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 6:09 AM
26 online now:
celestialGyoud, Tangle (2 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,206 Year: 15,242/19,786 Month: 1,965/3,058 Week: 339/404 Day: 6/51 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
36NextFF
Author Topic:   Depositional Models of Sea Transgressions/Regressions - Walther's Law
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 226 of 533 (726827)
05-13-2014 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by Faith
05-13-2014 10:16 AM


Re: the great unconformity
Here's a better one: When you interpret the Great Unconformity as the root of a former mountain range that eroded down nearly flat ...

Here is another case where you completely misunderstand basic geology. An unconformity surface is the top of an eroded package of rocks, not the root. And no, it does not have to be nearly flat, though in some cases it is.

... before the strata now above it started being laid down, you have absolutely nothing to prove this, it's ALL persuasion, it's ALL interpretation.

I would be more than happy to entertain an alternative that explains the evidence present at the unconformity.

So really you have no REAL basis for objecting to my alternative view that it was created by tectonic forces that tilted a segment of strata after all the upper layers were already in place.

Actually, we do. For one, there is no evidence for detachment along the surface which would be necessary to disconnect the deformation domains. How many more pieces of evidence do you want?

There's nothing illogical about it, it's an alternative interpretation and you have no actual evidence for yours over mine.

It is completely without evidence. That makes it illogical. And I have given you actual evidence... how much do you want?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Faith, posted 05-13-2014 10:16 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Faith, posted 05-13-2014 9:06 PM edge has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5352
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 227 of 533 (726829)
05-13-2014 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by Faith
05-13-2014 9:57 AM


I've supported it many times elsewhere

Which just goes to show that you don't understand the meaning of the word "support".

You've made lots of assertions, but provided almost no support.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Faith, posted 05-13-2014 9:57 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18801
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 228 of 533 (726831)
05-13-2014 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by Faith
05-13-2014 10:06 AM


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

It doesn't matter if a particular layer thickens or thins, I keep trying to say that, the point is that they ALL FOLLOW THAT CURVY PATH SHOWN ON THE DIAGRAM as a blocki.

Of course they do. What else could possibly happen?

If you have a pile of 20 rugs held aloft upon the uplifted arms of people on a crowed dance floor, and some people push the rugs up a little and some people let them sag a little, all the rugs would follow the same curvy path. People pushing up is tectonic uplift, people letting the rugs sag is subsidence.

In the middle of the dance floor is Shaquille O'Neal (if you're not a basketball fan, he's someone very strong and very tall), and he extends his arms upward hard and fast, causing a rip in the pile of rugs. That's a fault caused by tectonic forces.

About all the complaining you've been doing, the scenarios you contrive get rejected because they fail to follow a number of simple principles involving the natural physical laws of our universe.

About the claim that you've "supported it many times elsewhere," you've never supported any claim anywhere. What you have done is demonstrated that you don't know how to interpret diagrams or images of stratigraphic layers.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Faith, posted 05-13-2014 10:06 AM Faith has not yet responded

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


Message 229 of 533 (726843)
05-13-2014 11:57 AM


photobucket came through

The point is that nothing like this happened. All the strata were laid down one on top of another, for hundreds of millions of years according to conventional Geology, and then and only then, after they were all laid down, did the tectonic disturbance occur which caused the uplifts to north and south, the erosion of all the layers from the Permian up, over the Grand Canyon area as well as north and south of that, the cutting of the cliffs and canyons and so on. There was NO such activity during the laying down of those supposedly hundreds of millions of years of strata, which is evidenced by their parallel form that follows the uplift and all the other contours of the land.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Admin, : Fix image. No need for the image to be a link.


Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by edge, posted 05-13-2014 1:09 PM Faith has responded
 Message 232 by Percy, posted 05-13-2014 3:26 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 233 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-13-2014 3:44 PM Faith has not yet responded

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


(1)
Message 230 of 533 (726860)
05-13-2014 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Faith
05-13-2014 11:57 AM


Re: photobucket came through
The point is that nothing like this happened. All the strata were laid down one on top of another, for hundreds of millions of years according to conventional Geology, and then and only then, after they were all laid down, did the tectonic disturbance occur which caused the uplifts to north and south, the erosion of all the layers from the Permian up, over the Grand Canyon area as well as north and south of that, the cutting of the cliffs and canyons and so on. There was NO such activity during the laying down of those supposedly hundreds of millions of years of strata, which is evidenced by their parallel form that follows the uplift and all the other contours of the land.

This is all very nice, but not really relevant, since it depicts exactly what we are saying.

When the warping is gentle, the layers appear to be parallel in a regional cross section.

When there is no warping, the sedimentation my be continuous or not. This results in a diastem, which may or may not show much erosion.

One of the main differences between your schematic and reality is that, usually, there is erosion at the unconformity, and we know that to be true at several places within the GC sequence. Your diagram does not show this, nor does the regional cross section. but we have confirmed that it is so.

If there was no erosion, then the layers, on other words if the warping all occurred under water, the overlying package would be also warped, but decreasingly so as one goes up the sequence. It is kind of a 'growth' phenomenon and the package thickens to the left of the diagram.

Once again, you use an idealized diagram that does not depict the details of sedimentation.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Faith, posted 05-13-2014 11:57 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by edge, posted 05-13-2014 3:23 PM edge has not yet responded
 Message 238 by Faith, posted 05-13-2014 8:24 PM edge has responded

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


Message 231 of 533 (726869)
05-13-2014 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by edge
05-13-2014 1:09 PM


Re: photobucket came through
Just for Faith's information, this is one of the things that can happen when upper layers detach and move relative to lower strata. The middle of the field of view is about 200 feet across.

The rigid block in the middle has moved about 30 feet to the left. If I looked at it on an ant-sized scale and didn't see the surrounding disruption, I'd say that it was undisturbed...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by edge, posted 05-13-2014 1:09 PM edge has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18801
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 232 of 533 (726870)
05-13-2014 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Faith
05-13-2014 11:57 AM


Re: photobucket came through
Hi Faith,

Remember that the slopes of the tilted layers in the diagrams are exaggerated? They're exaggerated in yours to. Reduce the slope to something more modest to reflect some very modest and realistic tectonic uplift or subsidence and you get the pink layer in this diagram, which I've presented to you several times. Pretend the pink layer in my diagram is the bluish layer in yours, and pretend the brick-red layer in mine is the Temple Butte in yours:

Also keep in mind that the top (and bottom) boundary of the Temple Butte is an unconformity, so erosion also had an influence on the slope.

Another process that's important to keep in mind is that as a sedimentary layer is deposited the additional weight can cause the layer to sink into the Earth. The degree to which it sinks will vary regionally, causing more unevenness in the parallelism of the layers.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Faith, posted 05-13-2014 11:57 AM Faith has not yet responded

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


Message 233 of 533 (726874)
05-13-2014 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Faith
05-13-2014 11:57 AM


Re: photobucket came through
Wait, I've lost track of what you're trying to be wrong about.

Can you try again?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Faith, posted 05-13-2014 11:57 AM Faith has not yet responded

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


Message 234 of 533 (726877)
05-13-2014 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Faith
05-13-2014 10:16 AM


Re: the great unconformity
Here's a better one: When you interpret the Great Unconformity as the root of a former mountain range that eroded down nearly flat before the strata now above it started being laid down, you have absolutely nothing to prove this, it's ALL persuasion, it's ALL interpretation. So really you have no REAL basis for objecting to my alternative view that it was created by tectonic forces that tilted a segment of strata after all the upper layers were already in place.

Apart from the fact that it requires zillions of tons of rock to conveniently vanish into nothing, violating the law of conservation of matter.

This has been brought to your attention before. We're talking about many cubic kilometers of rock, they can't just be hiding behind a tree.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Faith, posted 05-13-2014 10:16 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18801
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 235 of 533 (726887)
05-13-2014 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Faith
05-13-2014 10:16 AM


Re: the great unconformity
I'd like to offer a clarification of Edge's point from his Message 231. Edge can correct me if I'm wrong.

Edge's Message 231 is a reply to his own Message 230, but I think he intended it as a follow up to his Message 226 that was a reply to your Message 224 claiming that the great uncomformity was caused when layers tilted after they were already buried. He presented this image:

He's providing an example of the type of evidence one should find when a layer (in this case the top layer of the great uncomformity) detaches from the layers above. Such a massive tectonic event would have left a great deal of evidence behind.

In Message 234 Dr Adequate points out that your claim "requires zillions of tons of rock to conveniently vanish into nothing," and also notes that you've been told this before, which was also my reaction.

Your fabricated scenarios are being rejected because they violate known physical laws and have no evidence, not because we're all a bunch of elitist science snobs. Start following the laws of nature and presenting evidence and you'll find your ideas will get a much more serious hearing.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Faith, posted 05-13-2014 10:16 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by RAZD, posted 05-13-2014 5:12 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 237 by edge, posted 05-13-2014 6:37 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20044
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 236 of 533 (726888)
05-13-2014 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Percy
05-13-2014 5:02 PM


Re: the great unconformity and fantasy fail
In Message 234 Dr Adequate points out that your claim "requires zillions of tons of rock to conveniently vanish into nothing," and also notes that you've been told this before, which was also my reaction.

The tilted layers in the great unconformity were also deposited at some point in the past -- and Faith has no mechanism for depositing those layers in her "model" (fantasy), layers that are absent in the rest of the layering ... which is included in the amount referred to by Dr Adequate ... because they had to be eroded.

Every time we get down to detail, the Faith fantasy fails. That is not a sign of a robust explanation of the evidence.


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 235 by Percy, posted 05-13-2014 5:02 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

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


Message 237 of 533 (726890)
05-13-2014 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Percy
05-13-2014 5:02 PM


Re: the great unconformity
Edge's Message 231 is a reply to his own Message 230, but I think he intended it as a follow up to his Message 226 that was a reply to your Message 224 claiming that the great uncomformity was caused when layers tilted after they were already buried. He presented this image:

Yes, I was just interjecting here. My point is that if you detach the upper layer from the lower layer, things happen. In Faith's scenario, I think she is saying that the lower layer deforms, somehow, without disrupting the upper layer.

Now that's a problem, because where is the lower layer going to move? It's kind of locked into the surrounding rock. On the other hand, the upper layers can have their buttresses removed by erosion or excavation, etc. and then they can move. The picture shows what can happen in that case.

Some cases where I can see this happening is when the lower layer liquifies (such as in salt domes or sandstone dikes) and flows on its own, but even then the flow usually is upward there by still affecting the overlying rock.

Another would be along a detachment fault, but those also have pretty definitive features that we can observe to posit an overthrust, for instance.

I also wanted to point out the effect of scale of observation. If I were a tiny organism on one of those blocks, it would appear undisturbed, but clearly there's a lot going on out there.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Percy, posted 05-13-2014 5:02 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Faith, posted 05-13-2014 9:13 PM edge has responded

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


Message 238 of 533 (726907)
05-13-2014 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by edge
05-13-2014 1:09 PM


Re: photobucket came through
This is all very nice, but not really relevant, since it depicts exactly what we are saying.

Oh? Where?

When the warping is gentle, the layers appear to be parallel in a regional cross section.

In this case I've shown that the actual layers ARE parallel and what WOULD have happened if there had been an uplift any time before they were all laid down is that subsequent layers would clearly NOT lie parallel to the first layers, which is what I've illustrated. So as far as I can see I've proved you wrong.

When there is no warping, the sedimentation my be continuous or not. This results in a diastem, which may or may not show much erosion.

None of which has anything to do with what I just illustrated that I can see.

One of the main differences between your schematic and reality is that, usually, there is erosion at the unconformity, and we know that to be true at several places within the GC sequence. Your diagram does not show this, nor does the regional cross section. but we have confirmed that it is so.

And your point is?

If there was no erosion, then the layers, on other words if the warping all occurred under water, the overlying package would be also warped, but decreasingly so as one goes up the sequence. It is kind of a 'growth' phenomenon and the package thickens to the left of the diagram.

I'm afraid this is meaningless to me, almost gibberish.

Once again, you use an idealized diagram that does not depict the details of sedimentation.

I see no possible relevance in such details to the point of the illustration.

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 230 by edge, posted 05-13-2014 1:09 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by edge, posted 05-13-2014 8:36 PM Faith has responded

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


Message 239 of 533 (726911)
05-13-2014 8:32 PM


Thickness of layers doesn't change parallel
Somewhere back there somebody tried to claim that if the thicknesses of the different layers varied a great deal there would be no parallel form to a block of them. That of course is quite wrong but I guess an illustration is needed. I hoped I could figure out a way to show the block bending up over an uplift but I couldn't.


Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by NoNukes, posted 05-13-2014 8:36 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 242 by edge, posted 05-13-2014 8:42 PM Faith has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 240 of 533 (726913)
05-13-2014 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Faith
05-13-2014 8:32 PM


Re: Thickness of layers doesn't change parallel
That of course is quite wrong but I guess an illustration is needed.

Do you know what the word parallel means? I ask that because your drawing does not show even a single pair of parallel layers. Perhaps you mean to emphasize the maintaining of some other relationship between the layers other than being parallel.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


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 239 by Faith, posted 05-13-2014 8:32 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
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