Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8925 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-21-2019 7:57 AM
38 online now:
JoeT, RAZD (2 members, 36 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,160 Year: 15,196/19,786 Month: 1,919/3,058 Week: 293/404 Day: 11/96 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
28NextFF
Author Topic:   Origin of the Flood Layers
Admin
Director
Posts: 12618
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 226 of 409 (753124)
03-17-2015 8:01 AM


Moderator Request
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:

  • Constructively respond to misunderstandings of one's arguments by clarifying and/or reexplaining.

  • Support arguments with evidence so that the thread can focus on those arguments that are actually plausible.

Edited by Admin, : Typo.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

    
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 227 of 409 (753126)
03-17-2015 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Faith
03-16-2015 3:51 PM


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?

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 209 by Faith, posted 03-16-2015 3:51 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by edge, posted 03-17-2015 12:12 PM herebedragons has not yet responded
 Message 231 by Faith, posted 03-17-2015 1:02 PM herebedragons has responded
 Message 242 by Faith, posted 03-18-2015 4:35 PM herebedragons has not yet responded
 Message 243 by Faith, posted 03-18-2015 6:05 PM herebedragons has responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 228 of 409 (753157)
03-17-2015 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by herebedragons
03-17-2015 8:21 AM


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.


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.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by herebedragons, posted 03-17-2015 8:21 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Faith, posted 03-17-2015 3:18 PM edge has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32700
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 229 of 409 (753161)
03-17-2015 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by herebedragons
03-17-2015 7:58 AM


Re: What-ifs
duplicate I keep accidentally putting in a bracket which cancels out everything after it.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by herebedragons, posted 03-17-2015 7:58 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32700
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 230 of 409 (753162)
03-17-2015 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by herebedragons
03-17-2015 7:58 AM


Re: What-ifs
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by herebedragons, posted 03-17-2015 7:58 AM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-17-2015 1:03 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 234 by JonF, posted 03-17-2015 1:27 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 239 by herebedragons, posted 03-17-2015 6:24 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32700
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 231 of 409 (753165)
03-17-2015 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by herebedragons
03-17-2015 8:21 AM


(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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by herebedragons, posted 03-17-2015 8:21 AM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by edge, posted 03-17-2015 1:31 PM Faith has responded
 Message 241 by herebedragons, posted 03-17-2015 6:47 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 602 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


Message 232 of 409 (753166)
03-17-2015 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Faith
03-17-2015 12:45 PM


Re: What-ifs
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Faith, posted 03-17-2015 12:45 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12618
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 233 of 409 (753168)
03-17-2015 1:09 PM


More Moderator Requests
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.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 5343
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 234 of 409 (753171)
03-17-2015 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Faith
03-17-2015 12:45 PM


Re: What-ifs
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Faith, posted 03-17-2015 12:45 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 235 of 409 (753173)
03-17-2015 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Faith
03-17-2015 1:02 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Faith, posted 03-17-2015 1:02 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Faith, posted 03-18-2015 6:26 PM edge has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32700
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 236 of 409 (753185)
03-17-2015 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by edge
03-17-2015 12:12 PM


G.U. Fountain Formation
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by edge, posted 03-17-2015 12:12 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by edge, posted 03-17-2015 5:02 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20041
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 237 of 409 (753188)
03-17-2015 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Faith
03-17-2015 2:00 AM


Re: What-ifs
... 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.

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 223 by Faith, posted 03-17-2015 2:00 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 238 of 409 (753191)
03-17-2015 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Faith
03-17-2015 3:18 PM


Re: G.U. Fountain Formation
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Faith, posted 03-17-2015 3:18 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 239 of 409 (753192)
03-17-2015 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Faith
03-17-2015 12:45 PM


Re: What-ifs
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:
Objective adjective
1. (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts

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.

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 230 by Faith, posted 03-17-2015 12:45 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12618
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 240 of 409 (753193)
03-17-2015 6:42 PM


Moderator Repeating His Request
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.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

    
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
28NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019