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


Message 1174 of 1304 (733137)
07-14-2014 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1171 by Faith
07-14-2014 11:35 AM


Re: Legoland
Right, you aren't going to get an angular unconformity here noway nohow.
Except that lakes have shorelines and streams entering them from surrounding land masses.
Yup. No angular unconformity noway nohow.
Heh, heh... That was predictable.
The problem is that in some cases that eroded region was previously deformed. In fact, the boundary of the Colorado Plateau shows this quite plainly. And, for the untrained, angular unconformities are not the only kind of unconformity.
But I really enjoy the depth of your argument and how you support your 'noway, nohow' statements.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1171 by Faith, posted 07-14-2014 11:35 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1176 by Faith, posted 07-14-2014 11:50 AM edge has replied

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


Message 1177 of 1304 (733142)
07-14-2014 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1173 by Faith
07-14-2014 11:43 AM


Re: Legoland
Yes, any deposition SHOULD fill in the gaps but as a matter of fact angular unconformities do not fill in the gaps and dips and valleys. They are shown and interpreted to be deposited on surfaces that have eroded down almost completely flat -- with the exception of a bump or two perhaps such as the Shinumo quartzite.
Yes, that nasty data keeps getting in the way of preconceived notions. Just 'little bumps'. I'm sure you can safely ignore them. Here is a little more detail from Siccar Point.
As it shows the more resistant layers form ridges in the unconformity surface just as we would expect from erosion.
Here is a detailed schematic of the Siccar Point occurrence:
Note the infilling where the recessive layers are more deeply weathered.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1173 by Faith, posted 07-14-2014 11:43 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1182 by Faith, posted 07-14-2014 12:11 PM edge has replied

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


Message 1178 of 1304 (733143)
07-14-2014 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1176 by Faith
07-14-2014 11:50 AM


Re: Legoland
No need in this case, you did it for me.
If you cant' explain why, I'll understand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1176 by Faith, posted 07-14-2014 11:50 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 1179 of 1304 (733144)
07-14-2014 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1175 by Faith
07-14-2014 11:47 AM


Re: Geological Time Scale REQUIRES ascent to make sense
The principle would of course be that the layers were laid down in the Flood, after which tectonic, volcanic and other disturbances eroded and distorted the strata. What else?
That's not a priciple, it's a story line.
There should be differences in how different regions were affected but there should be some evidence to show this pattern everywhere.
Except when there aren't. I have already shown you evidence of erosion occurring during your flood period.
However, I'm focusing on finding EXAMPLES of where this has in fact occurred. Four so far. So far you've disputed it but haven't shown anything that contradicts it in reality.
It's very hard to contradict dogma to the dogmatic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1175 by Faith, posted 07-14-2014 11:47 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 1184 of 1304 (733152)
07-14-2014 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1182 by Faith
07-14-2014 12:11 PM


Re: Legoland
The diagram doesn't represent anything I see in the photograph.
It is of the unconformity. From what I can see, it was drawn in 1920.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1182 by Faith, posted 07-14-2014 12:11 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 1186 of 1304 (733154)
07-14-2014 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1182 by Faith
07-14-2014 12:11 PM


Re: Legoland
Another detailed photo from Siccar Point.
And the caption reads:
Hutton's unconformity at Siccar Point about 32 mi SE of Edenburgh, Scotland. Recent wave-cut platform surface revealing fist-sized chunks of the underlying Silurian greywackes enbedded in the overlying Devonian Old Red Sandstone rock. Such fragments of the much older graywackes in the basel conglomerate indicate long exposure of the eroding graywackes surface before the Red Sandstone was laid down.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1182 by Faith, posted 07-14-2014 12:11 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1187 by Faith, posted 07-14-2014 12:36 PM edge has replied

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


Message 1190 of 1304 (733158)
07-14-2014 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1187 by Faith
07-14-2014 12:36 PM


Re: Legoland
fraid the photograph is illegible, don't know what I'm looking at.
Of course not. This is a detailed photo.
What you are looking at is Old Red Sandstone on the right and Silurian graywackes on the left. There is a cobble of the graywacke within the sandstone. This shows that there was a period of erosion between the two units. That period is constrained to the period after the 425ma Silurian sediments and before the Devonian sandstone at 345ma.
If you read the caption, that would help. Or maybe not...
The greywacke section would have eroded because it's upended, exposing broken-off parts to the friction with the upper layer, the red sandstone, ...
I would find your explanation of the irregular surface and the presence of rounded cobbles to be interesting in that case.
...and that section isn't eroded, ...
No one says the sandstone is eroded (until now). It was deposited on the unconformity.
... or is less eroded, because it would have presented a flat smooth surface to the lower layers.
The surface is clearly not smooth as various photos and diagrams have indicated to you.
Here is a video of the unconformity with some close up images of the contact.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQzmfcUKSFM
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1187 by Faith, posted 07-14-2014 12:36 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 1193 of 1304 (733161)
07-14-2014 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1188 by Faith
07-14-2014 12:44 PM


I know and it's irrelevant to my point.
Actually, it is because it shows that the layers are not 'flat and continuous'.
What I meant was that it is not continuing upward from the Geo Column. Where it "goes" is not the point. It has to continue the Geologic Column and it can't do that except where the Geo Column exists AS a column.
Bu it does continue at another location.
This is silly, this is gobbledygook. The Geologic Column IS a stack of horizontal strata, that is what it IS. If you want to say the Time Scale can continue anywhere that would be more reasonable because at least time doesn't stop (although it's so closely tied to the physical strata it really can't be separated), but physical formations can stop and the Geo Column has stopped wherever it is no longer a horizontal stack of layers but is eroded, buckled and so on.
Yes, at those locations the geological column has stopped. At least temporarily. It has continued in other places.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1188 by Faith, posted 07-14-2014 12:44 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1198 by Faith, posted 07-14-2014 1:24 PM edge has replied

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


Message 1200 of 1304 (733168)
07-14-2014 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1187 by Faith
07-14-2014 12:36 PM


Re: Legoland
The greywacke section would have eroded because it's upended, exposing broken-off parts to the friction with the upper layer, ...
Faith, no matter how you bray on about it, that sandstone is not sheared by faulting along the unconformity, just as the Tapeats is not sheared in the Grand Canyon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1187 by Faith, posted 07-14-2014 12:36 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1205 by Faith, posted 07-14-2014 7:50 PM edge has not replied

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


Message 1201 of 1304 (733169)
07-14-2014 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1198 by Faith
07-14-2014 1:24 PM


Have to be or they aren't the Geo Column.
According to whom?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1198 by Faith, posted 07-14-2014 1:24 PM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 1304 of 1304 (733525)
07-17-2014 9:45 PM


Still can hardly believe the discussion about the Geologic Column, so many insisting it means something it can't possibly mean. Then I thought Wikipedia equated it with Stratigraphic Column, and Percy also said he regards the terms as synonymous, but then Dr. Adequate said Stratigraphic Column refers only to local strata. So who knows, but I think I'm going back to Geologic Column.
This is partly where Faith's confusion lies. There is no generalized 'geologic column'. Each column is unique to its location. And correct, it is a strat column. That is why one column may 'end' with erosion, but it continues elsewhere. because that is the way things work. The geologic time scale is, however, a different subject.
Lava/coal. That was a weird one. Looks like a coal seam, but maybe it was lava, which it would be if it's on a volcanic island, but then it can't be part of the Geologic Column for the very reason that it's on a volcanic island where there is no Geologic Column. Doesn't matter, does it, I'm wrong no matter what I say, that's the rule here.
I was MIA during this part of the discussion but it is pretty clear that the color of a bed, alone, is not sufficient for identification. It seems to me that the bed is a basaltic pyroclastic unit. However, it is part of the geologic column for that location. It can be generalized as part of a geologic column. AFAIK, any unit can be part of the geologic column, as some of the examples shown will indicate.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024