Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Depositional Models of Sea Transgressions/Regressions - Walther's Law
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 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 seen this message but not replied

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

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(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 replied

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

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(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 replied

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

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(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 replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 212 of 533 (726798)
05-12-2014 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Faith
05-12-2014 2:48 PM


Re: To edge: no tectonic activity in Grand Canyon Paleozoic
The insinuations are unwelcome.
The insinuations are caused.
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.
Actually, Percy's discussion is directly applicable to all unconformities in the GC succession. The only thing he leaves out is the erosion of the underlying unit.
And your usage of the term 'contours' is vague. You are talking about an on-lap relationship sequence which is covered in Geology 101. Believe it or not, people have thought about this.
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.
You can quibble about tectonism during the Paleozoic if you disregard everything else going around the edges of the Colorado Plateau, and if you disregard warping of the rocks during the Laramide Orogeny, and the commencement of the formation of the Great Basin. That's fine with me, but the problem is that this is irrelevant to your basic premise that all tectonism formed after the Claron in the late Cenozoic.
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.
This is where you are stark-raving wrong. You force data into a time frame that is completely ridiculous and defies the most basic geological principles. You have just set geology back a millenium.
But there is no violation of horizontal deposition in that happenstance, ...
Why not (assuming for the moment that your statement makes sense)?
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.
Not relevant. You could say the same thing about a pebble that I put on that surface.
There is nothing to indicate that the Muav was following an uplift up against which the Temple Butte was deposited, ...
I didn't say there was. I said that the formation is not continuous, so how could it be completely parallel?
... 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.
You are not reading my posts. I said that they are not parallel because the units are discontinuous. But, in fact, I'm pretty sure that they are not completely parallel anyway, because the units thicken and thin, like due to erosion. Remember, I also pointed out that the Coconino/Hermit contact is irregular. We provided a reference to this effect.
So, how are they parallel?
A lot of the supposed erosion is hypothetical, required by the theory but not actually observed.
Well, I'm sure you would know. But can you provide a supporting reference other than your vast experience in the GC?
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.
Umm, ... that would not be erosion, and it doesn't look like erosion. We know what we actually find there. I have been over this with you before. Please find supporting evidence. So far you have produced no evidence to support your story.
There are other explanations possible for all of it AFTER the big picture is taken into account.
Well, you're not doing very well to this point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Faith, posted 05-12-2014 2:48 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 213 of 533 (726799)
05-12-2014 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Dr Adequate
05-12-2014 3:25 PM


You just declared it off-limits without discussing it. Unless claiming Fluddidit is considered a "discussion" nowadays.
Apparently, an assertion passes as a discussion in YEC terminology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-12-2014 3:25 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Faith, posted 05-13-2014 1:12 AM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 219 of 533 (726815)
05-13-2014 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by JonF
05-13-2014 7:28 AM


I.e. an assertion with no support.
Correct, thank you.
There is nothing wrong with an assertion per se, but when one makes an outlandish assertion and then blunders forward, as though it needs no support, red flags go up. One may do that in church, but in science it doesn't fly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by JonF, posted 05-13-2014 7:28 AM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Faith, posted 05-13-2014 9:57 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 222 of 533 (726823)
05-13-2014 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by Faith
05-13-2014 9:57 AM


I've supported it many times elsewhere, here I was just trying to state it as part of the whole scenario I have in mind.
Then I haven't seen it. So far all I've seen is an assertion that the Great Unconformity is a tectonic discontinuity.
The facts are completely against this.
But I have to say also that when it comes to support a lot of what Geology says really doesn't have support beyond the persuasion of many that it's true.
So, you are saying that such things as earthquake first movelment solutions and GPS measurements do not support plate tectonics, for instance?
When you interpret a layer of rock as an "environment" say a lacustrine environment, based on certain things you find in the rock, ... you have no way of proving that, all you can do is assert it and point to the elements that convince you.
First of all we do not 'prove' anything. We point to the evidence and use principles to interpret them.
When you interpret anything it's just an interpretation, you can't prove your interpretation is correct, all you can do is try to be persuasive.
I'm not sure what's wrong with interpretations that are supported by evidence. Please elaborate.

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

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 225 of 533 (726826)
05-13-2014 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by Faith
05-13-2014 10:06 AM


Re: To edge: no tectonic activity in Grand Canyon Paleozoic
You are as usual missing the point. And so is edge, who is making an issue out of definitions rather than simply looking at the diagram and recognizing that "a block of strata in parallel that follow the contours of the land" is very clear there.
No, what we are saying is that, in detail, the layers are not parallel.
I have asked you repeatedly how a formation that is discontinuous can be parallel to the layers above and below. You have failed to answer this question other than express denial based on your experience at working in the Grand Canyon.
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.
It does when the internal layering shows thickening. Please draw for us a diagram showing how a unit can thicken and thin while keeping its upper and lower contacts parallel.

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

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(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 replied

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

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(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 replied

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

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


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 replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


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 seen this message but not replied

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

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 241 of 533 (726914)
05-13-2014 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Faith
05-13-2014 8:24 PM


Re: photobucket came through
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 would have caused subsequent layers to 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.
I am sorry, but are you referring to the regional cross section of the Colorado Plateau and a schematic of an on-lap sequence?
In that case you are wrong.
None of which has anything to do with what I just illustrated
that I can see.
Well, there you go. YOU can't see it. No one else seems to have that problem.
And your point is?
The point is that you have ignored this information.
I'm afraid this is meaningless to me, almost gibberish.
I'm not surprised.
I see no possible relevance in such details to the point of the illustration.
Of course you don't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Faith, posted 05-13-2014 8:24 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Faith, posted 05-13-2014 8:57 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 242 of 533 (726917)
05-13-2014 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Faith
05-13-2014 8:32 PM


Re: 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.
If you have some way of showing how a thickening sedimentary unit can have parallel top and bottom, I'd love to see it.
That of course is quite wrong ...
As I said above...
... 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.
Thank you for making our point...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Faith, posted 05-13-2014 8:32 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Faith, posted 05-13-2014 8:53 PM edge 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