Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Continuation of Flood Discussion
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 346 of 1304 (731604)
05-17-2014 3:04 AM


Musing or rant, not sure which
Percy called for readers of the thread to express their approval of edge by cheering one of his posts, and they came through for edgy. They provided him with a nice big collection of those little green pillows to soothe his hurt feelings after the mean old lady creationist objected to his insults. This COULD be funny except that we’re all required to wax indignant over anything that challenges the great modern god Science. Keep a long face in church you know, frown at the restless children. Swing that incense.
The idea that a nongeologist creationist on a talk forum has to meet scientific standards for every speculation that comes to mind is silly. I get ideas about this or that, if they don't work so what, I'll get other ideas. But also maybe they do work and just need some time to gestate and accumulate more information. The scenarios I have been working on have in fact grown quite a bit over the years of being bashed by geologists and others at EvC forum. Information that is useful sometimes comes up in these discussions. I think the sea transgression model is eventually going to be very useful. Good reason for tossing half-baked ideas into the arena. They get ripped to pieces by snarling EvCers but often they survive nevertheless and I get more rather than less convinced of them.
It offends the geologists, which I suppose is to be expected, except it surprises me really. Yeah I despise the Old Earth theory, absolutely despise it, I think it is stupid. I suppose that's offensive but that's what I think and maybe it could eventually stop being so offensive and start to look like a reasonable assessment if I repeat it enough. An awful lot of Geology just makes me glassy-eyed with its claims to know what happened millions of years ago, based only on some accidental geological artifact dug out of a rock. It's always stated so assertively: "This formed in shallow warm seas some blah blah millions of years ago." Just like the ToE: "This creature lived during a tropical period" based on the mere fact that fossilized tropical plants are found in a certain rock, or some such. Blah blah millions of years. It's not that things dug out of rocks can't reveal something or other, but this is like reading tea leaves. NEVERTHELESS, between the fantastic assertions of things that couldn't possibly be known there are usually interesting REAL facts that do reveal the physical world. I try to be alert to those, but it isn't easy when getting dogpiled and chewed to bits.
There's no way to be "scientific" about any of this. The supposed science involved is already not scientific, it's all hardened speculation treated as fact. Maybe if I keep saying it somebody will stop and think, hey maybe that's so instead of continuing this absurd rant about scientific evidence where there is no scientific evidence. Na. Here cue avalanche of blustering indignation.
Probably the last time I picked up and looked at rocks was as a child. There are some pretty ones on the Nevada desert, with colored stripes and translucent areas and glittery parts. Near the mines you could find highly polished round stones and slippery mercury that rolled around in your palm. I hated hikes on the desert though, with the heat and the dust and the scratchy sagebrush and the snakes and the scorpions. Reason to be grateful for dysfunctional joints that make it impossible to hike any more. I do suspect that the actual vastness of the Grand Canyon would blow me away if I ever got to see it, but I’m not going to get to see it, though one wonderful thing about being a Christian is that it opens up amazing possibilities such as maybe getting to see all kinds of things after this life is over that we missed while we were here. If we care any more of course.
Hey I really like my scenario based on different facets of that Grand Canyon area cross section and believe it kills the Old Earth. You have to pry your eyes off the microscope though. I think it stands quite well on its own. The erosion in the layers isn't going to change that picture, neither is the question of where the rubble went on my favorite interpretation of the Great Unconformity. What the scenario strongly indicates is that there were no millions of years between the Tapeats and the Claron layers, no Phanerozoic Eon at all, because the usual disturbances on this "active planet" didn't happen during their laying down but only afterward, pretty much all at once, in an enormous tectonic bashing that no doubt began with the splitting of the continents, that released magma, raised land, shifted and faulted land, broke off chunks of strata leaving cliffs, cut canyons, raised the Rockies and other mountains, in some places twisted whole blocks of strata (not in the GC area but lots of other places) and so on.
Probably all started either just before or during or after Noah and clan got parked on the mountains of Ararat, just as the waters were receding or right afterward. They probably had to put up with a lot of earthquakes for a while but maybe they weren’t so intense in their part of the world.
In any case, the erosion between the individual layers is going to need some other interpretation than millions of years at the surface of the earth.
Oh bring out the frownies now, swing that incense, keep the children from laughing.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 347 of 1304 (731605)
05-17-2014 7:21 AM


Re: Musing or rant, not sure which
Faith writes:
Yeah I despise the Old Earth theory, absolutely despise it, I think it is stupid. I suppose that's offensive but that's what I think and maybe it could eventually stop being so offensive and start to look like a reasonable assessment if I repeat it enough.
This will never happen if the only weapon in your arsenal is ignorance. Your ideas are unsupported by any evidence and many of them violate known physical laws. It's crazy to expect people to be convinced by ideas that make no sense.
People come up with crazy ideas all the time. No one thinks any the worse of them because they drop these ideas when the reason they're crazy is explained. You lack the ability to drop any idea you've become enamored of, no matter how crazy or impossible.
The bottom diagram in this image shows a buried fault in Kansas:
The fault crosses layers from the Precambrian to the Mississippian (corresponding to the supergroup, Tonto Group and Redwall Limestone at the Grand Canyon), but stops at the Pennsylvanian (the Supai Group at the Grand Canyon).
Buried faults are hard to find unless cut through by erosion activity like a river. Because they're buried, unless erosion reveals them and brings them to our attention, or if it's an active fault unless an earthquake brings it to our attention, or unless some surface feature makes us suspect a buried fault, it's easy for them to go undetected.
Getting back to what you think is the absence of tectonic activity during the deposition of the layers of the Grand Staircase, it's been explained that the diagrams greatly exaggerate the degree of tilt of the layers between the Vermilion Cliffs and the Grand Canyon, that the tilt of the Tapeats is only slightly less, and that it must have been exposed to tectonic forces that tilted it slightly before the Bright Angel Shale was deposited above it.
It's also been explained that buried layers like the supergroup cannot be tilted without leaving massive evidence behind, and that there is no such evidence.
It's also been explained that a flood cannot sort radiometric material, cannot sort fossils by difference from modern forms, and cannot deposit lighter material before heavier material.
You have almost no natural physical laws left to violate. From friction to strength of materials to density to radiometric decay to the law of conservation of matter to 2LOT, you've violated a whole bunch. There can't be many left.
Until your ideas begin obeying the known laws of the universe you haven't a prayer of convincing anyone within science.
--Percy

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


Message 348 of 1304 (731606)
05-17-2014 8:47 AM


Re: Musing or rant, not sure which
This will never happen if the only weapon in your arsenal is ignorance. Your ideas are unsupported by any evidence and many of them violate known physical laws. It's crazy to expect people to be convinced by ideas that make no sense.
QFT. Nailed it.

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


(1)
Message 349 of 1304 (731607)
05-17-2014 10:13 AM


Re: The Evidence Against Millions of Years Repeated
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.
Let me get this straight. You don't want to discuss the unconformity, but you present to us a video about the Great Unconformity.
That makes sense...
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.
All I'm saying is that, farther east, the ancestral Rockies rose up and later on the Laramide Orogeny occurred. The world did no consist of just the Grand Staircase and 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.
Well, when we have rocks of, say Pennsylvanian age (right in the middle of your undisturbed period) showing uplift and formation of the Uncompahgre Uplift along with conglomerates and evaporite deposits, it's kind of indicative. Do you want more?
In this diagram note the uplift on the right side showing a major fault zone along with sediments being shed off the highlands and formation of salt playas in the Paradox Basin.
http://higheredbcs.wiley.com/...hap_tut/images/nw0224-nn.jpg
As long as you agree that there was nothing even remotely similar before all the strata were laid down.
That would be hard to say. We know there was pretty severe erosion of the Vishnu and possibly of the GC Supergroup before the Phanerozoic quiet period.
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?
So, limestones are intrusive rocks now? Sorry, but I've seen intrusive carbonates and they don't look like channel fill. I would say the Temple Butte overlies the Mauv in erosional unconformity.
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.
Of course I know this. It is my principal beef with your whole scenario. It's outlandish.
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.
Why would that follow? Give me some principle that says you can't have long periods of sedimentation in the geological record.
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.
No. Clearly wrong. The Grand Canyon morphology shows that there were at least two phases of formation. One phase cut meandering stream channels prior to uplift of the Kaibab Plateau. Another one occurred during and after the uplift, creating the steep canyon that we see today.
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.
Actually, I would say the opposite. I would say that it took millions of years of erosion at a lower elevation to remove the post-Permian rocks. The last few million years of uplift simply accelerated the erosion. And, under arid conditions the Kaibab was relatively resistant.
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.
Then you should look for evidence of that. Why couldn't the upper sequence just erode away as the uplift occurred. How would that look any different?
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.
Excuse me, I'm trying to imagine the strain that would lead to meander loops in the course of the Colorado River...
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 they were soft, why would that support them maintaining parallelism? Why would they not maintain stratigraphic relationships if they were undeformed?
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;
If there was no tectonic activity, why would they necessarily break up? You are contradicting yourself here again. If they were so soft, how could they form cliffs and deep canyons? If they were so soft, why did brittle faults form such as the Bright Angel Fault? If they were so soft, they would flow rather than break and they would show evidence of flow.
2) lack of tectonic activity for hundreds of millions of years makes no sense on an "active planet,"...
Where is it written that an active planet has to be active everywhere?
... so that hundreds of millions of years didn't happen, t was a much shorter time;
How dos that follow? What principle says that lack of deformation means young ages?
... i I forget the rest I'm getting tired.
I hope I don't regret talking to you again.
If you don't regret it, I can try harder next time. Learning is not easy.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

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


Message 350 of 1304 (731608)
05-17-2014 10:47 AM


Re: Musing or rant, not sure which
Percy called for readers of the thread to express their approval of edge by cheering one of his posts, and they came through for edgy. They provided him with a nice big collection of those little green pillows to soothe his hurt feelings after the mean old lady creationist objected to his insults.
Heh, heh...
That's funny.
This COULD be funny except that we’re all required to wax indignant over anything that challenges the great modern god Science.
Heh, heh...
That's funny again. Especially coming from an old lady who despises, despises, despises!, old ages.
Keep a long face in church you know, frown at the restless children. Swing that incense.
Hunh?
The idea that a nongeologist creationist on a talk forum has to meet scientific standards for every speculation that comes to mind is silly.
When you violate common sense, and centuries of geological progress, and insult generations of geologists, it isn't silly at all.
It offends the geologists, which I suppose is to be expected, ...
Coming from somone so easily offended, I'll take this with a grain of salt.
Yeah I despise the Old Earth theory, absolutely despise it, I think it is stupid.
Aren't you getting a little carried away here?
I suppose that's offensive but that's what I think and maybe it could eventually stop being so offensive and start to look like a reasonable assessment if I repeat it enough.
Actually, it doesn't offend me at all. It's kind of interesting.
And you know what they are talking about when they say that something being repeated enough becomes believable, don't you?
I do suspect that the actual vastness of the Grand Canyon would blow me away if I ever got to see it, but I’m not going to get to see it, ...
You mean that you haven't been there? All these pages of expounding authoritatively about the GC and you haven't seen it?
First of all, I'm sorry about that.
Second, that explains a lot... (and the mercury, too) ...
Third, to me, it is sad that a person with such obvious intelligence would allow herself to be so completely deceived, seeing the world from inside a tiny religious box. Now, I really am depressed.

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


Message 351 of 1304 (731609)
05-17-2014 11:50 AM


Re: The Evidence Against Millions of Years Repeated
Let me get this straight. You don't want to discuss the unconformity, but you present to us a video about the Great Unconformity.
That makes sense...
This is one of the annoying things you do that make me start ignoring you. Don't you read in context? I left the GU out of the post on the strata ONLY, to avoid getting off the main points I wanted to make there. The video was in response to stuff others brought up about the GU.
Your diagram could be interesting in itself but in the context of what I posted it's irrelevant.
The rest of your post isn't worth thinking about. Yes I regret responding to you, I'll try to remember never to do it again.

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


Message 352 of 1304 (731610)
05-17-2014 11:59 AM


Re: The Evidence Against Millions of Years Repeated
This is one of the annoying things you do that make me start ignoring you.
Makes no difference to me.
Don't you read in context? I left the GU out of the post on the strata ONLY, to avoid getting off the main points I wanted to make there. The video was in response to stuff others brought up about the GU.
Then you should have said it was not relevant rather than posting the video.
Your diagram could be interesting in itself but in the context of what I posted it's irrelevant.
But it is relevant to what I was posting, which is that there was plenty of tectonism going on at the same time as deposition of all those Paleozoic and Mesozoic sediments. The Colorado Plateau area just happened to be a quiet zone.
The rest of your post isn't worth thinking about. Yes I regret responding to you, I'll try to remember never to do it again.
This is a typical YEC response for when they can't explain things.

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


Message 353 of 1304 (731611)
05-17-2014 12:43 PM


the Great Unconformity scenario
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.
There doesn't need to have been an actual gap, just the shifting of the material in a confined space where lateral pressure compressed it enough to raise the whole "package" upward. It wouldn't be "lifted from underneath" but pushed from the side. Here's an illustration I just thought of: Put some damp clay between bricks on four sides, filling up the space, with some damp (somewhat flexible) flat clay layers overhead, then press in on the bricks from the side, or just one of the bricks leaving the others in place as resistance. The clay between the bricks will be forced upward and if the layers above are both resistant and flexible enough, the upward-pushing clay will push them upward too, probably in a mounded form like the uplift beneath the GC. I guess the clay between the bricks could be in layers too. Might be worth trying to set something like this up. First time I've actually thought of something that might work as a model for what I have in mind.
And, as has already been explained, the Vishnu is made up of different material than the Supergroup.
I looked it up myself. There is some rock in the Vishnu that is metamorphosed sedimentary rock. Doesn't prove it's from the Supergroup I guess but it IS "metasedimentary" rock.
Your tilting after the upper layers were present doesn't make physical sense.
It's been hard to come up with a model for it until I just thought of the one I described above. All I had before was an experiment Lyell describes using books and a stack of cloths, not for the same purpose but it's the closest I could find to what I have in mind. He stacked folded cloths, laying them flat like the strata, between two upright books, with a book on top straddling the side books. Pressing inward on the side books buckles the cloth into the curved formations he had illustrated from Siccar Point and the Alps, making a series of folds. He was just trying to show how strata buckles, using lateral force, and because he was using cloth he needed a weight on top to keep it confined in order to demonstrate the buckling, but to my mind the book on top is like the strata from the Tapeats up, that remained horizontal while the lower strata buckled. Lyell was also showing that although the lower strata in an angular unconformity can appear merely to have broken off and tilted, the usual situation is that they folded or buckled and then the upper curves were eroded away. He illustrates this I think near Siccar Point, how the upright strata are simply folded over and not tilted. In my scenario the abrasion against the upper layers would have eroded away the curves.
It also just occurred to me that perhaps if Lyell had had a heavier cloth on top it would have remained horizontal while the cloth beneath would have buckled and pushed up the heavier cloth.
The model I thought up above would only show the effect of lateral pressure in pushing material upward, but it would be nice if I could also figure out how to layer it between the bricks as well as above so that the lateral pressure would actually buckle or tilt the lower layers as in the Great Unconformity. I'll have to see if I can come up with a way of doing that.
There's also the phenomenon of pulling a tablecloth out from under a whole collection of objects without disturbing them, showing that you can disrupt lower material independently of upper.
The tectonic force would be mostly from the side, but it pushed up the whole area by compressing it laterally. I think the volcanic eruption could have had something to do with displacing the strata too. The whole area was uplifted right at that location.
What makes sense is they were tilted and eroded BEFORE the layers above were deposited.
I find that to be a lot less likely, especially the part about their being the root of a huge mountain range that lasted millions of years and then eroded down to a level enough surface for the strata to deposit on top. Typical Rube Goldbergish system.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : PUNCTUATION
Edited by Faith, : punctuation

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


Message 354 of 1304 (731612)
05-17-2014 3:29 PM


salt basin
I believe what edge did would be called Gish Gallop if a creationist did it. Pile it on and laugh when the creationist is buried under the pile.
But there are a couple points I've pondered:
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.
Well, when we have rocks of, say Pennsylvanian age (right in the middle of your undisturbed period) showing uplift and formation of the Uncompahgre Uplift along with conglomerates and evaporite deposits, it's kind of indicative. Do you want more?
More clarity would help, which is not your forte so I don't expect it from you.
I expect what I see in the Grand Canyon area to be a model for what happened everywhere. The diagram is simply a nice simple way to demonstrate a phenomenon I believe is universal though not as easy to demonstrate elsewhere. This is the Flood I'm talking about after all. It requires reinterpreting almost everything Geology says.
So in this case when the reference is to rocks of Pennsylvanian age this means of course rocks at a certain level in the strata. In the GC area it is clear there is nothing disturbing those strata at any level until they are all in place. Disturbances in most of the photos of the area also show the same order of events, having occurred after all the strata were in place. This of course contradicts conventional Geology but at least it can be shown on that cross section.
So I'd suppose that wherever disturbance can be shown to have occurred at a particular level, that too had to have occurred after all the strata were in place. Demonstrating it is something else of course, and would probably take more than a diagram but we'll see how far I can get with it.
Salt deposits come up as a challenge to the Flood quite a bit, and I have thought about them quite a bit, so might as well just say what I've thought.
Here's the illustration:
In this diagram note the uplift on the right side showing a major fault zone along with sediments being shed off the highlands and formation of salt playas in the Paradox Basin.
http://higheredbcs.wiley.com/...hap_tut/images/nw0224-nn.jpg
I looked for other diagrams and photos of the area but haven't found any that clarify it for me. For instance this is a "Pennsylvanian" age phenomenon, so what happened to the strata that were once above it, and is that upper straight surface the Pennsylanian aged rock?
So it looks like all the strata that had been laid down above got washed away as they did in the Grand Canyon area only in this case down to the level called Pennsylvanian. This isn't a case of disturbance occurring WITHIN the stack but after the upper strata are no longer there.
And the salt formation happened after all that.
Anyway, what I'd been thinking about salt is that it's an active thing that changes form, and what I'd guess is that the underground salt basins we see on so many diagrams could have been created from salt water precipitating out of the rock strata above. That is, they weren't once on the surface but formed after all the strata were in place as the water trickled down through the levels above. And I'd suppose this would be wherever there was sufficient salt in the strata above and space where the salt water could collect below as well. The water keeps trickling through the rock beneath the salt basin as well so that the salt could eventually even dry out underground, just as all the strata themselves eventually dried out, or wherever there is vertical displacement of the strata or vertical openings the water would run out there, especially from between the layers.
So that's been a thought percolating in the back of my mind for some time, and I actually just found a blog that suggests that something along the lines I've been thinking does in fact happen. The explanation here has to do with the weight of the rocks above, however, acting on salt layers:
When the depositional environment changed and no longer favored evaporites, the Paradox Formation was buried beneath marine carbonates and shales, triggering an interesting phenomenon in the salt layers. Under enough weight from overlying sediments, salt becomes plastic and flows towards areas of less pressure. There can be sufficient localized accumulation of salt to uplift overlying strata, producing salt anticlines.
there is an interesting diagram at this point that I couldn't figure out how to post here of a salt anticline said to have formed from salt flowing into it from the synclines on either side.
So, SOMETHING having to do with the movement of salt underground, in water and even not in water, after the layers were laid down seems to be the direction to go to explain how these salt basins could have occurred after the Flood.
==================
Oh and I've accounted for the Rockies, more than once now.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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


Message 355 of 1304 (731613)
05-17-2014 6:51 PM


Re: salt basin
I expect what I see in the Grand Canyon area to be a model for what happened everywhere.
The diagram given shows that this is not the case. During the Pennsyvanian Period, the Uncompahgre uplift was occurring and coarse sediments were being deposited at that time, which is during your 'quiet' period of GC sedimentation.
In the GC area it is clear there is nothing disturbing those strata at any level until they are all in place.
Yes, in the Grand Canyon area. However, the diagram shows that there were plenty of events occurring elsewhere ... nearby, in fact.
So I'd suppose that wherever disturbance can be shown to have occurred at a particular level, that too had to have occurred after all the strata were in place. Demonstrating it is something else of course, and would probably take more than a diagram but we'll see how far I can get with it.
No. The diagram clearly shows a fault zone raising the Uncompahgre Uplift, and sediments being contemporaneously deposited.
I looked for other diagrams and photos of the area but haven't found any that clarify it for me.
I doubt that any diagrams in existence would be able to do that.
For instance this is a "Pennsylvanian" age phenomenon, so what happened to the strata that were once above it, and is that upper straight surface the Pennsylanian aged rock?
Uncertain. This diagram is intended to only show the rocks of Pennsylvanian age and their relationship to the underlying Mississippian rocks. And the straight line is what we would call a datum. It depicts the surface of the earth at one single point in time. It is show flat in order to emphasize the thickness of the sediments below it.
So it looks like all the strata that had been laid down above got washed away as they did in the Grand Canyon area only in this case down to the level called Pennsylvanian. This isn't a case of disturbance occurring WITHIN the stack but after the upper strata are no longer there.
Actually, this is not a true cross-section. It only shows the Pennsylvanian rocks.
And the salt formation happened after all that.
No. the diagram clearly shows that the salt is interbedded with both the coarse conglomerates and other sediments of the same age.
So, your thoughts about salt are irrelevant to this discussion. So, if I say anything here, you will complain. Start another thread.

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


Message 356 of 1304 (731614)
05-17-2014 7:39 PM


Re: salt basin
The diagram given shows that this is not the case. During the Pennsyvanian Period, the Uncompahgre uplift was occurring and coarse sediments were being deposited at that time, which is during your 'quiet' period of GC sedimentation.
There is absolutely nothing in that diagram that shows any such thing.

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


Message 357 of 1304 (731615)
05-17-2014 9:22 PM


Re: salt basin
There is absolutely nothing in that diagram that shows any such thing.
If you say so...

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 358 of 1304 (731616)
05-18-2014 8:13 AM


Re: Musing or rant, not sure which
Hi Edge,
I don't understand this diagram:
What is the irregular bricked layer between the Pennsylvanian and Mississippian? Or is the top layer the one labeled "Carbonates" and the word Pennsylvanian actually refers to the layer below it.
Why are the shale, sand and salt, and conglomerate layers on the right side narrow and vertical?
Let me try a guess. The Uncompahgre Uplift on the right was the coastline of an ancient sea. The basin wasn't always this deep. The bottom of the deposits of gypsum, salt, shale, sand, silt and conglomerate used to be much higher, but as deposits formed the weight caused the basin to slouched deeper and deeper into the landscape. The conglomerate nearest this coastline is runoff from the uplift. The sand and silt is normal coastline deposits. The shale is normal off-coastline deposits. The salt formed from repeated evaporations of an irregularly regressing sea.
The anhydrite gypsum, is that a type of sand? If so then it must represent the opposite coast, but then shouldn't there also be adjacent shale and silt layers?
--Percy

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


Message 359 of 1304 (731617)
05-18-2014 8:13 AM


Re: salt basin
It shows two layers, Pennsylvanian and Mississippian, both limestone, the Pennsylvanian exposed at the surface although that horizontal line I asked about apparently isn't surface, just "datum" so that isn't clear either. Whatever layers used to be above it, however, are no longer there, and surely there would have been the usual stack there all the way up to the Tertiary or Claron just as we see in the GC-GS area.
So this cross section represents what is left of that original stack, AND what happened to the layer now exposed after the stack was gone.
AFTER.
For this to represent anything that happened during the laying down of the strata should at least involve surface erosion, since that was the big claim in the discussion about the strata in the GS cross section. But no erosion is shown here and if there was erosion the fact that the layer is exposed NOW would explain it, not anything that occurred during the laying-down period. All the distortion of the sediments, the salt trap and all that, also contribute nothing to the claim that it happened during the laying-down. Very easy to explain as happening since the rock was exposed.
Then there's that fault line to the right of the picture. Nothing about that indicates a time factor so you can't claim it shows tectonic activity during the laying-down period either. Just as in the GS-GC area it most likely occurred with all the tectonic disturbance that happened afterward, and then after the strata that had been above the currently exposed layer were washed away, of course the fault line was still there, only merely to the height of the strata that remain there.
There's nothing about this formation that demonstrates your claim. I'm even surprised you thought it would.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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


Message 360 of 1304 (731618)
05-18-2014 8:24 AM


Re: Musing or rant, not sure which
Glad to see you asking edge about this diagram because if I did he'd only call me names. You he'll no doubt answer.
Here's a page on Anhydrite Gypsum: http://igs.indiana.edu/...ceDocs/GypsumAndAnhydrite_Card.pdf

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024