Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8928 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-24-2019 4:51 PM
39 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,372 Year: 15,408/19,786 Month: 2,131/3,058 Week: 505/404 Day: 20/89 Hour: 4/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
1920
...
28NextFF
Author Topic:   Origin of the Flood Layers
Faith
Member
Posts: 32716
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 256 of 409 (753298)
03-19-2015 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by edge
03-19-2015 12:28 AM


And no, Faith, there is no 'front' in this photo. It is like a cross section.

I can't read the photo any other way. Please mark the photo so I can see what you mean.

As for your correction of "in front of" as "below," yes the Vishnu is literally beneath the sandstone but it's also in front of it as I read the photo.

No I don't particularly "expect anyone to 'believe' me," that's not the point. I'm describing it as I see it.

I just wanted to say this much, hope to get to the rest tomorrow.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by edge, posted 03-19-2015 12:28 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by edge, posted 03-19-2015 12:55 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 261 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-19-2015 2:08 AM Faith has responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 257 of 409 (753300)
03-19-2015 12:49 AM


Okay, so I shot off my mouth claiming that the Danxia pictures that Faith referred to were enhance by filters, without actually checking first.

Let's see what I found out with a little research:

Here is one of many photos that I found.

Now how is this so unusual?

Or this one:

Does it look like the one that Faith provided?

Does it look that unusual?

Would you like to see some of my photos from New Mexico?

Well, probably I just spelled the location wrong in my search...


Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Faith, posted 03-19-2015 1:20 AM edge has responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 258 of 409 (753302)
03-19-2015 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by Faith
03-19-2015 12:34 AM


As for your correction of "in front of" as "below," yes the Vishnu is literally beneath the sandstone but it's also in front of it as I read the photo.

Heh, heh ...

Then I suggest we have to reinterpret all of the cross-sections you have ever presented to us...

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Faith, posted 03-19-2015 12:34 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32716
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 259 of 409 (753303)
03-19-2015 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by edge
03-19-2015 12:49 AM


Well, here are three I'd posted before:

http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&m=733147#m733147

So are they enhanced in some way?

But yes, I think even those you posted are unusual looking. The only thing comparable I'm aware of is The Wave in Arizona but it's not very comparable, no stripes and no pillowy hills, just red sandstone. The only thing comparable is its separate sculpted shapes.

PLEASE mark that picture of the Tapeats with the clasts or boulders over the Vishnu schist. I have NO idea what you mean by its being like a cross section.

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 257 by edge, posted 03-19-2015 12:49 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by edge, posted 03-19-2015 11:22 AM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32716
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 260 of 409 (753304)
03-19-2015 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by herebedragons
03-18-2015 10:34 PM


Thanks for the apology. I'm sorry I complained anyway. If I know anything about why I'm at EvC it's that the Lord is trying to train me to stop reacting to insults among other things, give up my pride etc.

I'll get to your post later, Lord willing. I know I'm getting behind.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by herebedragons, posted 03-18-2015 10:34 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3749
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 261 of 409 (753306)
03-19-2015 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by Faith
03-19-2015 12:34 AM


Faith writes:

Edge writes:

And no, Faith, there is no 'front' in this photo. It is like a cross section.

I can't read the photo any other way. Please mark the photo so I can see what you mean.

As for your correction of "in front of" as "below," yes the Vishnu is literally beneath the sandstone but it's also in front of it as I read the photo.

Re:

As I see that photo, the top of the sandstone is actually about twice as far up as where you drew the upper yellow line. The top is the redder material at the upper-left corner. The part between the yellow lines is more or less vertical, and the part between the top yellow line and the redder top is more beveled back, thus the shadow difference. I'm guessing that a few inches of sandstone thickness is being shown there, and that it is thicker further back, outside the photo frame.

The sandstone left there is an erosional remnant - The sandstone used to cover the entire area of the photo. It's NOT that the sandstone stopped being deposited at that point, with the larger quartz clasts being pushed at the front. There are most likely more large quartz clasts still conceiled in the sandstone. OR PERHAPS the quartz chucks are the remains of vein material, still in place. Hard to say without looking at it in person, and also without seeing the larger context.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Faith, posted 03-19-2015 12:34 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Faith, posted 03-19-2015 9:11 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12618
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 262 of 409 (753311)
03-19-2015 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by herebedragons
03-17-2015 6:47 PM


herebedragons writes:

You could follow the images to their source and confirm what I say. You could do a teeny bit of research to verify if what I presented has any validity. You could go to the canyon yourself and collect samples and analyze them to see if what I said holds up. Or... you could just dismiss it as irrelevant and unmeaningful.

The normal policy at EvC Forum is for all information pertinent to one's point to be presented in messages, that members shouldn't send other members on scouting exhibitions at other websites, but of course there's a limit to how trivial a claim one should be forced to support. One shouldn't have to prove that the freezing point of water at STC is 32°F, so it would be perfectly valid just to tell someone expressing skepticism to go satisfy their doubt at some physics or chemistry website. So not being sure how obvious what you're saying is, and not understanding your point because I didn't understand your image nor the arguments you presented with it, I thought I'd take your suggestion and "follow the images to their source."

I first tried to follow this image to its source:

This image is at 1.bp.blogspot.com, and I was unable to follow it to any webpage. Looks like blogspot.com is a blogging site that can host photos.

This was your original explanation in Message 227:

herrebedragons in Message 227 writes:

(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.

This is my understanding of what you're saying about the image, but I found I had to do a lot of reading between the lines and referencing of prior posts and my own knowledge: The clasts are the white quartz-like chunks embedded at the boundary between lower and darker Layer "A" and upper and lighter Layer "B". The clasts are made of the same material as Layer "A". When Layer "A" was an exposed landscape and before Layer "B" began to be deposited here, weathering and erosion broke these clasts off from some higher elevation area of Layer "A" and carried them to this spot. Here they remained as time passed by, and when Layer "B" was deposited atop Layer "A" they became buried at the boundary between Layer "A" and Layer "B". The presence of these clasts from Layer "A" at this boundary is proof that Layer "A" was exposed to the surface, because if it wasn't then loose material could never have been weathered and eroded from it.

Also, the boundary between Layer "A" and Layer "B" is by definition an unconformity because Layer "B" was not deposited upon the topmost portion of Layer "A". Before Layer "B" was ever deposited, some of Layer "A" was eroded away.

What affected my ability to follow your argument, and it may have affected Faith's understanding, too, is your claim that the clasts are from Layer "A". They resemble Layer "A" not one bit. Maybe the clasts *are* from Layer "A", but they have a dramatically different appearance, and further, it seems unnecessary for the clasts to be from Layer "A" in order to make the point that Layer "A" must once have been exposed at the surface.

I'm not trying to involve myself in the discussion. I'm mainly trying to make the point that if I'm having trouble following arguments, it's possible that others may also. I know geology discussions have been over this ground before, but that doesn't justify arguing in some kind of verbal shorthand.

And more clarification: I'm definitely not singling you out. I'm having trouble understanding many points from many of the participants in this thread. My intent this morning was to go through the posts since Tuesday evening and ask questions about everything I don't understand, but I'm already out of time and have to move on to other things.

One other comment: I really like the way Faith marks up photos to clearly identify which portions she's talking about.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by herebedragons, posted 03-17-2015 6:47 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by JonF, posted 03-19-2015 11:28 AM Admin has responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12618
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.3


(2)
Message 263 of 409 (753313)
03-19-2015 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by edge
03-18-2015 10:19 PM


Hi Edge,

This isn't going to be a clear post. I'm out of time and have to move on. I only have time to comment that I spent about 10 minutes trying to understand the point you were making with this image:

I think I've got it now, but I had to stare at it a long time and read your explanation several times. In the end it turned out that I already understood the point you were trying to make, yet it still took a big effort to understand how you were looking at the diagram.

I hope I'm not coming across as too critical. I think the fault lies with underestimating the difficulty of information one is already familiar with rather than any lack of skill at exposition. There's also the problem of repurposing images. The person repurposing the image knows what parts of the image are important to his point, but it's really difficult to get people's attention focused on the right parts of an image using only words. I again endorse Faith's approach of annotating images.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by edge, posted 03-18-2015 10:19 PM edge has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32716
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 264 of 409 (753322)
03-19-2015 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by Minnemooseus
03-19-2015 2:08 AM


As I see that photo, the top of the sandstone is actually about twice as far up as where you drew the upper yellow line. The top is the redder material at the upper-left corner. The part between the yellow lines is more or less vertical, and the part between the top yellow line and the redder top is more beveled back, thus the shadow difference. I'm guessing that a few inches of sandstone thickness is being shown there, and that it is thicker further back, outside the photo frame.

Not quite sure what "twice as far up" means. At least you agree with me that the part I outlined is more or less vertical. You could be right about the beveling of the part I called "horizontal," it's impossible to tell from the photo if it's level or on an incline. I don't really see a "shadow difference" between the sections of the area above the upper yellow line.

The sandstone left there is an erosional remnant - The sandstone used to cover the entire area of the photo.

I can't see it that way at all. The sandstone doesn't look eroded at all for one thing, it just stops at that vertical front edge as I called it. There is no sandstone on the Vishnu schist.

It's NOT that the sandstone stopped being deposited at that point, with the larger quartz clasts being pushed at the front.

I keep seeing it as having stopped rather than having been eroded away to that point because the vertical "edige" is so smooth for one thing. Also I don't see the clasts as being "pushed at the front." At first I did, but as I kept analyzing the situation I noticed the apparent fit of the clasts in the depression right below them. How they fit is what the yellow lines I drew on the latest photo were meant to show. That suggests they had been embedded right there in those depressions, (which occur in a line and probably housed a vein of quartz of which the chunks were a part), and if that's the case then the sandstone itself pulled them out. But the sandstone vertical edge is back a bit from the depressions, so I figured what happened is that it did stop moving over the Vishnu, right over where the depressions are, some chunks of the quartz stuck in the sandstone, and it just sat there until the sandstone hardened enough to shrink and retract back from the depressions, pulling the quartz out of their positions embedded in the schist.

There are most likely more large quartz clasts still conceiled in the sandstone.

Yes, probably lots of them, under that expanse of sandstone in the upper left part of the photo.

OR PERHAPS the quartz chucks are the remains of vein material, still in place.

The ones we can see? They look to me clearly like they've been removed from the Vishnu, from what probably was a vein. Clasts beneath the sandstone in the upper left could still be in place in their veins, but with some shrinkage of the dried and hardened sandstone many of those may be at least loosened too.

Hard to say without looking at it in person, and also without seeing the larger context.

Yes, wish a delegation of EvCers would go take a look.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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 261 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-19-2015 2:08 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by JonF, posted 03-19-2015 11:43 AM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32716
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 265 of 409 (753325)
03-19-2015 9:36 AM


Just a side note. I appreciate Percy's posts because I've been struggling about those things too.

I still do NOT understand how the supposed erosion at the surface is what makes an "unconformity."

As I just wrote to Moose I see the Tapeats-Vishnu photo entirely differently from anybody else, and I continue to see it that way. If edge would mark the photo to indicate how he sees it maybe I'd have a different way of looking at it.

Edge's posts that I haven't yet answered look like they are going to be just about impossible to understand. I'm not looking forward to that struggle.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-19-2015 9:41 AM Faith has responded

    
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 605 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


Message 266 of 409 (753326)
03-19-2015 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by Faith
03-19-2015 9:36 AM


Faith writes:

I still do NOT understand how the supposed erosion at the surface is what makes an "unconformity."

Perhaps you could look up the definition of an "unconformity" and then cease to struggle with what one is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Faith, posted 03-19-2015 9:36 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Faith, posted 03-19-2015 10:43 AM ThinAirDesigns has responded
 Message 268 by edge, posted 03-19-2015 10:53 AM ThinAirDesigns has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32716
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 267 of 409 (753332)
03-19-2015 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by ThinAirDesigns
03-19-2015 9:41 AM



I still do NOT understand how the supposed erosion at the surface is what makes an "unconformity."

Perhaps you could look up the definition of an "unconformity" and then cease to struggle with what one is.

Let me see if I can be clearer: the definitions seem artificial and illogical. Something you use to label a formation but without any clear reason why you are doing so. Most of it is clearly to conform to Old Earth presuppositions, but beyond that they don't seem to have much actual reality that I can hold onto.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-19-2015 9:41 AM ThinAirDesigns has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-19-2015 11:22 AM Faith has responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 268 of 409 (753333)
03-19-2015 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by ThinAirDesigns
03-19-2015 9:41 AM


Perhaps you could look up the definition of an "unconformity" and then cease to struggle with what one is.

Thin Air, meet Faith...
This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-19-2015 9:41 AM ThinAirDesigns has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32716
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 269 of 409 (753335)
03-19-2015 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by edge
03-18-2015 8:25 PM


Looking at this photo again, it looks to me like the sandstone had just plucked the quartz out of the Vishnu before it stopped moving forward over the Vishnu, then slightly receded in the process of hardening so that you can see it holding on to the quartz it had just lifted out of the Vishnu.

What do you mean by the sandstone 'stopped moving forward'?
You are making no sense at all.

That's what it looks like. It looks like a thickly fluid sand{stone} flowed across the Vishnu schist and then ran out of material, came to its end, no more wet fluid pre-sandstone. Like icing on a cake that runs out before you've covered the cake (and that's a good analogy too since if you aren't very careful the icing will pick up chunks of cake and soon be a complete mess), It looks far more like this than it looks like it was eroded back from the schist, IMHO. If you look at the photos I've marked you should at least see what I'm seeing. And I ask you again to please mark a photo yourself so I can see what you are seeing in it.

I've marked the edges of the depressions in the Vishnu which fit the shapes of the quartz stuck in the sandstone. In other words, no erosion had to occur to expose that quartz, that's just the way it was embedded in the Vishnu in the first place:

So, all of these fragmental pegmatites just happened to form in the schist right at the surface where your sandstone lava flow(?) just picked them up and put them back down.

This is just bizarre.

The photo you posted later of the vertical wall of schist with the quartz or pegmatite veins in it shows that a LOT of this veined material occurs "at the surface." And if you will PLEASE try to understand the markings I've made on the photo you may see better what I'm seeing.

And no, it did not "pick them up and put them back down." In the photo they are stuck in the sandstone suspended a little ABOVE the depression or trench where I'm saying it looks like they were originally embedded. It picked them up and held them in that position, it did not put them back down.

PLEASE just consider how I'm seeing it. It DOES make sense even if you disagree with it, and again, PLEASE mark a photo so I can see your different way of seeing it.

Some time back, you also couldn't understand how there could be strain in the uppermost layers of a stack of layers three miles high, that only affected those highest layers because they were stretched more than those lower down, which is to be expected of an entire stack being pushed up over a mounded uplift. But this is perfectly reasonable. Just as my view of the photo above is also reasonable.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : correcting quote codes

Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by edge, posted 03-18-2015 8:25 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by edge, posted 03-19-2015 11:36 AM Faith has responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 270 of 409 (753336)
03-19-2015 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by Faith
03-19-2015 1:20 AM


So are they enhanced in some way?

Yes, the colors are enhanced. The true colors are shown in the photographs that I located on line.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Faith, posted 03-19-2015 1:20 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Faith, posted 03-19-2015 12:00 PM edge has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
1920
...
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