Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 69 (9101 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: sensei
Upcoming Birthdays: AlexCaledin
Post Volume: Total: 904,113 Year: 994/14,231 Month: 994/1,514 Week: 27/234 Day: 8/19 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Depositional Models of Sea Transgressions/Regressions - Walther's Law
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 931 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 316 of 533 (727182)
05-16-2014 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by edge
05-15-2014 11:31 AM


Re: the great unconformity
All of it is the sort of thing, in other words, that would have happened AFTER all the strata were in place.
Yes, you can only erode rocks after they are emplaced.
You seem to be changing the subject. I clearly said after ALL the strata were in place and you are merely saying after rocks are in place. The entire stack is what I'm referring to. Is your statement then an inadvertent confusion or an intentional one?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by edge, posted 05-15-2014 11:31 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by edge, posted 05-16-2014 10:56 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 21343
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 317 of 533 (727183)
05-16-2014 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 315 by Faith
05-16-2014 9:09 AM


Re: the great unconformity
Faith writes:
It's really kind of amusing when I make an assertion based on what I've learned from a Geology source that some EvCer will come along and contradict it thinking I made it up.
Here's a video about the Great Unconformity where the erosion is pointed out about halfway through, starting about 2:40:
You're going to have to explain how you interpreted him as saying anything supportive of your scenario. What he said was that erosion took the surface down to a basal eroded surface, then when the sea returned it began a process of sedimentation upon that surface, depositing first big chunks of material (very active water), then later sand (a shoreline).
When a surface is eroded, the eroded material doesn't remain behind. It is carried away.
When sedimentation deposits material onto an eroded surface, the sediments are material that was eroded away elsewhere and then carried there by wind or water.
There is no layer of ground-up supergroup material at the Great Unconformity. What you thought you saw earlier was probably scree.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by Faith, posted 05-16-2014 9:09 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by Faith, posted 05-16-2014 9:37 AM Percy has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 931 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 318 of 533 (727184)
05-16-2014 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 317 by Percy
05-16-2014 9:30 AM


Re: the great unconformity
The fact that there is chunky erosional material there at all is the point, which is what you were denying. His interpretation is just his interpretation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by Percy, posted 05-16-2014 9:30 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 323 by edge, posted 05-16-2014 10:54 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 327 by JonF, posted 05-16-2014 11:15 AM Faith has replied
 Message 336 by Percy, posted 05-16-2014 2:37 PM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 319 of 533 (727187)
05-16-2014 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 315 by Faith
05-16-2014 9:09 AM


Re: the great unconformity
Listen again. Percy did overstate the case; often there is a very little of the eroded material remaining at the erosional surface. But the vast majority of it is "no longer there, carried away by wind and water."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by Faith, posted 05-16-2014 9:09 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by Faith, posted 05-16-2014 10:11 AM JonF has replied
 Message 337 by Percy, posted 05-16-2014 2:56 PM JonF has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 931 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 320 of 533 (727192)
05-16-2014 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 319 by JonF
05-16-2014 9:57 AM


Re: the great unconformity
All I said was that it is commonly understood by establishment GEOLOGY that there is a band of erosion between the different levels of an angular unconformity. That remains true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by JonF, posted 05-16-2014 9:57 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by edge, posted 05-16-2014 10:50 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 326 by JonF, posted 05-16-2014 11:13 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 338 by Percy, posted 05-16-2014 3:15 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1193 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 321 of 533 (727195)
05-16-2014 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 320 by Faith
05-16-2014 10:11 AM


Re: the great unconformity
All I said was that it is commonly understood by establishment GEOLOGY that there is a band of erosion between the different levels of an angular unconformity. That remains true.
Which is what we've been saying all along. There is a conglomerate at the base of the Tapeats, largely composed of the underlying material that has been eroded and now forms gravel and cobbles.
I think you are massively confused. As I have stated before erosion occurs at the land surface. It consists of weathering and transport of the bedrock material.
What you are proposing is not really erosion. It is abrasion or 'cataclasis', if you will. This type of deposit is entirely different from a conglomerate.
Your own referece video proves you wrong.
By the way, did you notice that the lecture provided evidence for exactly the kind of bedding relationships that you say do not exist at the GC. Lower beds of the Tapeats DO pinch out in a 'contouring' effect that you labor so hard to describe.
You have refuted yourself...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by Faith, posted 05-16-2014 10:11 AM Faith has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 344 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 322 of 533 (727197)
05-16-2014 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by Faith
05-15-2014 10:53 AM


Re: "Parallel"
What I mean about "parallel" I STILL mean. If you don't like the word and can get over your pedantic nitpickery and see what I'm TRYING to say, then find me another word. Sheesh.
Sheesh yourself. I know exactly what you are trying to say and I am telling you that you are wrong.
There is nothing in the natural world that is mathematically precisely parallel that I know of, except perhaps at the atomic level, certainly not at the level of messy Geology. And yet the word does have common application to natural phenomena.
You are missing the entire point of this "quibble." I am not talking about being mathematically precise and perhaps parallel could be used to describe the situation (although I wouldn't use it to describe the entire cross section, just specific areas). But describing them as parallel is not appropriate to the point you are trying to make. What you are trying to establish is that the entire stack was laid down in a single event and if you could, that would actually be a convincing argument. IF the entire sequence of layers in the GC were laid down in a single event that would be a huge step forward in establishing a worldwide flood.
However, what we see in the layers of the GC is that
quote:
There is erosion between the layers, unconformities, variation of thickness, layers that terminate at other layers.
These features indicate multiple depositional environments with changes in sea level, erosion at the surface, transgressions/regressions and tectonic activity (albeit relatively minor).
SO you think that by calling them "parallel" that is evidence that they were put down in a single depositional event, but it's NOT. They are not parallel in any sense of the word that indicates that they are they result of a single event. That is my objection to your using the word "parallel" not just some "pedantic nitpickery" about a simple definition.
Could we please stop this idiotic semantic quibble.
Yea, sure. Please use an argument that is relevant to the point you are making. How do the features of the Grand Canyon indicate that they were laid down in a single event? "Parallel" fails to be convincing since it is not really an accurate description of the situation.
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 288 by Faith, posted 05-15-2014 10:53 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 330 by Faith, posted 05-16-2014 11:37 AM herebedragons has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1193 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 323 of 533 (727198)
05-16-2014 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 318 by Faith
05-16-2014 9:37 AM


Re: the great unconformity
The fact that there is chunky erosional material there at all is the point, ...
No, that is not the point. The point is that you are wrong in attributing this 'erosional material' to some kind of teconism.
... which is what you were denying.
No. No one is denying that it is erosional. They are denying that it is tectonic.
His interpretation is just his interpretation.
And I am sure that your interpretation is equally valid.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by Faith, posted 05-16-2014 9:37 AM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1193 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 324 of 533 (727199)
05-16-2014 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 316 by Faith
05-16-2014 9:13 AM


Re: the great unconformity
Is your statement then an inadvertent confusion or an intentional one?
Faith fatigue, I'm sure...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by Faith, posted 05-16-2014 9:13 AM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1193 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 325 of 533 (727200)
05-16-2014 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 315 by Faith
05-16-2014 9:09 AM


Re: the great unconformity
It's really kind of amusing when I make an assertion based on what I've learned from a Geology source that some EvCer will come along and contradict it thinking I made it up.
Here's a video about the Great Unconformity where the erosion is pointed out about halfway through, starting about 2:40:
I'm having a hard time seeing where he says that the contact is actually a tectonic surface.
Please provide the exact time.
Perhaps I should go find that video of Paul Garner the UK creationist that has lots of good footage of the Grand Canyon and clearly shows the band of erosion between the Great Unconformity and the Tapeats.
You mean the erosion that we all know about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by Faith, posted 05-16-2014 9:09 AM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 326 of 533 (727201)
05-16-2014 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 320 by Faith
05-16-2014 10:11 AM


Re: the great unconformity
All I said was that it is commonly understood by establishment GEOLOGY that there is a band of erosion between the different levels of an angular unconformity. That remains true.
Yes. So what? Percy's main point was that the vast majority of eroded stuff winds up somewhere else. You've ignored that entirely. And it wasn't contradicted by your video.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by Faith, posted 05-16-2014 10:11 AM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 327 of 533 (727202)
05-16-2014 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 318 by Faith
05-16-2014 9:37 AM


Re: the great unconformity
The fact that there is chunky erosional material there at all is the point
But nowhere near enough to support your fantasy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by Faith, posted 05-16-2014 9:37 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 329 by Faith, posted 05-16-2014 11:25 AM JonF has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 931 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 328 of 533 (727203)
05-16-2014 11:21 AM


The Evidence Against Millions of Years Repeated
First of all here's a reasonable definition of the termParallel from an online dictionary:
18. to go or be in a parallel course, direction, etc., to: The road parallels the river.
The strata are in fact in contact with each other and therefore even more strictly parallel than the above illustration. They are indeed parallel and I hope the ridiculous insistence on a perfect mathematical sort of parallel will be dropped.
The strata all follow the same course. Close up they may show eroded surfaces and differences in thickness, but they are parallel to each other in the only sense I've ever meant it.
They show that they were laid down by the same basic method or means, each on a surface that was horizontal at the time, without any sign of change in their level during the laying-down all the way from the bottom to the top of the stack, no rise in the land before all were laid down...
Here again is what would have happened had the latter been the case:
NO RISE IN LAND UNTIL STRATA IN PLACE
The strata in this scenario would not have been parallel. Therefore there was no change in the level of the land during their laying-down.
There was also no tectonic buckling or tilting during the laying-down phase, no sign of magma intrusions during the laying-down phase, no sign of faulting that occurred during the laying-down phase.
All these events occurred after all the strata were in place, which is evidenced by the features I've circled on the cross section:
NO TECTONIC OR VOLCANIC DISTURBANCE UNTIL ALL STRATA IN PLACE
Here you see that the fault lines and the magma dike go up through all the strata to the very top of the entire stack that represents in conventional geological time hundreds of millions of years called the Phanerozoic Eon, from the Tapeats sandstone at the bottom of the Grand Canyon to the top of the Claron formation at the top of the Grand Staircase.
I've also circled the rise up and over the Grand Canyon because that shows that the strata all remained parallel to each other over that rise, not butting into the rise which would have happened if the rise had occurred before they were all laid down. So this is another piece of evidence that the strata were all in place before any serious disturbances occurred to them,
But of course you all object that each layer shows erosion and other evidences of disturbance.
NO SERIOUS EROSION UNTIL ALL STRATA IN PLACE
So first of all here's what REAL erosion looks like, the real erosion that did occur in that area:
Broken-off strata, canyons and cliffs. Now THAT is erosion.
As for the erosion at separate layers you all keep trying to turn into some kind of big deal, none of that can compare, and there is good reason to think most of it occurred after the stack was all in place too. Disturbances between layers don't need any more explanation than the effect of water runoff between the layers, and I would have to expect that the Temple Butte intrusion into the Muav occurred after the layers were in place also. In any case the overall picture I'm presenting here is overwhelming by comparison with all these small exceptions.
MAINTENANCE OF PARALLEL SHOWS MALLEABILITY AND NO UPLIFTS UNTIL ALL STRATA IN PLACE
This last version of the diagram is meant to emphasize just how parallel all the strata are through the entire stack from bottom to top and how consistently parallel they remain where the land curves, which it does up and over the Grand Canyon and also quite sharply at the far north end of the Grand Staircase. This emphasizes my claim that tectonic disturbances happened only after they were all completely in place, but also suggests that the strata were still malleable and not lithified when the land rose, which of course also suggests that they were all laid down in a fairly short time period and certainly not over millions of years.
I'd say this all adds up at least to strong evidence against the conventional interpretation of millions of years for the formation from the Tapeats on up. We can argue the rest at some other time.
P.S., I still suppose that Walther's Law can explain the laying down of the strata,.

Replies to this message:
 Message 333 by edge, posted 05-16-2014 12:44 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 931 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 329 of 533 (727205)
05-16-2014 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 327 by JonF
05-16-2014 11:15 AM


Re: the great unconformity
Ah well, the rest of it is there somewhere. We'll find it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by JonF, posted 05-16-2014 11:15 AM JonF has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 931 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 330 of 533 (727208)
05-16-2014 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 322 by herebedragons
05-16-2014 10:53 AM


Re: "Parallel"
However, what we see in the layers of the GC is that
There is erosion between the layers, unconformities, variation of thickness, layers that terminate at other layers.
These features indicate multiple depositional environments with changes in sea level, erosion at the surface, transgressions/regressions and tectonic activity (albeit relatively minor).
They indicate that within your theory, but there is no reason whatever that such things would not have occurred in the laying down of sediments by one huge water event. In fact such things should be expected. Except that there are NO visible unconformities so you have to be talking about the invisible kind which simply don't exist. The erosion is easily explained as caused by runoff between the layers after they were in place. Variation of thickness would be expected in the Flood and so would layers that reduce to nothing and terminate in other layers. That ought to be obvious HBD. Your interpretation is just the usual Rube Goldbergish nonsense.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by herebedragons, posted 05-16-2014 10:53 AM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 331 by herebedragons, posted 05-16-2014 12:09 PM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2023