At the same time faults such as the Bright Angel Fault indicated some deformation after the Paleozoic and before carving of the canyon. Surely, it's not a great folding and metamorphic event, but it would be classified as deformation.

Next you bring up faults and I believe they too bear out this view of the situation, but I'd rather see if you are able to recognize the implications of what I've described so far.

What you are describing is day one of Geology 101. It is kind of insulting to thousands of geologists that you don't think they have already thought of this.

But your error is that you use a gross regional scale diagram to see features that would be much finer and viewed on a macroscopic scale. Actually, it's a pretty common problem for beginners.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Faith, posted 05-10-2014 1:45 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Faith, posted 05-11-2014 3:55 AM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 48 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 174 of 533 (726662)
05-10-2014 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Archer Opteryx
05-10-2014 4:19 PM


Re: Everything in the world is not made of dried mud
Has any creationist made limestone from mud in one year? They insist it's been done. So why don't they show us? It's the best way to show there's no violation of physical laws involved in the concept.

Well, natural cements are found in nature, and they can form quickly. And there are travertine deposits that are geologically rapid and "kinda' like limestone; but nothing like a limestone shelf deposit or a coral reef. (You have to be really specific with YECs. They will compare oil created by a pressure cooker on a stove with an oil field the size of Ohio heated by geothermal gradient...)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Archer Opteryx, posted 05-10-2014 4:19 PM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33905
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 175 of 533 (726678)
05-11-2014 3:55 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by edge
05-10-2014 8:12 PM


Re: To edge: no tectonic activity in Grand Canyon Paleozoic
Still not a problem. I have said that tectonism was gentle and probably occurred near sea level. Your original statement was that there was NO tectonism.

DURING THE LAYING DOWN OF THE STRATA, edge. There was plenty of tectonism after they were all laid down.

I wish I had some drawings as I said, but if you just follow what I'm describing and see it on the diagram you certainly should see a problem.

No, there is no problem. I'm not sure why, if I move a stack of pancakes from one table to another why they should be visibly deformed.

IF you are talking about the entire region's being lifted as a unit in each of those uplift events at various times during the Paleozoic -- is that what you are claiming? But the diagram shows it was lifted in specific locations, all of which had to occur after all the strata were ni place. And you really haven't accounted for how the entire block of layers would have followed the contour of those visible uplifts if any of that occurred during the laying down of the strata.

No, the effects of this would not be all that refined. It's not a matter of scale at all. If the draftsman could represent faults and how they displaced the strata relative to each other on each side of them he/she could certainly have represented the very obvious effects of sediments being laid down after the contours of the land had changed.

I will have to come back to this later.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by edge, posted 05-10-2014 8:12 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by edge, posted 05-11-2014 8:34 AM Faith has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19110
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


(3)
Message 176 of 533 (726685)
05-11-2014 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Faith
05-10-2014 1:45 PM


Re: To edge: no tectonic activity in Grand Canyon Paleozoic
Hi Faith,

I get what you're saying. You're asking us to consider a situation where some layers have already been deposited, like this:

And then tectonic forces tilt the layers like this:

And then more layers are deposited like this:

We *do* see this at the Grand Canyon, but there's something very important that you have to remember and that you yourself said. I'll quote you:

Faith writes:

On the diagram we see the strata as a block following the contour of the mounded rise into which the Grand Canyon is cut. It's exaggerated on the diagram, in reality it is much more gradual...

It's those last couple words that are most important: "more gradual." The tilt that you see in the Grand Canyon diagrams we've been using and in the images I created above are greatly exaggerated. They don't reflect the actual amount of tilt, which is actually much less. This means that what we have at the Grand Canyon is actually this:

In this case the underlying layers have been only slightly tilted by tectonic forces, while the layers above are flat. Notice that the bottommost layer of the flat layers (it's pink) gets thinner and thinner, just as you've pointed out would happen if flat layers were deposited upon tilted layers.

And this is precisely what we find at the Grand Canyon, and pretty generally in all geological layers. The Temple Butte Limestone ranges from absent to more than 1000 feet thick. The Muav Limestone ranges from 100 to 800 feet thick.

Diagrams are helpful visualization tools, not pictures. The Grand Canyon diagrams are cross sections attempting to show what is typical. Here's a Grand Canyon diagram we haven't used before. Notice there's no Temple Butte Limestone in this diagram:

Also notice the Tapeats Sandstone layer. In some places it's present, in others it's not.

And take a close look at the top of the Muav Limestone and notice how irregular it is. That's because it's an eroded land surface upon which the Redwall Limestone layers were deposited when a sea advanced across the region in the Cambrian.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Faith, posted 05-10-2014 1:45 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by edge, posted 05-11-2014 8:55 AM Percy has responded
 Message 182 by Faith, posted 05-12-2014 5:21 AM Percy has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 48 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 177 of 533 (726696)
05-11-2014 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Faith
05-11-2014 3:55 AM


Re: To edge: no tectonic activity in Grand Canyon Paleozoic
DURING THE LAYING DOWN OF THE STRATA, edge. There was plenty of tectonism after they were all laid down.

Not compared to what happened in the Precambrian...

And, in fact, most of the younger activity was still confined to uplift of the Colorado Plateau and formation of the Kaibab Uplift.

IF you are talking about the entire region's being lifted as a unit in each of those uplift events at various times during the Paleozoic -- is that what you are claiming?

Well, they weren't exactly mountain building events with

But the diagram shows it was lifted in specific locations, all of which had to occur after all the strata were ni place.

In the Phanerozoic, sure. As I have said several times, there was some minor block-faulting such as that along the Bright Angel Fault.

And you really haven't accounted for how the entire block of layers would have followed the contour of those visible uplifts if any of that occurred during the laying down of the strata.

Actually, I have.

Several times.

No, the effects of this would not be all that refined. It's not a matter of scale at all. If the draftsman could represent faults and how they displaced the strata relative to each other on each side of them he/she could certainly have represented the very obvious effects of sediments being laid down after the contours of the land had changed.

Sure. I'm certain that you know better than people who have actually studied the Grand Canyon and the Colorado Plateau.

If we distill your convoluted argument down to its essential point that there are not enough unconformities in the Grand Canyon section, then you are clearly wrong, because we can see them in a more detailed stratigraphic analysis.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Faith, posted 05-11-2014 3:55 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Faith, posted 05-12-2014 6:07 AM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 48 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 178 of 533 (726700)
05-11-2014 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Percy
05-11-2014 7:24 AM


Re: To edge: no tectonic activity in Grand Canyon Paleozoic
Diagrams are helpful visualization tools, not pictures. The Grand Canyon diagrams are cross sections attempting to show what is typical. Here's a Grand Canyon diagram we haven't used before. Notice there's no Temple Butte Limestone in this diagram:

Notice a couple of things. Each of the red contacts is an unconformity and each of them basically reflect the land surface at the time when new sedimentation started, or some kind of cross-cutting event such as an intrusion.

Notice also that where any line is truncated, there is an erosional event or a fault. You can see that even in the stylized foliation in the Vishnu schist that is truncated by both the granite and the lower contact of the GC Supergroup. Both of these surfaces are unconformities.

In the Paleozoic, the region acted as a rigid block. There is no evidence of significant deformation, but relative uplift and slight tilting. This gives the impression of continuous sedimentation, but it is clear that the Temple Butte, for instance, does exactly what Faith says does not happen. It occurs in channels and low spots in the unconformity. In fact, it is so discontinuous that it often doesn't even show up on many diagrams, and yet, that surface is irregular in detail.

I think it is self-serving of Faith to assert that scale has nothing to do with observation of geological features. It boggles the mind that someone with no eductation would have the nerve to make such a statement. I assure her that if you observe with a microscope, you will see different features than you would with satellite imagery.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Percy, posted 05-11-2014 7:24 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Percy, posted 05-11-2014 9:18 AM edge has responded
 Message 185 by Faith, posted 05-12-2014 6:27 AM edge has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19110
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 179 of 533 (726705)
05-11-2014 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by edge
05-11-2014 8:55 AM


Re: To edge: no tectonic activity in Grand Canyon Paleozoic
edge writes:

I think it is self-serving of Faith...etc...

It's always all about Faith, and I think it's because she's completely lacking in both empathy and introspection. This combined with her inability to allow even the simplest and most obvious of inferences when it contradicts her beliefs prevents her from learning anything and forces us to have essentially the same discussion over and over again.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by edge, posted 05-11-2014 8:55 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by edge, posted 05-11-2014 11:43 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
edge
Member (Idle past 48 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 180 of 533 (726714)
05-11-2014 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by Percy
05-11-2014 9:18 AM


Re: To edge: no tectonic activity in Grand Canyon Paleozoic
It's always all about Faith, and I think it's because she's completely lacking in both empathy and introspection. This combined with her inability to allow even the simplest and most obvious of inferences when it contradicts her beliefs prevents her from learning anything and forces us to have essentially the same discussion over and over again.

--Percy


There are those who see religion as some kind of pathology and/or oppression. After spending years in forums such as this, I'm inclined to agree. It allows ignorance to become a fortress.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Percy, posted 05-11-2014 9:18 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by NoNukes, posted 05-11-2014 8:52 PM edge has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019