Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8951 total)
25 online now:
CosmicChimp, dwise1, frako, PaulK (4 members, 21 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,946 Year: 21,982/19,786 Month: 545/1,834 Week: 45/500 Day: 3/42 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Depositional Models of Sea Transgressions/Regressions - Walther's Law
edge
Member (Idle past 44 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 responded

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

  
edge
Member (Idle past 44 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 responded

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

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33862
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 243 of 533 (726920)
05-13-2014 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by edge
05-13-2014 8:42 PM


Re: Thickness of layers doesn't change parallel
I was never talking about parallel top and bottom of each layer, that's your own daydream. I was always talking about a whole block of parallel layers which my drawing illustrates just fine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by edge, posted 05-13-2014 8:42 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by edge, posted 05-14-2014 1:09 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33862
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 244 of 533 (726922)
05-13-2014 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by edge
05-13-2014 8:36 PM


Re: photobucket came through
Wow, what obfuscation!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by edge, posted 05-13-2014 8:36 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by edge, posted 05-14-2014 1:10 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33862
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 245 of 533 (726924)
05-13-2014 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by edge
05-13-2014 10:27 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.

I got the description from geology websites, I didn't make it up. It ought to be obvious that I said "root of a mountain range" not root of "an eroded package of rocks" as the usual interpretation I've encountered is that this tilted block of layers was the foundation of such a mountain range. I believe you might even find roxrkool saying so somewhere on this very forum.

And I was not generalizing when I said it was eroded nearly flat, that too is a description of the one and only Great Unconformity as I've many times found it in Geology sources.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by edge, posted 05-13-2014 10:27 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by edge, posted 05-14-2014 1:13 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33862
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 246 of 533 (726926)
05-13-2014 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by edge
05-13-2014 6:37 PM


Re: the great unconformity
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.

What I would point out is that the whole area rose at that point, was lifted up. The pushing up of the pieces of strata plus the intrusion of magma are part of that scenario. if the strata buckled and then broke at this location, it should have continued to the north and south of it unbroken, though the diagram doesn't show anything at that level. The rubble from the breaking and sliding could be quite some distance from this location too, or spread out along the distance, as well as part of the rock over which the strata above was uplifted, and I still think much of it is what ended up as Vishnu schist,.

ABE: Also, please remember that I think ALL the strata were laid down in the Flood, which means that all of them would still have been wet -- at least "damp" though highly compacted -- so that detaching them shouldn't have been as big a problem as if they were lithified rock, and I also figure that between the layers, due to the different textures of the different kinds of sediments, there should be a slippage factor that would facilitate the sliding I keep mentioning.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : last paragraph

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 237 by edge, posted 05-13-2014 6:37 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by edge, posted 05-14-2014 1:25 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 264 by Percy, posted 05-14-2014 4:36 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33862
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 247 of 533 (726930)
05-13-2014 9:39 PM


"Parallel"
Edge -- No, I guess it was NoNukes, or maybe both, or maybe everybody for that matter -- wanted to know if I know the meaning of the word "parallel" so I thought I'd illustrate that for him/them too:

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by NoNukes, posted 05-13-2014 10:08 PM Faith has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 248 of 533 (726931)
05-13-2014 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Faith
05-13-2014 9:39 PM


Re: "Parallel"
Actually, I asked you that.

Is the fish in your picture actually parallel to the snake? Nope. Are the scissors actually parallel to anything? Nope.

But at least with this picture I can identify an axis of some kind for each object and I can decide that in the 2D picture, the axes are lines that are parallel to each other. Clearly that is all that this picture shows. I could call those objects parallel in at least that sense. I would be ignoring any thickness those objects have perpendicular to the plane of the paper.

But I'd only be talking about the drawings of the objects. Quite clearly the fish is in water and and the snake, while depicted below the fish is on the surface of the ground. The objects are not really parallel if I take into account how they really appear.

And now back to the picture of the layers which is actually supposed to represent something in 3D. What would be the axes or plane defined by the green layer for example that can be said to be parallel to an axis or plane defined by the orangish layer? Neither layer is horizontal.

I maintain that there is no such line or plane.

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 247 by Faith, posted 05-13-2014 9:39 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Faith, posted 05-13-2014 10:14 PM NoNukes has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33862
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 249 of 533 (726933)
05-13-2014 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by NoNukes
05-13-2014 10:08 PM


Re: "Parallel"
Oohh, BR-U-U-U-U-U-U-THER.

Obviously the plan here is just to garble up EVERYTHING. Wow.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by NoNukes, posted 05-13-2014 10:08 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by NoNukes, posted 05-14-2014 8:16 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 251 by NoNukes, posted 05-14-2014 8:20 AM Faith has responded
 Message 262 by edge, posted 05-14-2014 1:28 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 250 of 533 (726957)
05-14-2014 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by Faith
05-13-2014 10:14 PM


Re: "Parallel"
What you are saying when you call all of those layers parallel is that we should ignore how the heights of the layers change at various points.

Well, no. That's not what parallel means.


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 249 by Faith, posted 05-13-2014 10:14 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 251 of 533 (726958)
05-14-2014 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by Faith
05-13-2014 10:14 PM


Re: "Parallel"
What you are saying when you call all of those layers parallel is that we should ignore how the heights of the layers change at various points.

Well, no. That's not what parallel means.


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 249 by Faith, posted 05-13-2014 10:14 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Faith, posted 05-14-2014 9:03 AM NoNukes has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33862
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 252 of 533 (726962)
05-14-2014 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by NoNukes
05-14-2014 8:20 AM


Re: "Parallel"
What you are saying when you call all of those layers parallel is that we should ignore how the heights of the layers change at various points.

Yes, of course that's what I'm saying, that's been my point all along but since there's so much pedantic nitpicking around here I felt forced to illustrate the point. Which of course still brings out the pedantic nitpickers.

I wonder if there are any courageous EvCers here, who know that what I've illustrated is in fact a solid definition of "parallel," who would step out of the shadows and say so.

The actual strata illustrated on the GS-GC cross section are in fact much more neatly parallel overall than my drawings anyway, with nice tight contact lines and all the rest. But even if they were as lumpy as my illustration they would illustrate the point I've been trying to make forever against the stubborn pedantic nitpickery of EvC.

What they prove is that tectonic disturbance did not occur during their laying down at all, but did in fact occur after they were all laid down from at least Tapeats to Claron and I think probably both higher and lower, at which time, at the end of what was no hundreds of millions of years, something pretty drastic happened to shake up the land.

You can see this in the rise and fall of the surfaces of the land, the "contour" of the land as I've often referred to it, as well as in the tremendous erosion that broke off chunks of strata leaving the cliffs and canyons of the Grand Staircase. This erosion also scoured the surface of the Kaibab plateau and broke open the Grand Canyon while the extra mile of sediments above the Kaibab was still there. The upheaval was accompanied by volcanic activity beneath both the GC and the GS, and earthquakes at fault lines which caused the angular conformity at the far north of the GS and the displaced strata at other points, and now I think also, thanks to edge's pointing out the fault indicated on the diagram at the base of the Grand Canyon, was most likely the main cause of the cracking of the upper strata at the Claron/Tertiary level or higher, that formed the GC itself.

All that occurred after all the strata were stacked, which is evidenced by their parallel form which follows the rising and falling of the land.

I think it is plain perverse of anyone to pretend not to see this or deny it once they've seen it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by NoNukes, posted 05-14-2014 8:20 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by JonF, posted 05-14-2014 9:09 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 254 by herebedragons, posted 05-14-2014 9:27 AM Faith has responded
 Message 255 by RAZD, posted 05-14-2014 9:40 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 256 by NoNukes, posted 05-14-2014 10:01 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 257 by Percy, posted 05-14-2014 11:53 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 263 by edge, posted 05-14-2014 1:56 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5604
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 253 of 533 (726964)
05-14-2014 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Faith
05-14-2014 9:03 AM


Re: "Parallel"
I wonder if there are any courageous EvCers here, who know that what I've illustrated is in fact a solid definition of "parallel," who would step out of the shadows and say so.

No, that would be promulgating your error. Parallel is clearly and precisely defined. You are incapable of being precise, so you are using the wrong words.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Faith, posted 05-14-2014 9:03 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 70 days)
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 254 of 533 (726967)
05-14-2014 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Faith
05-14-2014 9:03 AM


Re: "Parallel"
I wonder if there are any courageous EvCers here, who know that what I've illustrated is in fact a solid definition of "parallel," who would step out of the shadows and say so.

That would be someone who knows nothing about geology, geometry or science in general. There may be a few of those types around.

I think it is plain perverse of anyone to pretend not to see this or deny it once they've seen it.

The layers of the Grand Canyon are NOT parallel nor are they continuous. There is erosion between the layers, unconformities, variation of thickness, layers that terminate at other layers. I think its perverse for anyone to claim the layers of the GC are parallel.

All that occurred after all the strata were stacked, which is evidenced by their parallel form which follows the rising and falling of the land.

Its not so much that we disagree with your description above but that it provides evidence of a universal flood that is disputed.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Faith, posted 05-14-2014 9:03 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Faith, posted 05-15-2014 10:53 AM herebedragons has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20326
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 255 of 533 (726970)
05-14-2014 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Faith
05-14-2014 9:03 AM


... "Parallel" or ... similar alignments
I wonder if there are any courageous EvCers here, who know that what I've illustrated is in fact a solid definition of "parallel," who would step out of the shadows and say so. ...

What you are talking about is that the layers have generally similar alignment.

Of course this is generally due to one layer being deposited slowly on top of the previous layer with varying thicknesses in the process.


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 252 by Faith, posted 05-14-2014 9:03 AM Faith 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