Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Depositional Models of Sea Transgressions/Regressions - Walther's Law
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 331 of 533 (727214)
05-16-2014 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 330 by Faith
05-16-2014 11:37 AM


Re: "Parallel"
there is no reason whatever that such things would not have occurred in the laying down of sediments by one huge water event.
I can think of a few.
In fact such things should be expected.
Establish that such things should be expected. That's all any of us are asking.
Except that there are NO visible unconformities so you have to be talking about the invisible kind which simply don't exist.
Sure, invisible evidence. That is what edge, Percy, Moose, myself and several others have all been talking about this whole time.
The erosion is easily explained as caused by runoff between the layers after they were in place.
This is visible evidence ????
Variation of thickness would be expected in the Flood and so would layers that reduce to nothing and terminate in other layers.
Why? The law of horizontality says otherwise. This is something you need to establish would happen according to natural laws.
That ought to be obvious HBD.
It's not. Why would it obvious when it violates physical laws?
The science of geology does not support a global, one-time event. Of course, you are free to continue to believe - I won't judge. But if you expect that you are going to show that the science does support a global, one-time event you are going to have to examine the details and show how all your ideas follow natural laws. If they don't follow natural laws, how can they be scientific?
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 330 by Faith, posted 05-16-2014 11:37 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 332 by Faith, posted 05-16-2014 12:20 PM herebedragons has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 332 of 533 (727216)
05-16-2014 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 331 by herebedragons
05-16-2014 12:09 PM


Re: "Parallel"
Except that there are NO visible unconformities so you have to be talking about the invisible kind which simply don't exist.
Sure, invisible evidence. That is what edge, Percy, Moose, myself and several others have all been talking about this whole time.
OK, show me one of those unconformities you are talking about. Remember, we're talking about an unconformity that is confined to a layer within the stack, I can see the unconformities that occurred to the stack as a whole and I see no other kind. Also at this point I've put the Great Unconformity aside, so you have to come up with something else. If someone else has illustrated such an unconformity and I missed it too bad, I stopped reading most of the obfuscating insulting posts.
The erosion is easily explained as caused by runoff between the layers after they were in place.
This is visible evidence ????
Why wouldn't it be?
Variation of thickness would be expected in the Flood and so would layers that reduce to nothing and terminate in other layers.
Why? The law of horizontality says otherwise. This is something you need to establish would happen according to natural laws.
The law of horizontality is not violated by layers that thin out or terminate in other layers over a huge distance. So the only question should be about the thicker ones though I think this too is to be expected over a huge distance, some sediments simply accumulating more deeply in some places. And if you all believe that Walther's Law describes how the strata were all laid down and you have no problem with the variations in thickness, why should the Flood which must have been laid down according to the same principles.
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 331 by herebedragons, posted 05-16-2014 12:09 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by herebedragons, posted 05-16-2014 12:51 PM Faith has replied

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


(1)
Message 333 of 533 (727224)
05-16-2014 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 328 by Faith
05-16-2014 11:21 AM


Re: The Evidence Against Millions of Years Repeated
First of all here's a reasonable definition of the term Parallel from an online dictionary:....
You do realize that this is the definition of a the verb, don't you?
The strata are in fact in contact with each other and therefore even more strictly parallel than the above illustration.
Are you saying that the contact is parallel to itself?
They are indeed parallel and I hope the ridiculous insistence on a perfect mathematical sort of parallel will be dropped.
That is what we have said all along, particularly at a large scale.
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.
Okay good, so they are not perfectly parallel and there are unconformities at various levels.
Moving on...
Here again is what would have happened had the latter been the case:
NO RISE IN LAND UNTIL STRATA IN PLACE
Okay, the water receded...
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.
Correct, but we do have this phenomenon as shown by your video.
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.
Correct. During the Paleozoic, in the immediate GC area; nothing major.
Is this a problem?
NO TECTONIC OR VOLCANIC DISTURBANCE UNTIL ALL STRATA IN PLACE
Yes, in the GC area. Up until the Claron deposition.
We know that there were other events such as the rise of the ancestral Rockies and the Laramide orogeny in western North America that affected sedimentation on the Colorado Plateau.
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.
Okay, I'll give you the Claron.
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.[/qs] But you do agree that there was erosion, right?
o first of all here's what REAL erosion looks like, the real erosion that did occur in that area:
Sure, after the plateau was uplifted I would expect severe 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.
Okay, so erosion increased after uplift of the CP. If minor erosion is unimportant to you, then go ahead and ignore it. That's not my point.
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.
So the Muav is an intrusive rock? Pardon me while I make an emergency call to the USGS. They think it's a limestone.
In any case the overall picture I'm presenting here is overwhelming by comparison with all these small exceptions.
If you confine yourself to the Phanerozoic, yes, it was relatively quiet.
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, ...
If you confine yourself to the Phanerozoic it is a comparatively quiet period, thought there is evidence of some warping and changes in relative sea level.
You still evade, however. As I remember, you said up until the actual carving of the Grand Canyon. That came even later, so you would be quite wrong since that post-dated the major uplift of the CP and the Kaibab Plateau.
Are you now confining yourself to the Phanerozoic?
[qs] ... but also suggests that the strata were still malleable and not lithified when the land rose, ... [/quote] So, why did they fracture upon uplift and warping? How did they maintain plasticity after being buried up to three miles?
You cannot say this because, after all, you are the one who says there was no tectonism during this period. How would you prove your statement?
... which of course also suggests that they were all laid down in a fairly short time period and certainly not over millions of years.
Why is that? Why could it not be a long period of time?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by Faith, posted 05-16-2014 11:21 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 345 by Faith, posted 05-17-2014 2:56 AM edge has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 334 of 533 (727227)
05-16-2014 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 332 by Faith
05-16-2014 12:20 PM


Re: "Parallel"
OK, show me one of those unconformities you are talking about.
I guess I don't see why you think the unconformity (discontinuities) between the Redwall and the Mauv or the one between the Redwall and the Supai group. What about between the Kaibab and the Moenkopi formation?
Here ...
In all there are 13 known erosion surfaces (unconformities) in the Grand Staircase area.
????
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 332 by Faith, posted 05-16-2014 12:20 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by Faith, posted 05-16-2014 2:00 PM herebedragons has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 335 of 533 (727240)
05-16-2014 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 334 by herebedragons
05-16-2014 12:51 PM


erosional surfaces etc
OK, I get the picture now, thanks. I don't know how to explain it but it doesn't look like surface erosion to me.
Really a lot of variations on the Temple Butte scenario it seems to me, unless that's all just the effect of streamlining or schematizing the drawing.
That is, for instance, the Temple Butte unconformity is a surprisingly smooth regular shape-- in reality, not just in a drawing. Not sure how to interpret that except that it doesn't look like something that would have formed on the surface, it looks like a shape that was carved out of the limestone by another limestone ( in one case in your illustration, sandstone), or their wet sediments I mean, a different sediment that was either more or less liquid, or more or less dense, or something like that.
And those shown on your diagram seem to be similarly unnatural looking if I may use that term, meaning also too smooth and regular, unless, again, that's to be chalked up to schematic drawing.
None of it looks like the kind of erosion that would form on the surface to me. And interestingly it's all carved into limestone, every one of them. I suspect it's got something to do with the chemistry of limestone, meaning, again, its original sedimentary form.
So I don't know but I also don't think the conventional interpretation is very convincing.
======================
But I'd also argue that the evidence I've already given -- about the way the strata lie as shown on that cross section, plus the other evidences of nothing much happening until the whole stack was laid down, after which kaboom everything happened at once -- is enough to call Old Earth explanations into question. The "erosional surfaces" are trivial in the big picture and need another explanation than the usual one.
======================
It's also interesting, I think, that your diagram shows the Vishnu schist, or the "Vishnu group" to be filling in the space beneath and surrounding the Supergroup, which we've just been talking about. And there's enough "metasedimentary" rock found in that formation to suggest, to me of course if nobody else, a connection between the two.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by herebedragons, posted 05-16-2014 12:51 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 339 by herebedragons, posted 05-16-2014 4:51 PM Faith has replied
 Message 344 by edge, posted 05-16-2014 10:31 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 336 of 533 (727241)
05-16-2014 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 318 by Faith
05-16-2014 9:37 AM


Re: the great unconformity
Faith writes:
The fact that there is chunky erosional material there at all is the point, which is what you were denying.
I didn't say anything about erosion or erosional material. The vast majority of sedimentary material is the product of erosion. The "chunky erosional material" in your video is a sedimentary deposit of material that came from elsewhere. Nobody on the science side in this discussion would ever deny that "chunky erosional material" can be deposited, and as someone already explained, it is precisely what you would expect for energetic waters.
The Colorado River does this every year in the spring floods. When the water is at it's most energetic it scours all the way down to the river bed and large pebbles and rocks are carried along in the flow. These large rocks knock loose additional pebbles and rocks which are also carried downstream. When the energetic flow eventually peters out these large pebbles and rocks will be deposited on the river bed, which is an erosion disconformity. If at this point in the time the canyon bottom becomes a region of net sedimentation then that layer of pebbles and rocks will become preserved and will mark the bottommost portion of a new layer of sedimentary deposits, similar to your video.
But your Grand Unconformity scenario does not involve erosion. You've been using the word erosion incorrectly, and we haven't really corrected you too much because we understood what you meant, but now it turns out that your use of the term "erosion" has confused you, so it's time to correct you and make sure you don't make this mistake anymore.
The process you're actually talking about is one of detachment of deeply buried adjacent sedimentary layers followed by tilting of the lower layer and abrasion and crushing at the contact surface between the two layers. There being no flow of water or wind to carry away the products of friction, abrasion and crushing, those products must still be there. But there is nothing like that there at the Great Unconformity, not in diagrams, not described in the literature, and not in photographic images.
Your scenario of the tilting of the deeply buried supergroup layers is contrary to natural physical laws, and there is no evidence that anything as impossible as this ever happened.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
Edited by Percy, : Clarification.

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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 337 of 533 (727244)
05-16-2014 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 319 by JonF
05-16-2014 9:57 AM


Re: the great unconformity
JonF writes:
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."
I should also have included gravity as a force removing eroded materials from their point of origin. Scree in the Grand Canyon is an excellent example of gravity removing eroded flakes and pebbles from the point where they broke off from the canyon face.
To clarify for Faith, I didn't mention eroded material remaining at its point of origin because it couldn't be a factor on any surface experiencing significant erosion. This is because once sediment begins accumulating, whether or not the sediment came from the very location where it's being deposited, it protects the surface from further erosion. For the most part, sedimentation and erosion are mutually exclusive processes.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Clarify.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by JonF, posted 05-16-2014 9:57 AM JonF has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 338 of 533 (727247)
05-16-2014 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 320 by Faith
05-16-2014 10:11 AM


Re: the great unconformity
Faith writes:
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.
As others have already told you, this is what everyone's been saying. I agree with Edge that you must be "massively confused" to interpret our explanations as their opposite.
The reason none of the missing supergroup material is still around is because it was carried away by erosion. If we were wrong about that then the material should still be there, but it isn't, and there would be evidence of some other process, but there isn't.
--Percy

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 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 339 of 533 (727258)
05-16-2014 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 335 by Faith
05-16-2014 2:00 PM


Re: erosional surfaces etc
I don't know how to explain it but it doesn't look like surface erosion to me.
And those shown on your diagram seem to be similarly unnatural looking if I may use that term, meaning also too smooth and regular, unless, again, that's to be chalked up to schematic drawing.
None of it looks like the kind of erosion that would form on the surface to me.
How can you tell from looking at a simple diagram. If you want to contest the standard geologist interpretation you will need to look at the actual rocks or at least read up on the scientific literature that describes the contact surfaces and find out why they interpret them as erosional contacts. You can't draw conclusions like that from looking at a diagram.
The diagram shows where in the stack the unconformities are located and the relative amount of material that is thought to be missing. It is a generalized and simplified drawing designed to give an overall perspective.
So I don't know but I also don't think the conventional interpretation is very convincing.
You have dismissed it because you don't want to accept it, not from any real examination of the evidence.
And interestingly it's all carved into limestone, every one of them. I suspect it's got something to do with the chemistry of limestone, meaning, again, its original sedimentary form.
Limestone is very erodible particularly when the acidity of the solute increases.
But I'd also argue that the evidence I've already given -- about the way the strata lie as shown on that cross section, plus the other evidences of nothing much happening until the whole stack was laid down, after which kaboom everything happened at once -- is enough to call Old Earth explanations into question. The "erosional surfaces" are trivial in the big picture and need another explanation than the usual one.
That's like me showing you a picture of the earth from outer space and telling you that it is a perfect sphere. To which you reply "no, its a spheroid - it is larger around the equator than around the poles." I tell you that the images I presented are pretty convincing in that they look perfectly round. You then say that we can actually measure the diameters and show that the equator is larger. To which I reply "But all those actual measurements are trivial in the big picture." Pretty silly huh?
The big picture is formed FROM these "trivial" details - NOT from a simplified schematic.
It's also interesting, I think, that your diagram shows the Vishnu schist, or the "Vishnu group" to be filling in the space beneath and surrounding the Supergroup, which we've just been talking about. And there's enough "metasedimentary" rock found in that formation to suggest, to me of course if nobody else, a connection between the two.
You would have to explain how those blocks could have tilted while being lifted from underneath. If a gap formed underneath the block, there would be nothing to push against. And, as has already been explained, the Vishnu is made up of different material than the Supergroup. Your tilting after the upper layers were present doesn't make physical sense. What makes sense is they were tilted and eroded BEFORE the layers above were deposited.
I have a couple of other things I want to cover but don't have time right now. Limestone cave formation for one and how that differs from the erosional contact we can see in the strata. The other thing is these different erosional and depositional environments are dependent on the amount of energy in the system and how those energy levels that are recorded in the strata do not match what we would expect in a great flood. Percy touched on this concept in Message 336 when he talked about spring floods. But it will have to wait till later.
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 335 by Faith, posted 05-16-2014 2:00 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 340 by Faith, posted 05-16-2014 5:03 PM herebedragons has not replied
 Message 353 by Faith, posted 05-17-2014 12:43 PM herebedragons has replied
 Message 388 by Faith, posted 05-19-2014 11:34 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 340 of 533 (727265)
05-16-2014 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by herebedragons
05-16-2014 4:51 PM


Re: erosional surfaces etc
How can you tell from looking at a simple diagram. If you want to contest the standard geologist interpretation you will need to look at the actual rocks or at least read up on the scientific literature that describes the contact surfaces and find out why they interpret them as erosional contacts.
Why would I need to know any more about their criteria than that their theory tells them it must be so?
I'm not up to answering the rest at the moment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by herebedragons, posted 05-16-2014 4:51 PM herebedragons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by roxrkool, posted 05-16-2014 7:18 PM Faith has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


(5)
Message 341 of 533 (727272)
05-16-2014 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 340 by Faith
05-16-2014 5:03 PM


Re: erosional surfaces etc
Why would I need to know any more about their criteria than that their theory tells them it must be so?
That is absolutely FALSE, Faith, and I would go so far as to say it is a lie. You should know that by now. In the privacy of my own home or your own brain, yes, we can say anything we want and hardly a person, outside of ourselves, would every be able to contest our statements.
But because geology is a science and geologists conduct a lot of research and write a lot of papers, our interpretations are scrutinized by thousands of other geologists and scientists. Our interpretations and conclusions (yes, yours included) must be reasonable, logical, and drawn exclusively from the rocks themselves. Not pictures of the rocks. I would be extremely surprised if you've ever gone outside and actually put your hands on the rocks and taken a close look at them.
If a geologist calls a contact "erosional," they have multiple pieces of evidence for doing so. We want to know the truth of how the rocks formed, not assuage our ego by supporting our alleged old-earth pet theory. For us, an old earth is a forgone conclusion, and no further evidence is required to prove it. What we seek to do today, is unravel the history of the rocks.
You absolutely DO have to have some "criteria" for why you're calling it one thing rather than the other -- whether you use mine or your own. But you have none. None whatsoever.
That fact alone makes your conclusions vacuous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by Faith, posted 05-16-2014 5:03 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 342 by JonF, posted 05-16-2014 9:18 PM roxrkool has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 342 of 533 (727273)
05-16-2014 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by roxrkool
05-16-2014 7:18 PM


Re: erosional surfaces etc
Foregone only because the evidence is irrefutable and massive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by roxrkool, posted 05-16-2014 7:18 PM roxrkool has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by RAZD, posted 05-16-2014 10:26 PM JonF has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 343 of 533 (727276)
05-16-2014 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 342 by JonF
05-16-2014 9:18 PM


old earth a forgone conclusion
... from a wide number of very different sources that all show the earth is old, very very very old. Evidence that could not possibly exist in a young world ... unless everything is illusion or it was created as an intentional falsehood ...
Enjoy

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 342 by JonF, posted 05-16-2014 9:18 PM JonF has not replied

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


(1)
Message 344 of 533 (727277)
05-16-2014 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 335 by Faith
05-16-2014 2:00 PM


Re: erosional surfaces etc
None of it looks like the kind of erosion that would form on the surface to me.
I'm sure you would know.
But, why does it not look like surface erosion?
It's also interesting, I think, that your diagram shows the Vishnu schist, or the "Vishnu group" to be filling in the space beneath and surrounding the Supergroup, which we've just been talking about.
You mean kind of like how land fills in the space around and under a lake?
Yeah, that's weird.
And there's enough "metasedimentary" rock found in that formation to suggest, to me of course if nobody else, a connection between the two.
But no limestone or conglomerates in the Vishnu, and no volcanics in the Supergroup. And they are separated by (gasp!) another unconformity! With fragments of Vishnu in the base of the Supergroup.
Sure, despite all of that, they're probably the same rock since that's what Faith wants.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by Faith, posted 05-16-2014 2:00 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 345 of 533 (727284)
05-17-2014 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 333 by edge
05-16-2014 12:44 PM


Re: The Evidence Against Millions of Years Repeated
First of all here's a reasonable definition of the term Parallel from an online dictionary:....
You do realize that this is the definition of a the verb, don't you?
So? I suppose I could go back and find the adjective equivalent if you're going to play tyrant on this point.
The strata are in fact in contact with each other and therefore even more strictly parallel than the above illustration.
Are you saying that the contact is parallel to itself?
Probably not but as usual you aren't making sense.
They are indeed parallel and I hope the ridiculous insistence on a perfect mathematical sort of parallel will be dropped.
That is what we have said all along, particularly at a large scale.
I guess this is supposed to make sense but it doesn't.
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.
Okay good, so they are not perfectly parallel and there are unconformities at various levels.
I never said they were "perfectly" parallel and it's ridiculous to think I could have meant that.
Moving on...
Here again is what would have happened had the latter been the case:
NO RISE IN LAND UNTIL STRATA IN PLACE
Okay, the water receded...
Totally incomprehensible.
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.
Correct, but we do have this phenomenon as shown by your video.
The video was about the Great Unconformity which I'm leaving out of this discussion, which is only about the strata from the Tapeats up.
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.
Correct. During the Paleozoic, in the immediate GC area; nothing major.
No, through the entire stack up through the Claron. Nothing in the entire area from the Grand Canyon area through the Grand Staircase, or the entire "Phanerozoic" or until ALL the strata were laid down from Tapeats to Claronl. To repeat: "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" from Tapeats through Claron.
Is this a problem?
You bet.
NO TECTONIC OR VOLCANIC DISTURBANCE UNTIL ALL STRATA IN PLACE
Yes, in the GC area. Up until the Claron deposition.
We know that there were other events such as the rise of the ancestral Rockies and the Laramide orogeny in western North America that affected sedimentation on the Colorado Plateau.
In my scenario that also occurred at the same time as the whole tectonic event which occurred after all the strata were in place. If it occurred after the laying down of the strata then it did not affect sedimentation on the Colorado Plateau.
I would be interested in what evidence you think shows it occurred before.
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.
Okay, I'll give you the Claron.
!?
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.
But you do agree that there was erosion, right?
I think it's unimportant.
So first of all here's what REAL erosion looks like, the real erosion that did occur in that area:
Sure, after the plateau was uplifted I would expect severe erosion.
As long as you agree that there was nothing even remotely similar before all the strata were laid down.
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.
Okay, so erosion increased after uplift of the CP. If minor erosion is unimportant to you, then go ahead and ignore it. That's not my point.
?
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.
So the Muav is an intrusive rock? Pardon me while I make an emergency call to the USGS. They think it's a limestone.
Not the Muav. The Temple Butte is a limestone intruding into the Muav, another limestone. Would you like to supply me another term for it?
In any case the overall picture I'm presenting here is overwhelming by comparison with all these small exceptions.
If you confine yourself to the Phanerozoic, yes, it was relatively quiet.
Well, as you know, I include the disturbance beneath the Grand Canyon as part of the tectonic and volcanic event that followed the laying down of all the strata. Pre-Cambrian supposedly but really didn't happen before the strata were in place.
But if you agree that the whole "Phanerozoic" stack didn't undergo such disturbance until all were in place then you should grant that there's a good case there that those hundreds of millions of years are a fiction.
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, ...
If you confine yourself to the Phanerozoic it is a comparatively quiet period, thought there is evidence of some warping and changes in relative sea level.
Or perhaps Flood level. But I'm leery of this "some warping" idea.
You still evade, however.
I'm not evading anything. Give me a break. There are a million ways for us to misunderstand each other, you don't have to accuse me of evading.
As I remember, you said up until the actual carving of the Grand Canyon. That came even later, so you would be quite wrong since that post-dated the major uplift of the CP and the Kaibab Plateau.
I'm sure that is out of context. You had said "Cenozoic" which didn't compute for me but in fact the GC in my scenario was cut at the same time as all those tectonic events that occurred after all the strata were in place, that also cut the Grand Staircase cliffs and canyons and produced the fault lines and the magma dike etc. etc., which in your system is Cenozoic.
Are you now confining yourself to the Phanerozoic?
For this demonstration I was. What's your point? That I'm leaving out the Precambrian or what?
... but also suggests that the strata were still malleable and not lithified when the land rose, ...
So, why did they fracture upon uplift and warping? How did they maintain plasticity after being buried up to three miles?
Well, obviously the uppermost strata, for the mile or so above the Kaibab, DIDN'T survive the uplift and warping very well. But the lower segment, the "Paleocene" segment maintained its parallel form even over the uplift. So you tell me how that could have happened,. To me it suggests malleability and contradicts any idea of their being millions of years old.
The whole scenario I have in mind includes all the strata above the Kaibab through the Claron as originally covering the entire area above and surrounding what is now the Grand Canyon, as well as all that area north of it. The uplift that created the mound into which the GC is cut would have uplifted that entire stack, but just as is evident in the Grand Staircase the upper part broke up, and, in my scenario washed away in the receding waters of the Flood. The canyon was opened up by the strain of the same uplift and the faulting that occurred at that point. Again, the upper strata broke off and washed away. In the GS area the same upper strata broke off leaving cliffs but in the GC area they completely disappeared from above the Kaibab, except for that butte south of the area.
You cannot say this because, after all, you are the one who says there was no tectonism during this period. How would you prove your statement?
I've lost track of the context here. What?
... which of course also suggests that they were all laid down in a fairly short time period and certainly not over millions of years.
Why is that? Why could it not be a long period of time?
As I believe I said, the evidence is 1) the strata being all of the same malleability or flexibility maintaining their parallel block form up and over the uplifts both in GC and GS areas. If millions of years old they should have been so brittle they broke off and left gigantic rocks along the slope of the uplift but instead they follow the curve of the uplift; 2) lack of tectonic activity for hundreds of millions of years makes no sense on an "active planet," so that hundreds of millions of years didn't happen, it was a much shorter time; I forget the rest I'm getting tired.
I hope I don't regret talking to you again.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by edge, posted 05-16-2014 12:44 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by edge, posted 05-17-2014 10:13 AM Faith 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