|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Origin of the Flood Layers | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13042 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
This thread is again drifting off topic. As I requested in Message 196 when I announced that I would be moderating, please don't make discussion personal by making claims about oneself or others. Evidence and the supporting arguments that give them structure speak to the quality of one's thinking - additional assessments are unneeded.
It's also worth making a comment about objectivity. Science is a community activity. Objectivity is a product not of single individuals but of groups of individuals. Objectivity and consensus emerge out out of a multiplicity of viewpoints about evidence. Objectivity is when many people agree about what they see. I have these specific requests:
Edited by Admin, : Typo.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 886 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
edge writes: There isn't much else in the way of alternatives. Although I do not have information on this locality, we usually see that the post-unconformity rocks are made up of eroded and redeposited pre-unconformity rocks. This provides us with a bullet-proof sequence of events.Faith writes: I'm afraid that whole paragraph makes no sense to me. edge left this unexplained so I thought I would give it a go since it is something I mentioned in the other thread. Layer "A" is deposited. It is then exposed to the surface and subject to erosion. Erosion of layer "A" results in debris which is composed of material that originated in layer "A". Then layer "B" is deposited on top of layer "A". The debris which was a result of erosion of layer "A" and is composed of layer "A" material is then incorporated into layer "B". Material that is composed of layer "A" that has been incorporated into layer "B" is the "bullet-proof" evidence of what the sequence of events were.
(image above) The clasts are composed of the same material that the lower layer (layer "A") is made of and they have been incorporated into the upper layer (layer "B"). This is the evidence (there is more as well) that layer "A" was exposed to the surface and subject to erosion and then overlain with layer "B" creating an unconformity between the two layers. Now, how will you respond to evidence? HBDWhoever 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1735 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
edge left this unexplained so I thought I would give it a go since it is something I mentioned in the other thread.
I've been looking for a better picture of this phenomenon, but it's not usually what people focus on when looking at an unconformity. However, this photo may be a bit clearer.
Layer "A" is deposited. It is then exposed to the surface and subject to erosion. Erosion of layer "A" results in debris which is composed of material that originated in layer "A". Then layer "B" is deposited on top of layer "A". The debris which was a result of erosion of layer "A" and is composed of layer "A" material is then incorporated into layer "B". Material that is composed of layer "A" that has been incorporated into layer "B" is the "bullet-proof" evidence of what the sequence of events were. This is the Great Unconformity in the Red Rocks area of Colorado. It is actually a 'nonconformity' at this location since the underlying rocks to the lower right are granite and the overlying rocks are sand and gravel of the Fountain Formation that are derived directly from the older granite. Note that the rocks have been tilted to the left since deposition of the sedimentary rocks.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
duplicate I keep accidentally putting in a bracket which cancels out everything after it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Stop lecturing me. I know what I mean and your opinion is absolutely worthless to me. When I say I believe it's objective that's what I believe and I know what the word means. When I have the evidence then you'll know it's objective too. I am not even trying to DO "correct science," I'm trying to do what is needed to prove the Flood. You don't like it, it's not "correct science," but I COULD NOT CARE LESS. It's what has to be done under the circumstances. Please stop your patronizing lectures.
Believe me, if I ever prove these things you'll say it's scientific. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
(image above) The clasts are composed of the same material that the lower layer (layer "A") is made of and they have been incorporated into the upper layer (layer "B"). This is the evidence (there is more as well) that layer "A" was exposed to the surface and subject to erosion and then overlain with layer "B" creating an unconformity between the two layers. Now, how will you respond to evidence? I'll say that picture is about as weird as possible. The upper stuff looks like it was originally sort of frothy or something, with that front rolled edge, sort of like sticky candy before it hardens, and that when it rolled over the lower stuff the clasts stuck to it. It's not even apparent that the clasts are of the same material as the lower layer. If something isn't clear, and this isn't, you can't expect me just to accept whatever you say about it.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2402 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
Faith writes: I am not even trying to DO "correct science," I'm trying to do what is needed to prove the Flood. What is needed to prove the flood would be called "correct science". You know, evidence and stuff. JB
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13042 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Concerns about discussion should be taken to the Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0 thread.
Please keep the focus on the topic. Because this is a science forum, sincere efforts should be made to keep discussion scientific. Edited by Admin, : Typo.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
When I have the evidence then you'll know it's objective too
When and if you come up with a scenario that fits all the evidence we will believe it's scientific.
I am not even trying to DO "correct science," I'm trying to do what is needed to prove the Flood.
Yes, we know. But with that explicit declaration this thread should be moved out of a science forum.
Believe me, if I ever prove these things you'll say it's scientific.
Oh, we will, When and if. But we know approximately how long that will take.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1735 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
I'll say that picture is about as weird as possible. The upper stuff looks like it was originally sort of frothy or something, with that front rolled edge, sort of like sticky candy before it hardens, and that when it rolled over the lower stuff the clasts stuck to it. It's not even apparent that the clasts are of the same material as the lower layer. If something isn't clear, and this isn't, you can't expect me just to accept whatever you say about it.
Well, they are not exactly the same material, however, I'm quite certain that the white quartz blocks are metamorphic quartz fragments from within the lower unit which is Vishnu Schist. It is not uncommon to have such pure white quartz veins in metamorphic rock. The upper unit is Tapeats Sandstone which is mostly derived directly from the Vishnu or the Zoroaster Granite. Anyway, I knew this would be a problem which is why I made my last post. As I said, few people look at the details of where the basal sediments come from in the Tapeats Sandstone. It is either very obvious to them or not of interest; however it is pertinent to this discussion. ETA: Perhaps some clarification should be made here. When a rock unit erodes at the surface, the produced sediment is always to some degree stripped away by erosion. That would be by mass-wasting, or streams or sheet runoff or debris flows etc. However, if that process is incomplete, there will very often be a zone immediately above weathered rock that includes fragments of that underlying rock. For instance, in the example I provided earlier, the granite is weathered to granite rock fragments, and grains of quartz, feldspars, and micas, etc. These may be carried far away or be hardly transported at all; but when lithified, they form a sedimentary rock that we call an arkose (usually a sandy or gravel deposit). In the case shown, the sediment was nor far removed from its source and forms a very nice, picturesque deposit known as the Fountain Formation immediately on top of the granite. While the Fountain Formation was deposited in the range of 300-400my ago, it's source was the much older granite. If you look up the subject "Red Rocks" you will find a beautiful setting outside of Denver, now used by humans for music concerts. This will be an interesting unconformity, perhaps in a few million years... Any questions, feel free to ask. This is actually a very interesting and sometimes non-intuitive subject. Edited by edge, : No reason given. Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
This is the Great Unconformity in the Red Rocks area of Colorado. It is actually a 'nonconformity' at this location since the underlying rocks to the lower right are granite and the overlying rocks are sand and gravel of the Fountain Formation that are derived directly from the older granite. Note that the rocks have been tilted to the left since deposition of the sedimentary rocks Since I'm not really sure which rocks are which I tried to identify them this way:
So, I figure the rocks above line (1) are the "sand and gravel derived from the older granite." I don't know if everything between 1 and 3 is the same rock, which I guess would be the "sedimentary rock" or the Tapeats sandstone? And I'm not sure if the rock below 3 and 4 is the same rock: the granite I suppose if so. Question is how the sand and gravel at the top came from the granite below with something completely different in between.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... THEY ARE OBJECTIVELY PLAUSIBLE ... Something that is not contradicted by known objective empirical evidence is objectively possible (and anything that IS contradicted by known objective empirical evidence is objectively NOT probable. To be "OBJECTIVELY PLAUSIBLE" you need to demonstrate the plausibility, and simply not being contradicted by known objective empirical evidence is not sufficient, because "plausible" is a higher standard than "possible" and you can't conflate the two.
... AND OBJECTIVELY A SERIOUS CHALLENGE. ... Objectively it is a possible challenge. To rise to the level of serious challenge you need to have objective evidence supporting your claim. So far you do not have a mechanism that can put down a layer of silty deposition and then cover it with a layer of gravel. Your waves do not accomplish this because they will erode the silty layer back into suspension. The world is covered with layers of silty material buried by coarser layers - in some places thousands of alternating layers. To have a plausible explanation you need to show how alternating layers can happen, and then have test results to show that it is more than just a hypothetical possibility. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1735 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
So, I figure the rocks above line (1) are the "sand and gravel derived from the older granite."
Actually, everything above '2' is the Fountain Formation. Line '2' (although not perfectly drawn) is the Great Unconformity. You can see the plaque at about the middle of the picture. The material between lines '1' and '2' are gravels, pretty massive but with some whispy light sands interbedded. Everything to the right of '2' is Precambrian granite. The horizontal lines have only to do with construction of the parking lot and debris coming off the outcrop.
Question is how the sand and gravel at the top came from the granite below with something completely different in between.
Actually, it's not completely different. It's a change of grain size, but of the same composition. The coarser material is only weakly bedded, but it is sedimentary. ETA: Here is my interpretation of the picture:
Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 886 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
Please stop your patronizing lectures. Don't like to be preached at... well join the club. Give me a break, Faith. I try very hard to be patient with you and explain things to you in as simple and straight-forward way that I can.
When I say I believe it's objective that's what I believe and I know what the word means. Obviously you don't ...
quote: Nope... not objective.
I'm trying to do what is needed to prove the Flood. You don't like it, it's not "correct science," but I COULD NOT CARE LESS. It's what has to be done under the circumstances. You just don't get it. It is NOT a matter of doing "correct science" it is a matter of being objective about the evidence. You can't just make stuff up and expect us to accept it. The least you could do is understand the reasons I have come to the conclusions that I have, even if you don't believe it yourself. But of course, to you it's just "Old Earth Debunkery"
your opinion is absolutely worthless to me. Well so is the evidence. HBDWhoever 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13042 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Please focus on the topic, the origin of the flood layers. Please drop discussion of objectivity and what is appropriately scientific for a science thread. As moderator I will try to keep things within reasonable bounds.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024