Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8926 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-22-2019 5:03 AM
26 online now:
AZPaul3, celestialGyoud, dwise1, PaulK (4 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,204 Year: 15,240/19,786 Month: 1,963/3,058 Week: 337/404 Day: 4/51 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1213
14
1516
...
36NextFF
Author Topic:   Depositional Models of Sea Transgressions/Regressions - Walther's Law
JonF
Member
Posts: 5352
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 196 of 533 (726774)
05-12-2014 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Percy
05-12-2014 10:07 AM


Re: To edge: no tectonic activity in Grand Canyon Paleozoic
You *are* wrong about this and you *would* see it if you would just think.

Faith is using 'just" in the sense of the last part of "4. simply; only; no more than".. I.e "just thinking" means siting in a darkened windowless room and relying only on your imagination to produce ideas and theories.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Percy, posted 05-12-2014 10:07 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Faith, posted 05-12-2014 12:41 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 197 of 533 (726778)
05-12-2014 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Faith
05-12-2014 10:15 AM


Re: To edge: no tectonic activity in Grand Canyon Paleozoic
I don't believe you either. So what?

How about the demonstration of hypocrisy from you? On one hand you denigrate biology and geological science as mere 'mental activity', and then you think that just pondering on your made up nonsense ought to be convincing?


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 194 by Faith, posted 05-12-2014 10:15 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Faith, posted 05-12-2014 12:25 PM NoNukes has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32708
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 198 of 533 (726779)
05-12-2014 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by NoNukes
05-12-2014 12:08 PM


Re: To edge: no tectonic activity in Grand Canyon Paleozoic
I don't believe you either. So what?

How about the demonstration of hypocrisy from you? On one hand you denigrate biology and geological science as mere 'mental activity', and then you think that just pondering on your made up nonsense ought to be convincing?

First off, that quote didn't come off as I wanted it to. It was meant to be more like "That's OK, I don't believe in you either."

However as usual I have to correct the willful misrepresentation of my point of view, as I have never ever denigrated biology or geology, what I have denigrated is evolution and the Old Earth. Neither science depends on either of those and as I have put it elsewhere, evolution is really just a parasite on those sciences.

And the term for these MISUSES of the sciences was not "mental activity" but "mental conjuring" and the problem with that is that it is mistaken for evidenced science, it is presented as fact when it is nothing but imaginative or hypothetical mental constructions.

What I'm asking is that you ponder what I've POINTED OUT on the diagram. It's all there for you to think about -- facts you might not have noticed if I hadn't pointed them out. I do think an HONEST pondering of those FACTS would have to lead an HONEST person, willing to spend some time on it, to my conclusions.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by NoNukes, posted 05-12-2014 12:08 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by edge, posted 05-12-2014 1:18 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 204 by NoNukes, posted 05-12-2014 2:15 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32708
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 199 of 533 (726781)
05-12-2014 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by JonF
05-12-2014 11:50 AM


Re: To edge: no tectonic activity in Grand Canyon Paleozoic
You *are* wrong about this and you *would* see it if you would just think.

Faith is using 'just" in the sense of the last part of "4. simply; only; no more than".. I.e "just thinking" means siting in a darkened windowless room and relying only on your imagination to produce ideas and theories.

No, that's what evolution requires, it claims knowledge it cannot prove, whereas I'm asking you to LOOK AT EVIDENCE I'VE DISCUSSED IN QUITE A BIT OF DETAIL.

Which you could have been doing instead of making up silly accusations.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by JonF, posted 05-12-2014 11:50 AM JonF has not yet responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 200 of 533 (726782)
05-12-2014 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Faith
05-12-2014 6:07 AM


Re: To edge: no tectonic activity in Grand Canyon Paleozoic
That's another subject.

Yes, I was making a comparison.

The layers called Paleozoic from Cambrian to Permian, which form the walls of Grand Canyon, show no uplift until they were all in place,

Possibly, but there certainly were a number of changes in sea level, because we do have erosion. There was certainly some kind of regional subsidence and the change from dominantly marine to dominantly terrestrial after the Permian is suggestive of some kind of uplift.

However, not to belabor the point, I thought you said there was NO evidence of tectonism right up to erosion of the canyon, so it's kind of moot since that goes beyond the Mesozoic in my book.

... along with all the Grand Staircase strata too, up through the Claron.

I differ here because of the change from continental shelf sedimentation to largely terrestrial sedimentation after the Permian.

Then the tremendous erosion we see on the diagram above the Permian occurred, which looks to me like the Precambrian hardly compares, but I'm talking about the layers in between where no disturbance is depicted.

Well, there certainly was some disturbance, in the form of erosion.

However, I continue to miss your point. Is this supposed to be evidence for a fludde, or what? I'm not sure why the Colorado Plateau could not respond as a block to gentle tectonic forces (or even none...) Just what is the issue?

... Going from left to right, starting with the far left you can see that the whole stack of the Grand Staircase pushes upward to the south of the Hurricane Fault while the part of the stack to the north has fallen at an angle, all the same layers with the Claron remaining horizontal on top of them, which is evidence that all the layers were there when that fault occurred.

Do you understand that the heavy line at the base of the Claron is an unconformity? Do you know that the Claron is a mostly lacustrine deposit?

But let's try to get to your point.

Meanwhile all the strata from the Tapeats to the Kaibab remain parallel, which looks to me like evidence that the disturbances just described did not occur during their laying down but afterward, same as with all the other tectonism in the Grand Staircase area.

First of all, you said all the way to the Claron before, but now it's the Kaibab? Prior to that I still think you said all the way to the erosion of the Grand Canyon which would be well into the Cenozoic. This inconsistency makes it nearly impossible to respond to you.

But moving along, I actually would have no problem with this except that in detail, there is evidence of of some changes in sea level and a conversion to terrestrial deposits above the Permian.

At the same time, while the Colorado Plateau is acting as a stable block throughout the Paleozoic and Mesozoic, there is plenty of action in the surrounding area including uplift of the ancestral Rockies about 400my ago and the Laramide orogeny at about 70my ago. We also had rifting of the Atlantic Ocean which had a huge effect on sedimentation in the CP area.

So, while I do not agree that there is NO disruption of the sequence at the GC when reviewed in detail, I maintain the whole issue is irrelevant to your thesis that there was only one tectonic event that gave rise to the structural features that we see in the Grand Canyon.

There were multiple deformational events in the Precambrian and certainly a lot of uplift with the formation of the Colorado Plateau and the Kaibab Uplift more recently; but in between, we had a relatively quite, stable region reflected by gentle warping and sea level changes resulting in a number of unconformities.

I am not sure why this is such an issue with you.

I have no idea what this refers to or what you think it explains. The Phanerozoic covers the entire depth of the strata above the Great Unconformity which I've just been discussing. If the fault line you are talking about is the one through the Grand Canyon then it had to have been part of the same tectonic upheaval as formed the phenomena I've just described.

That may be, but it's hard to tell from your posts what upheaval you talk about. Are you talking post-Kaibab, or post-Claron, or even later?

Actually you have not, and you still don't even know what I'm talking about. Please consider the phenomena described above.

Well, then, you're not making sense and I have no idea what you are discussing. I have pointed out to you that truncated bedding such as you wish to see is present at the base of the Temple Butte Formation and the base of the Redwall. I have explained to you the presence of diastems, but you have not responded.

Well, as a matter of fact since you are ignoring everything I'm pointing out on this diagram I really don't think you have a clue about it and all your rank-pulling and attempts to humiliate me are irrelevant.

I'm not ignoring your data, I'm refuting what you think to be an explanation. There is no way that you can say there is only one tectonic event evidenced in the Grand Canyon geological record.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Faith, posted 05-12-2014 6:07 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Faith, posted 05-12-2014 2:15 PM edge has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32708
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 201 of 533 (726783)
05-12-2014 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by New Cat's Eye
05-12-2014 10:42 AM


Re: To edge: no tectonic activity in Grand Canyon Paleozoic
When you're trying to convince someone of something, you show them the evidence for your assertion. You don't just tell them that you are right and that they would know it if they thought about it.

Which I did in Message 184, the most recent of the places I've presented the evidence. I even re-posted the diagram there for reference.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-12-2014 10:42 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 202 of 533 (726784)
05-12-2014 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Faith
05-12-2014 9:52 AM


Re: To edge: no tectonic activity in Grand Canyon Paleozoic
You are talking about the Great Unconformity, which I believe occurred after all the strata were in place TOO but that IS another subject in any case.

It is, and I can see why you are reluctant to discuss it.

You are NOT addressing the point I'm making about the fact that the strata remain parallel OVER THE UPLIFT into which the GC was cut OR that they were all laid down all the way up through the Claron (Tertiary) before the Grand Staircase was cut and maintain their parallel form there too. And I've already discussed this with you before, I'm trying to get edge to see the point I'm making.

But that is demonstrably wrong since we know that some formations are eroded away in places. How can the Temple Butte Formation be everywhere parallel when it only occurs in channels and low spots in the upper contact of the Muav?

ETA: This is exactly what you are asking for, just without the tilting.

How an they be completely parallel when we know there is relief in the upper contact of the Muav and the upper contact of the Hermit?

The only way you can draw that conclusion is by using regional sections that don't show the detail.

You are, therefor, just plain wrong.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Faith, posted 05-12-2014 9:52 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Faith, posted 05-12-2014 2:48 PM edge has responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 203 of 533 (726787)
05-12-2014 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Faith
05-12-2014 12:25 PM


Re: To edge: no tectonic activity in Grand Canyon Paleozoic
First off, that quote didn't come off as I wanted it to. It was meant to be more like "That's OK, I don't believe in you either."

However as usual I have to correct the willful misrepresentation of my point of view, as I have never ever denigrated biology or geology, what I have denigrated is evolution and the Old Earth. Neither science depends on either of those and as I have put it elsewhere, evolution is really just a parasite on those sciences.

And the term for these MISUSES of the sciences was not "mental activity" but "mental conjuring" and the problem with that is that it is mistaken for evidenced science, it is presented as fact when it is nothing but imaginative or hypothetical mental constructions.

What I'm asking is that you ponder what I've POINTED OUT on the diagram. It's all there for you to think about -- facts you might not have noticed if I hadn't pointed them out. I do think an HONEST pondering of those FACTS would have to lead an HONEST person, willing to spend some time on it, to my conclusions.


You know, you'd be much better off saying, "Well, it's just a miracle and I can't explain it". The way it is now, you seem kind of arrogant and stubborn.

It is not uncommon for YECs to point to science thinking they have found some weakness, when the evidence is actually contrary to their scenario. This is a an extreme case.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Faith, posted 05-12-2014 12:25 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 204 of 533 (726788)
05-12-2014 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Faith
05-12-2014 12:25 PM


First off, that quote didn't come off as I wanted it to. It was meant to be more like "That's OK, I don't believe in you either."

Assuming that is your only error (and it is not), why do you then blame me for it.

Yes you do sometimes point to features as part of weaving your story, but when contradictory evidence is pointed out, what we expect is to see you address it rather than to tell us to think harder.


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 198 by Faith, posted 05-12-2014 12:25 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32708
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 205 of 533 (726789)
05-12-2014 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by edge
05-12-2014 12:42 PM


Re: To edge: no tectonic activity in Grand Canyon Paleozoic
I keep hoping that it's possible to discuss a completely different model of the geological past than the establishment view, with an establishment geologist, but I'm concluding after working through this post that it's not possible. Nevertheless I'll leave it as I've written it.

=============================

The layers called Paleozoic from Cambrian to Permian, which form the walls of Grand Canyon, show no uplift until they were all in place,

Possibly, but there certainly were a number of changes in sea level, because we do have erosion. There was certainly some kind of regional subsidence and the change from dominantly marine to dominantly terrestrial after the Permian is suggestive of some kind of uplift.

I keep trying to get you to focus on a very specific set of facts, but you keep bringing in others which only confuses things. Now those are probably the observations that lead you to your conclusions, fine, but I'm trying to get you to notice a different set of facts which should lead to conclusions that contradict yours.

I have to suppose that your focus is on small points here and there, contents of a particular rock that you interpret as proving changes in sea level, "some kind of regional subsidence" and so on, and the "erosion" you have to take a microscope to see. You're looking at the trees and apparently they are very convincing to you, but I'm looking at the forest and trying to get you to take your eyes off the trees long enough to see it.

However, not to belabor the point, I thought you said there was NO evidence of tectonism right up to erosion of the canyon, so it's kind of moot since that goes beyond the Mesozoic in my book.

This has to be a consequence of different assumptions which I can only keep trying to discover as we go. I believe the evidence I am looking at, the forest-level evidence, shows that the strata between the Tapeats and the Claron underwent no tectonic disturbance until after they were all in place. ALL THOSE STRATA which are completely parallel to each other over all the ups and downs of the whole region, following the contours of the rise over the GC for instance, and the rise at the north end of the Grand Staircase, all parallel following all those contours.

Sometimes we're talking only about the GC area and I'll reduce the frame of reference to include only that sequence of strata up to the Kaibab or Permian. Switching focus can be confusing so I'll try not to do that, especially since you ARE so detail-oriented.

... along with all the Grand Staircase strata too, up through the Claron.

I differ here because of the change from continental shelf sedimentation to largely terrestrial sedimentation after the Permian.

And that again is where you insist on looking at the trees instead of the forest. But if you look at the forest you need to notice that all those strata, no matter what their sedimentary content, lie in parallel to each other for the entire depth of the whole stack, from Tapeats to Claron, from Cambrian to Tertiary.

Besides the focus on the trees you will sometimes say that in reality those strata aren't parallel and I argue that the artist would have had no reason not to indicate where they aren't parallel if in fact they aren't. This is where our argument should focus. At least it's a forest-level argument.

Then the tremendous erosion we see on the diagram above the Permian occurred, which looks to me like the Precambrian hardly compares, but I'm talking about the layers in between where no disturbance is depicted.

Well, there certainly was some disturbance, in the form of erosion.
However, I continue to miss your point. Is this supposed to be evidence for a fludde, or what? I'm not sure why the Colorado Plateau could not respond as a block to gentle tectonic forces (or even none...) Just what is the issue?

But if the whole plateau rose as you described it earlier, like a stack of pancakes being moved from one table to another, that uplift is not what is shown on this diagram, which shows uplift over the Grand Canyon in the shape of a mound, and uplift at the far north end of the Grand Staircase. It is the contours of the land between those two uplifts I'm trying to keep in focus.

And the point is to demonstrate that the parallel form maintained by the ENTIRE stack of layers from Tapeats through Claron, along with various other facts such as the magma dike through all the levels and the fault lines as well, is evidence that there was NO tectonic activity at any time during the laying down of all those strata.

You always go for your tree level proofs that I'm wrong but if you would just focus on what's actually on the diagram maybe you could agree that if the depiction of the parallel form is accurate, and the implication of the magma dike and the fault lines as well, that I'm right to draw the conclusion I do about the lack of tectonic disturbance during their laying down.

I'm trying to keep the focus narrow to avoid as much confusion as possible but that may be a lost cause too. I'm nowhere near arguing for the Flood yet, and I don't even want to try to define what I'm trying to prove because that will just mire us down in more confusion.

... Going from left to right, starting with the far left you can see that the whole stack of the Grand Staircase pushes upward to the south of the Hurricane Fault while the part of the stack to the north has fallen at an angle, all the same layers with the Claron remaining horizontal on top of them, which is evidence that all the layers were there when that fault occurred.

Do you understand that the heavy line at the base of the Claron is an unconformity? Do you know that the Claron is a mostly lacustrine deposit?

Again, that's a tree-level detail observation. The points I'm trying to make are all based on the big picture.

But let's try to get to your point.

Please.

Meanwhile all the strata from the Tapeats to the Kaibab remain parallel, which looks to me like evidence that the disturbances just described did not occur during their laying down but afterward, same as with all the other tectonism in the Grand Staircase area.

First of all, you said all the way to the Claron before, but now it's the Kaibab?

Yes, I suppose I should try to avoid switching focus like that since it's ALL the strata all the way to the top of Grand Staircase I always have in mind, but sometimes it's just easier to make the case on a more limited range. But I'd rather avoid confusion if possible so I'll try not to do that.

Prior to that I still think you said all the way to the erosion of the Grand Canyon which would be well into the Cenozoic.

There's probably a confusion here too so now I guess i do have to say more about what I'm trying to prove, how I see this big picture: I think all the strata were laid down all the way up to the top of the Grand Staircase over the entire area, all neat and flat for thousands of square miles, including quite a way south of the Grand Canyon where there is a butte composed of at least some of the strata found in the Grand Staircase (need a picture of that).

THEN the tectonic activity occurred, the land was pushed up where the GC now is and also at the north end of the GS, and this tectonism was attended by other upheavals such as the volcanic activity beneath both areas and the faulting which shows earthquake disturbances of the area and so on, and all that is what brought about the cutting of the Grand Canyon and all the cliffs and canyons of the Grand Staircase -- a great shaking and distortion of the land which brought about the breaking up and erosion of all those strata above the Permian/Kaibab over that entire region from GS to south of the GC.

I think this view of the situation is strongly indicated by the FOREST LEVEL view of that diagram. I'm sure you will object to the time factor among other things, which would of course be a lot less than millions of years, but I think the actual presentation of the facts in the diagram suggest my scenario.

This inconsistency makes it nearly impossible to respond to you.

And I think I'm finally discovering that it may in fact be impossible to have this discussion because I have such different assumptions. There is no inconsistency about this in my model but there is in yours. There is no "Cenozoic" in my model, there is no time table at all. But since Geology says there is there may be no way to communicate anything of my model to you at all. So if the discussion is impossible for this reason we should end it, I don't need more insults. And perhaps you would say the same since my view is intrinsically insulting toward yours.

But moving along, I actually would have no problem with this except that in detail, there is evidence of of some changes in sea level and a conversion to terrestrial deposits above the Permian.

That's because you ARE thinking in terms of the details instead of the big picture. And since you would only want to convince me that the details matter, which in my model they don't, this may just mean there is no way to discuss any of this really. I think my model is quite coherent as is but convincing you of that is probably impossible.

At the same time, while the Colorado Plateau is acting as a stable block throughout the Paleozoic and Mesozoic, there is plenty of action in the surrounding area including uplift of the ancestral Rockies about 400my ago and the Laramide orogeny at about 70my ago. We also had rifting of the Atlantic Ocean which had a huge effect on sedimentation in the CP area.

Well, there's establishment Old Earth Geology for you, which I reject, which is the reason you have to insult me all the time and vice versa. I believe the Rockies were formed by the same tectonic upheaval that carved the Grand Staircase and the Grand Canyon and the Monuments and all that, perhaps even over a period of no more than a hundred years or so at a wild guess.

So, while I do not agree that there is NO disruption of the sequence at the GC when reviewed in detail, I maintain the whole issue is irrelevant to your thesis that there was only one tectonic event that gave rise to the structural features that we see in the Grand Canyon.

Perhaps what I've said above changes this idea?

There were multiple deformational events in the Precambrian and certainly a lot of uplift with the formation of the Colorado Plateau and the Kaibab Uplift more recently; but in between, we had a relatively quite, stable region reflected by gentle warping and sea level changes resulting in a number of unconformities.

And here's where I have to point out that if the establishment view is correct, that the laying down of the strata occurred over periods of millions of years per layer or so, during which the land underwent "gentle warping," that what you would have on a cross section is not a depth of two miles of strata so neatly parallel to each other all maintaining their parallel form over that "gentle warping" of the land, over that mound into which the GC is cut, or that sharp rising of the land to the immediate south of the Hurricane Fault way up at the far end of the GS, but you would have a block of strata that conform to the contours at whatever point they supposedly happened in the sequence, FOLLOWED BY a horizontal layer that does NOT follow the contours but fills in their valleys and butts up against their slopes.

What is seen on the diagram on the other hand has the entire stack in parallel following the contours of that "gentle warping" of the land. This is evidence that there was NO tectonic activity even of the "gentle warping" sort throughout the laying down of the entire stack from Tapeats to Claron. That's the whole "Phanerozoic Eon," some hundreds of millions of years, right?

I am not sure why this is such an issue with you.

Well, now I've laid out a lot of it so maybe it's clearer.

I have no idea what this refers to or what you think it explains. The Phanerozoic covers the entire depth of the strata above the Great Unconformity which I've just been discussing. If the fault line you are talking about is the one through the Grand Canyon then it had to have been part of the same tectonic upheaval as formed the phenomena I've just described.

That may be, but it's hard to tell from your posts what upheaval you talk about. Are you talking post-Kaibab, or post-Claron, or even later?

Post Claron. Some time after the entire stack was in place, a fairly short time.

Actually you have not, and you still don't even know what I'm talking about. Please consider the phenomena described above.

Well, then, you're not making sense and I have no idea what you are discussing. I have pointed out to you that truncated bedding such as you wish to see is present at the base of the Temple Butte Formation and the base of the Redwall. I have explained to you the presence of diastems, but you have not responded.

Well, that's because those things are not relevant in my model.

If nothing else, this post is making clear why it's impossible to have a discussion about these different points of view.

I'm not ignoring your data, I'm refuting what you think to be an explanation. There is no way that you can say there is only one tectonic event evidenced in the Grand Canyon geological record.

On the forest level the evidence for this is clear, though not on the tree level.

But again, from my point of view some things about this argument are clearer now at least, such as: it's impossible.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by edge, posted 05-12-2014 12:42 PM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by NoNukes, posted 05-12-2014 2:19 PM Faith has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 206 of 533 (726790)
05-12-2014 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Faith
05-12-2014 2:15 PM


Re: To edge: no tectonic activity in Grand Canyon Paleozoic
I keep trying to get you to focus on a very specific set of facts, but you keep bringing in others which only confuses things.

You don't see anything silly about your position? Your thesis should explain all facts. Bringing in other evidence is exactly what someone disagreeing with you should be doing.


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 205 by Faith, posted 05-12-2014 2:15 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Faith, posted 05-12-2014 2:21 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32708
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 207 of 533 (726791)
05-12-2014 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by NoNukes
05-12-2014 2:19 PM


Re: To edge: no tectonic activity in Grand Canyon Paleozoic
No, it's a genuine paradigm clash. Some facts are not pertinent to a different paradigm.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by NoNukes, posted 05-12-2014 2:19 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32708
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 208 of 533 (726792)
05-12-2014 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by edge
05-12-2014 12:50 PM


Re: To edge: no tectonic activity in Grand Canyon Paleozoic
You are talking about the Great Unconformity, which I believe occurred after all the strata were in place TOO but that IS another subject in any case.

It is, and I can see why you are reluctant to discuss it.

The insinuations are unwelcome. I have no reluctance to discuss it. I'm trying to get Percy to stop changing the subject, which is all he's doing. I'm discussing the contours of the whole area as seen on that cross section and I don't want to be derailed into pages of argument about the Great Unconformity which I've argued to death elsewhere. I see it as having occurred after all the strata were laid down, along with all the other evidences of the great tectonic and volcanic upheavals that occurred at that time, which I just laid out in my previous post to you. Most creationists accept the establishment view of the Great Unconformity and say the Flood occurred afterward. I don't, I think the Flood laid down all the strata, to at least three miles deep judging by the Gs-GC area, and THEN all that upheaval occurred which caused the uplifting of the land seen in that diagram, and caused ALL the erosion, ALL the magma effects, ALL the faultings, and cut ALL the canyons and cliffs and monuments of the entire area, AND also caused the Great Unconformity. There must be at least half a dozen threads where I've argued this to death with somebody or other.

You are NOT addressing the point I'm making about the fact that the strata remain parallel OVER THE UPLIFT into which the GC was cut OR that they were all laid down all the way up through the Claron (Tertiary) before the Grand Staircase was cut and maintain their parallel form there too. And I've already discussed this with you before, I'm trying to get edge to see the point I'm making.

But that is demonstrably wrong since we know that some formations are eroded away in places. How can the Temple Butte Formation be everywhere parallel when it only occurs in channels and low spots in the upper contact of the Muav?

But there is no violation of horizontal deposition in that happenstance, and it was lifted along with all the other strata in parallel over the contours of the land just like all the rest of them. There is nothing to indicate that the Muav was following an uplift up against which the Temple Butte was deposited, there is just some way the different calcareous sediments interacted during the laying down. This isn't at all related to what I'm pointing out about the contours of the whole region that the strata follow as a block.

A lot of the supposed erosion is hypothetical, required by the theory but not actually observed. Erosion that is observable is generally minimal considering the idea that it was supposedly caused by long periods at the surface of the earth, OR it's erosion that is better explained by friction between layers such as the tilting of the Great Unconformity up against the Tapeats during the great upheaval I believe occurred after al the strata were laid down.

ETA: This is exactly what you are asking for, just without the tilting.

How an they be completely parallel when we know there is relief in the upper contact of the Muav and the upper contact of the Hermit?

The only way you can draw that conclusion is by using regional sections that don't show the detail.

You are, therefor, just plain wrong.

There are other explanations possible for all of it AFTER the big picture is taken into account.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by edge, posted 05-12-2014 12:50 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-12-2014 3:07 PM Faith has responded
 Message 212 by edge, posted 05-12-2014 4:04 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 209 of 533 (726794)
05-12-2014 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Faith
05-12-2014 2:48 PM


The insinuations are unwelcome. I have no reluctance to discuss it. I'm trying to get Percy to stop changing the subject, which is all he's doing. I'm discussing the contours of the whole area as seen on that cross section and I don't want to be derailed into pages of argument about the Great Unconformity which I've argued to death elsewhere.

You posted a bit of batshit nonsense which we laughed at until we had to hold our kidneys in because our sides were so split, so now you want to declare it off limits for discussion. As you did in the last thread where we mentioned the Great Unconformity. We must all be forever silent about that, because you once said something dumb about it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Faith, posted 05-12-2014 2:48 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Faith, posted 05-12-2014 3:14 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32708
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 210 of 533 (726795)
05-12-2014 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Dr Adequate
05-12-2014 3:07 PM


I just discussed it. So much for your accusation that I've declared it off limits. But you never say anything constructive anyway.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-12-2014 3:07 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-12-2014 3:25 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1213
14
1516
...
36NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019