Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9077 total)
642 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, dwise1, nwr, Parasomnium, Percy (Admin) (5 members, 637 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 893,969 Year: 5,081/6,534 Month: 501/794 Week: 127/89 Day: 11/14 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence that the Great Unconformity did not Form Before the Strata above it
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 125 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 226 of 1939 (753693)
03-21-2015 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Faith
03-21-2015 3:19 PM


Re: Erosion simply CANNOT explain the flat contact line
I went back and reread this and I guess I really don't understand your point (I guess you were right, I just didn't think about it )

But in image after image we see the strata above laid down FLAT on these lumpy rocks, so the surface did have to be flattish.

Lumpy rocks had flattish surfaces?

There would be no problem if we were talking about the surface of a mesa or butte or tepui, those are flat because the rock itself is flat or the exposed surface is flat.

So as long as the surface of the rock is flat, then its not a problem for it to be flat?

But on top of lumpy Vishnu or uptilted strata, no.

So the Vishnu and the uplifted strata are lumpy at the surface? Wouldn't that be the unconformity? So you are saying the surface of the Great Unconformity is lumpy but it couldn't be erosion that made it lumpy?

Then there are the cross sections, which are of course schematic, but why would anyone draw such inexorably straight lines if they didn't represent the reality well enough to justify it?

We have looked at these cross sections before and I showed you how layers pinched out or were truncated by other layers. Some layers are missing within the canyon. Some fill depressions and channels in the surface of another layer.

And, one might also ask, why did "erosion" stop where it did at that particular level? Why didn't it just keep on eroding downward, or create this flat surface at some other level?

What kind of question is this? Erosion would stop when there is no longer a differential in height or when deposition begins. Those questions make no sense, especially as a rebuttal to an unconformance being a period of non-deposition.

Besides all this, we don't need to decide HOW any particular surface came to be the way it is yet. What we need to do first is determine if a contact (the Great Unconformity in this case) is consistent with a period of non-deposition.

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 213 by Faith, posted 03-21-2015 3:19 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Faith, posted 03-21-2015 7:51 PM herebedragons has taken no action

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 125 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 227 of 1939 (753694)
03-21-2015 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Faith
03-21-2015 5:22 PM


Re: Erosion simply CANNOT explain the flat contact line
IT SHOULDN"T BE FLAT ANYWHERE! NOT ANYWHERE!

So landscapes exposed to the surface should not be flat like this:

or how about this:

It has monadnock structures just like the ones I have been describing in the Great Unconformity.

So your saying that these areas shouldn't be flat? Not anywhere? Why?

And stop yelling, it is completely unnecessary.

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 224 by Faith, posted 03-21-2015 5:22 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Faith, posted 03-21-2015 6:17 PM herebedragons has replied
 Message 318 by Admin, posted 03-23-2015 8:32 AM herebedragons has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 712 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 228 of 1939 (753697)
03-21-2015 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by herebedragons
03-21-2015 5:50 PM


Re: Erosion simply CANNOT explain the flat contact line
I SAID THAT NATURALLY FLAT ROCK IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE EXCEPTION AND YOU HAVE OFFERED ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE THAT THESE PICTURES ARE THE SURFACE OF ROCK OF THE LUMPY SORT I'M TALKING ABOUT RATHER THAN THE SURFACE OF A LAYER THAT'S NATURALLY FLAT AND SMOOTH LIKE THE KAIBAB PLATEAU OR THE TOP OF A MESA OR TEPUI. FOLLOW THE ARGUMENT!

IN FACT, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATEVER THAT SCHIST OR TILTED STRATA HAS ERODED DOWN TO A FLAT SURFACE ANYWHERE. THE WHOLE IDEA IS A PURELY MENTAL INVENTION.

AND EVEN THE NATURALLY FLAT SURFACES DEVELOP TRENCHES AND LOW SPOTS FROM EROSION.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by herebedragons, posted 03-21-2015 5:50 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by jar, posted 03-21-2015 6:24 PM Faith has taken no action
 Message 232 by herebedragons, posted 03-21-2015 6:40 PM Faith has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 974 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 229 of 1939 (753698)
03-21-2015 6:19 PM


So Faith says there shouldn't be any 'flat' surfaces of deposition...

How about this along the seashore in Sweden. What if we started building a sandy beach over this expanse?

Here is the Imuruk Basin on the Seward Peninsula in Alaska. Pretty flat? Oh, and notice the meander loops...

And here is the top of the Entrada Sandstone on the Uncompahgre Uplift that we've talked about before.

Flat enough yet?

So, tell us once again why we should not have flat surfaces.


Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Faith, posted 03-21-2015 6:22 PM edge has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 712 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 230 of 1939 (753699)
03-21-2015 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by edge
03-21-2015 6:19 PM


Good grief.

So Faith says there shouldn't be any 'flat' surfaces of deposition...

I said no such thing. I said lumpy bumpy spiky or inclined surfaces would not erode flat.

Show me the rock beneath the surface of those pictures and then we'll talk.

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 229 by edge, posted 03-21-2015 6:19 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by edge, posted 03-21-2015 6:47 PM Faith has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 231 of 1939 (753700)
03-21-2015 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Faith
03-21-2015 6:17 PM


Re: Erosion simply CANNOT explain the flat contact line
Shouted nonsense is still nonsense Faith.

If erosion/weathering moves material from high points and deposits it in the low places why would the surface not change from lumpy to smoother?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Faith, posted 03-21-2015 6:17 PM Faith has taken no action

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 125 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 232 of 1939 (753702)
03-21-2015 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Faith
03-21-2015 6:17 PM


Re: Erosion simply CANNOT explain the flat contact line
FOLLOW THE ARGUMENT!

What argument? That erosion can't make surfaces flat? That lumpy, bumpy rock isn't flat? There is no argument, you don't think erosion can make rocks flat. That's not an argument.

You should tell us then, what force of nature could flatten a lumpy bumpy surface into a flattish plane. What force?

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 228 by Faith, posted 03-21-2015 6:17 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Faith, posted 03-21-2015 6:47 PM herebedragons has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 974 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 233 of 1939 (753704)
03-21-2015 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Faith
03-21-2015 6:22 PM


I said no such thing. I said lumpy bumpy spiky or inclined surfaces would not erode flat.

Well, something is eroding flat...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Faith, posted 03-21-2015 6:22 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Faith, posted 03-21-2015 6:49 PM edge has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 712 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 234 of 1939 (753705)
03-21-2015 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by herebedragons
03-21-2015 6:40 PM


Re: Erosion simply CANNOT explain the flat contact line
What argument? That erosion can't make surfaces flat? That lumpy, bumpy rock isn't flat? There is no argument, you don't think erosion can make rocks flat. That's not an argument.

Sure seems like an argument going on here to me. But now you are nitpicking. "FOLLOW THE TRAIN OF THOUGHT" then. Good grief.

You should tell us then, what force of nature could flatten a lumpy bumpy surface into a flattish plane. What force?

That's changing the subject. FIRST ACKNOWLEDGE THE POINT, THAT EROSION CAN'T DO IT.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by herebedragons, posted 03-21-2015 6:40 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by herebedragons, posted 03-21-2015 7:13 PM Faith has replied
 Message 239 by edge, posted 03-21-2015 7:31 PM Faith has replied
 Message 319 by Admin, posted 03-23-2015 8:38 AM Faith has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 712 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 235 of 1939 (753706)
03-21-2015 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by edge
03-21-2015 6:47 PM


Obviously you aren't bothering to follow what I'm saying either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by edge, posted 03-21-2015 6:47 PM edge has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 712 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 236 of 1939 (753713)
03-21-2015 7:10 PM


.

Never mind. I know what you'll say and I don't want to get into that right now.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by Admin, posted 03-23-2015 8:42 AM Faith has taken no action

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 125 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 237 of 1939 (753714)
03-21-2015 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Faith
03-21-2015 6:47 PM


Re: Erosion simply CANNOT explain the flat contact line
FIRST ACKNOWLEDGE THE POINT, THAT EROSION CAN'T DO IT.

I don't think you've made the case that it can't.

But, the thing is that I have no idea what other force could do such a thing. If a surface was all jagged and bumpy and now it is flat... the only thing my limited scientific imagination can come up with is erosion.

If you have a better explanation, that would be a much better argument.

That's changing the subject.

You changed the subject. I was discussing the Great Unconformity and whether it was actually an unconformity or not. If there was continuous deposition and the Great Unconformity does not represent a period of non-deposition, then we need to talk about something other than erosion. We need to talk about how that feature could form during continuous deposition. If that is the case and there was no hiatus in deposition, then I will concede that erosion did not make those surfaces flat.

But, if it does represent a period of non-deposition, then we need to talk about what happened during that non-depositional time... was it erosion or something else?

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 234 by Faith, posted 03-21-2015 6:47 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Faith, posted 03-21-2015 7:30 PM herebedragons has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 712 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 238 of 1939 (753720)
03-21-2015 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by herebedragons
03-21-2015 7:13 PM


Re: Erosion simply CANNOT explain the flat contact line
If there was continuous deposition and the Great Unconformity does not represent a period of non-deposition, then we need to talk about something other than erosion.

Actually we don't have to consider alternatives at all merely to recognize that one line of interpretation is wrong. It first needs to be acknowledged that erosion couldn't accomplish what you all claim it did with the Great Unconformity.

I've given my own interpretation of what might have happened many times, not "during continuous deposition" but after it was all laid down.

But at this point I'm not defending my own interpretation, I'm insisting that the absurdity of the conventional interpretation be recognized.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by herebedragons, posted 03-21-2015 7:13 PM herebedragons has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by edge, posted 03-21-2015 7:33 PM Faith has taken no action

  
edge
Member (Idle past 974 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 239 of 1939 (753722)
03-21-2015 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Faith
03-21-2015 6:47 PM


Re: Erosion simply CANNOT explain the flat contact line
That's changing the subject. FIRST ACKNOWLEDGE THE POINT, THAT EROSION CAN'T DO IT.

I think what you are really saying is that we should acknowledge that 'Faith is correct'. Isn't that right?

I'm trying to follow your argument, but it doesn't make sense. You say that the unconformity is 'flat', even though it isn't.

Then you say that erosion can't create such a surface, even though we show you places where it has.

You don't seem to be doing much other than just requiring that we agree with you before engaging in civil discourse.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Faith, posted 03-21-2015 6:47 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Faith, posted 03-21-2015 7:35 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 974 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 240 of 1939 (753725)
03-21-2015 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Faith
03-21-2015 7:30 PM


Re: Erosion simply CANNOT explain the flat contact line
It first needs to be acknowledged that erosion couldn't accomplish what you all claim it did with the Great Unconformity.

Just to clarify, what do we claim the Great Unconformity did?

But at this point I'm not defending my own interpretation, I'm insisting that the absurdity of the conventional interpretation be recognized.

I'm not sure that you know what the conventional interpretation is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Faith, posted 03-21-2015 7:30 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022