Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 56 (9054 total)
70 online now:
AZPaul3, kjsimons (2 members, 68 visitors)
Newest Member: EWolf
Post Volume: Total: 888,239 Year: 5,885/14,102 Month: 33/438 Week: 77/83 Day: 27/6 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Origin of the Flood Layers
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 114 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 301 of 409 (753432)
03-19-2015 8:23 PM


This piece of clothing made me think of Faith ...


Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Coyote, posted 03-19-2015 8:44 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 319 by Admin, posted 03-20-2015 8:03 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1169 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 302 of 409 (753434)
03-19-2015 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by Dr Adequate
03-19-2015 8:23 PM


But "Archaeologists get to the bottom of things!"

(Although "Our lives are in ruins.")


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-19-2015 8:23 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 507 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 303 of 409 (753437)
03-19-2015 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by herebedragons
03-18-2015 10:34 PM


So a couple points about your interpretation...

>That picture was only meant to illustrate clasts from the older layer that had been incorporated into the younger, overlaying layer. It is NOT the big picture of the unconformity...a picture like that wouldn't fit on the screen.

No idea why you are saying this. I'm just dealing with the picture as an interesting picture that doesn't look to me like what you all are finding in it.

And for reference, here's the picture again, with my yellow lines on it:

>The reason that it is more plausible that the surfaces you see in that picture were exposed by erosion is that they are at the bottom of the Grand Canyon. Everything at the bottom of the canyon was exposed by erosion. Why would you think it is more plausible that it is shaped like that because it was once viscous?

Because it LOOKS like it was thick when laid down, and the thick edge with the clasts stuck in it, which is clearly vertical as shown by the shadow on it, doesn't LOOK to me like it was eroded, though JonF keeps insisting it does to him, and also because of the way the clasts seem to me to have come out of the depression in front of them. It's possible the appearance of thickness came as the sand was lithifying, after pulling the clasts out of their seat in the Vishnu I guess. That's the only other possibility I can see.

Sorry to say but neither JonF nor edge seems to be able to read how light and shadow define three dimensional forms, but it happens to be one thing I'm pretty good at. I'm also usually pretty good at spatial relationships.

>Remember, in your scenario, this was covered by the whole stack of Paleozoic sediments that were squeezing the water out of these lower layers. How could they shrink like that while being compressed?

No idea what your last sentence is referring to, but this picture simply doesn't look like my usual scenario. That scenario describes what happened at some point in the GC area due to the uplift as shown on the cross sections, and I don't know where this picture was taken in relation to that, but it does not look to me like the Tapeats ever had a layer above it here, nor does the exposed part of the Vishnu look to me like it did either. Can't see the clasts as the result of erosion due to surface exposure, look clearly to me like they were dislodged by the movement of the sand above.

>Don't you think those depressions that you outlined in yellow look more like running water carved them out rather than the clasts fit in them? There is a good strong source of running water at the bottom of the canyon.

No. The more I look at the picture the more I see it as I've described it.

>If the clasts were part of the Vishnu Schist before this viscous sandstone "plucked them out," how did they get incorporated into the Vishnu in the first place? You already pointed out that they don't look like the surrounding rock.

Edge posted a picture -- Message 247 -- showing a wall of schist with veins of quartz exposed in it -- apparently a normal presentation of Vishnu schist. So I figure the quartz chunks in the picture we are discussing would have been broken out of such a vein here too, with the aid of wet or drying sand that seems to have had a sticky quality to it, at least while it was drying and hardening which I've suggested it did while lying over the quartz vein, then gradually pulling pieces of the quartz with it as it dried and hardened more, shrinking and retracting from the position over the vein. Being a different kind of rock I'd guess that the quartz may be relatively easily loosened from the schist. Since I do think the quartz pieces would fit into the parts of the depression indicated by my lines on the picture I continue to see it this way.

Edge keeps calling the picture a "cross section" yet has not been able to show me what he means by that. I wonder if he thinks the Vishnu surface in the right foreground is vertical as it is in another picture he marked from the same area. Looks to me like the sunlight defines it as horizontal in this picture here, or at least more or less horizontal, as it does the Tapeats to the upper left behind the edge or little wall of the Tapeats where the quartz pieces are stuck. That edge is in shadow, showing its verticality, while the Vishnu in the right foreground is in sunlight.

I was going to try to post a summary of what I have presented so far regarding the Great Unconformity but I just don't have the time right now. Maybe this weekend. In the mean-time maybe you could review my Message 103 from the Evidence that the Great Unconformity did not Form Before the Strata above it. It covers the details regarding the contact between the Tapeats and the basement rocks.

Maybe, but I am very convinced by my own interpretation of this picture and find the dismissive way others deal with it to be discouraging and frustrating, especially since I think they are misreading basic things like light and shadow, verticality vs. horizontality and so on.

And one more thing: "The contact between the Tapeats and the basement rocks" seems to be reduced by some here to the front edge of the Tapeats where the Vishnu begins to be exposed, both edge and JonF referring to the supposed fortuitousness of the Tapeats stopping just "right there" as I see the picture. I would have thought that an unconformity defined by a contact would mean the whole surface of both upper and lower layers where they contact each other.

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 251 by herebedragons, posted 03-18-2015 10:34 PM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-19-2015 10:26 PM Faith has responded
 Message 307 by herebedragons, posted 03-19-2015 11:44 PM Faith has responded
 Message 320 by JonF, posted 03-20-2015 8:29 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 339 by Admin, posted 03-20-2015 10:33 AM Faith has responded

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 1436 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


Message 304 of 409 (753438)
03-19-2015 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by Faith
03-19-2015 10:08 PM


Faith writes:

I have NO idea what you mean by its being like a cross section.

Faith writes:

Edge keeps calling the picture a "cross section" yet has not been able to show me what he means by that.

There are easy ways these days to look up terms and learn their meanings. One need not remain in the dark for long.

JB


This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by Faith, posted 03-19-2015 10:08 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by Faith, posted 03-19-2015 10:29 PM ThinAirDesigns has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 507 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 305 of 409 (753439)
03-19-2015 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by ThinAirDesigns
03-19-2015 10:26 PM


Again you reduce my comment to a mere definition. Good grief. I've posted dozens of cross sections myself, I know what they are and this picture does NOT look like a cross section.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-19-2015 10:26 PM ThinAirDesigns has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by jar, posted 03-19-2015 11:01 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33492
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 306 of 409 (753441)
03-19-2015 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 305 by Faith
03-19-2015 10:29 PM


making sand
The question you need to answer Faith is "How do you make enough sand to create the Tapeats Sandstone in just 6000 years?"

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by Faith, posted 03-19-2015 10:29 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 307 of 409 (753442)
03-19-2015 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by Faith
03-19-2015 10:08 PM


That scenario describes what happened at some point in the GC area due to the uplift as shown on the cross sections, and I don't know where this picture was taken in relation to that, but it does not look to me like the Tapeats ever had a layer above it here, nor does the exposed part of the Vishnu look to me like it did either.

That would be an interesting situation for the Tapeats and the Vishnu to never have had layers above them. That photo was taken in Blacktail Canyon

I think it is safe to assume that ANY surface we find expose within the Grand Canyon WAS exposed by erosion. If a surface (within the GC) is exposed to the air, then erosion certainly HAS acted on that surface and exposed it. Or another way to put it, there is NO visible surface within the Grand Canyon that has not been acted on by erosion. So ALL the surfaces you see in that image were made to look the way they do by erosion. There is just no doubt about that.

The Great Unconformity is deep with in the canyon, so it certainly had layers on top of it. Here is the source of that image. There are more photos taken in Blacktail Canyon on that blog. For example...

Look how deep that is. There is a person down there at the bottom of the canyon. That is a good 300-400 feet deep.

Here is an amazing 360 degree panoramic view of Blacktail Canyon. The Vishnu is the lowest rocks, mostly darker and more vertical. The layers above that are more horizontal, sand-colored and more prominently layered are the Paleozoic rocks (not sure of the specific units). You can see the clear demarcation between those distinct types of rock. That line between them is the Great Unconformity. It has rock above it, lots and lots and lots of rock.

(actually look at some of the other pictures at that website, they are incredible!)

Maybe, but I am very convinced by my own interpretation of this picture and find the dismissive way others deal with it to be discouraging and frustrating,

You are reading WAY too much into that picture. It is a picture of clasts that originated in the lower layer (they are granite from an intrusion) and have been incorporated into the sandstone of the upper layer. It's that simple. Trying to makeup some alternative way to interpret that one picture is not going to change the fact that the Great Unconformity is an erosional surface. We can just drop that "ambiguous" image and move on, yes?

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 303 by Faith, posted 03-19-2015 10:08 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by Faith, posted 03-20-2015 12:20 AM herebedragons has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 507 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 308 of 409 (753443)
03-20-2015 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 307 by herebedragons
03-19-2015 11:44 PM


I think it is safe to assume that ANY surface we find expose within the Grand Canyon WAS exposed by erosion.

You think you can just blithely dispense with my observations with such a flat assertion of the party line?

If a surface (within the GC) is exposed to the air, then erosion certainly HAS acted on that surface and exposed it. Or another way to put it, there is NO visible surface within the Grand Canyon that has not been acted on by erosion.

Certainly for VISIBLE surfaces NOW, yes, but millions of years' worth?

ALL the surfaces you see in that image were made to look the way they do by erosion. There is just no doubt about that.

Of course, erosion going on NOW since they were exposed. But that totally glosses over the important questions how LONG they were exposed, whether the currently exposed Vishnu was ever covered by the Tapeats, and whether any buried surfaces ever were exposed to the surface.

As for this picture, I don't care what it is supposed to represent, it's so frustrating to have my observations dismissed out of hand at the moment I don't feel like continuing any of this discussion.

The Great Unconformity is deep with in the canyon, so it certainly had layers on top of it.

You keep making these flat assertions that prove absolutely nothing. "Certianly had layers on top of it." Well, that's maybe an article of faith for you, but it's a meaningless statement to me, as anything would be that blithely brushes off what I've been seeing in that photograph anyway.

You are reading WAY too much into that picture. It is a picture of clasts that originated in the lower layer (they are granite from an intrusion) and have been incorporated into the sandstone of the upper layer. It's that simple. Trying to makeup some alternative way to interpret that one picture is not going to change the fact that the Great Unconformity is an erosional surface.

I don't know what it changes but what I see in that photo is NOT what you all see and that has to mean something. And although you call those clasts granite they do not look like granite, they look like quartz. And I am NOT "making anything up," I simply see what I see there.

We can just drop that "ambiguous" image and move on, yes?

Wow, just declare it done according to your will and it's done.

I no longer see that photo as ambiguous. Again I could not care less what it is supposed to represent about the Great Unconformity, I don't see in it what you see and I don't give in to raw assertions presented as if they were evidence.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by herebedragons, posted 03-19-2015 11:44 PM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by edge, posted 03-20-2015 12:37 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 310 by herebedragons, posted 03-20-2015 12:44 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 769 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 309 of 409 (753447)
03-20-2015 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 308 by Faith
03-20-2015 12:20 AM


Of course, erosion going on NOW since they were exposed. But that totally glosses over the important questions how LONG they were exposed, whether the currently exposed Vishnu was ever covered by the Tapeats, and whether any buried surfaces ever were exposed to the surface.

Faith, you do realize that you are not making any sense here, right?

As for this picture, I don't care what it is supposed to represent, it's so frustrating to have my observations dismissed out of hand at the moment I don't feel like continuing any of this discussion.

Well, you could try being reasonable...

I have to say that this is the funniest post I've seen in a long time. It does more to destroy YEC than anything we could have written. Please, keep up the good work.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by Faith, posted 03-20-2015 12:20 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 310 of 409 (753449)
03-20-2015 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 308 by Faith
03-20-2015 12:20 AM


You think you can just blithely dispense with my observations with such a flat assertion of the party line?

So it is the evolutionist party line that the Grand Canyon was formed by erosion?

Certainly for VISIBLE surfaces NOW, yes, but millions of years' worth?

Never said anything about millions of years. It could have happened in 5 minutes, but the Grand Canyon was carved by erosion.

Of course, erosion going on NOW since they were exposed.

If it wasn't erosion that exposed them in the first place, what did?

You keep making these flat assertions that prove absolutely nothing. "Certianly had layers on top of it." Well, that's maybe an article of faith for you, but it's a meaningless statement to me,

Is not the Grand Canyon composed of layers? Is not the Tapeats the lowest layer of the Paleozoic group? Wouldn't that mean there were layers on top of it? I fail to see how this is an article of "faith"????

Wow, just declare it done according to your will and it's done.

Notice the question mark? Do you want to continue arguing about that same image?

I no longer see that photo as ambiguous.

So... what is your conclusion?

I don't give in to raw assertions presented as if they were evidence.

So now, stating that the Tapeats had layers above it and that the Grand Canyon was carved out by erosion is a "raw assertion?"

You complain about how others respond to you. Do you ever consider the way you respond? Your post was anything but respectful.

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 308 by Faith, posted 03-20-2015 12:20 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by edge, posted 03-20-2015 12:50 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 507 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 311 of 409 (753450)
03-20-2015 12:46 AM


Both of you guys aren't making any sense, sorry.

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by edge, posted 03-20-2015 12:51 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 314 by herebedragons, posted 03-20-2015 12:59 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 769 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 312 of 409 (753451)
03-20-2015 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 310 by herebedragons
03-20-2015 12:44 AM


Is not the Grand Canyon composed of layers? Is not the Tapeats the lowest layer of the Paleozoic group? Wouldn't that mean there were layers on top of it?

Faith has not grasped that, if the Vishnu was never covered by other sediments, then it has been eroded since even before the Tapeats was deposited. That, of course, contradicts her point that there was no erosion before the entire sedimentary sequence was deposited.

Standard YEC fare, but kind of entertaining in this case. And almost 100% predictable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by herebedragons, posted 03-20-2015 12:44 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 769 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 313 of 409 (753452)
03-20-2015 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 311 by Faith
03-20-2015 12:46 AM


Both of you guys aren't making any sense, sorry.

Heh, heh ...

Ummm, no apologies necessary.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by Faith, posted 03-20-2015 12:46 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 314 of 409 (753453)
03-20-2015 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 311 by Faith
03-20-2015 12:46 AM


I don't even know what to say here...

ABE: Never-mind...

Edited by herebedragons, : pointless to continue


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 311 by Faith, posted 03-20-2015 12:46 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 507 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 315 of 409 (753455)
03-20-2015 1:24 AM


Oh good grief. What utter futility.

HBD, you just blithely dismissed everything that concerned me about that photo, and you do just make assertions that are nothing but reiterations of the OE theory, but if react to that I'm being "disrespectful."

What's your point about the canyon's being formed by erosion?

What on earth does erosion of the Vishnu since the Flood have to do with the millions of years of erosion posited by OE theory? If it was exposed that long sure it was subjected to erosive elements. NEVERTHELESS IN THAT PHOTO it doesn't look particularly eroded, and the clasts appear to have been dislodged by the Tapeats, not by weathering. AT THIS LOCATION. IN THIS PHOTO. Wherever the whole stack of layers from Tapeats to Permian was laid down there is no reason to suppose any of it was ever exposed at the surface.

What utter futility.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-20-2015 2:09 AM Faith has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021