Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence that the Great Unconformity did not Form Before the Strata above it
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 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 not replied
 Message 232 by herebedragons, posted 03-21-2015 6:40 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 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

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 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 not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 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 not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 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 not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 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 not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by edge, posted 03-21-2015 7:33 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 241 of 1939 (753726)
03-21-2015 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by edge
03-21-2015 7:31 PM


Re: Erosion simply CANNOT explain the flat contact line
I think what you are really saying is that we should acknowledge that 'Faith is correct'. Isn't that right?
No.
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.
Look at the pictures for a definition of "flat."
Then you say that erosion can't create such a surface, even though we show you places where it has.
But you haven't. You've shown flat surfaces but without any evidence that they are the sort I've been talking about.
You don't seem to be doing much other than just requiring that we agree with you before engaging in civil discourse.
Well that's not what I'm doing.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by edge, posted 03-21-2015 7:31 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by edge, posted 03-21-2015 7:40 PM Faith has replied
 Message 321 by Admin, posted 03-23-2015 8:52 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 243 of 1939 (753730)
03-21-2015 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by edge
03-21-2015 7:40 PM


Re: Erosion simply CANNOT explain the flat contact line
I can't continue this discussion. This is nonsense. Just TRY to get what I'm saying. Somebody shoot me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by edge, posted 03-21-2015 7:40 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by herebedragons, posted 03-21-2015 8:04 PM Faith has replied
 Message 324 by Admin, posted 03-23-2015 9:05 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 244 of 1939 (753733)
03-21-2015 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by herebedragons
03-21-2015 5:39 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 )
Thank you. I just noticed this. But I can't read the rest. I'm not up to continuing this miserable discussion right now anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by herebedragons, posted 03-21-2015 5:39 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 246 of 1939 (753739)
03-21-2015 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by herebedragons
03-21-2015 8:04 PM


Re: Erosion simply CANNOT explain the flat contact line
The second problem is... how do you know that erosion couldn't do this? You don't think it could. That's not evidence, that's not an valid argument.
YOU DON'T HAVE EVIDENCE EITHER. YOU THINK IT COULD AND THAT'S THAT. HOW DO YOU KNOW EROSION COULD DO THIS? YOU THINK IT COULD. THAT'S NOT EVIDENCE, THAT'S NOT A VALID ARGUMENT.
... You start with the premise that erosion can't reduce a mountain to a plain and then reject the evidence of it in the rock record.
I DO NOT START WITH THIS AS A PREMISE. I LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE AND DRAW MY OWN CONCLUSIONS. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF IT IN THE ROCK RECORD. THERE ARE LUMPY ROCKS WITH FLAT SURFACES. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF HOW THEY GOT THAT WAY. THAT IS ALL MENTAL CONJURING, THEORY, ASSUMPTION...
AAAAAAGH.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by herebedragons, posted 03-21-2015 8:04 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by jar, posted 03-21-2015 8:23 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 248 by herebedragons, posted 03-21-2015 8:51 PM Faith has replied
 Message 257 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 10:56 AM Faith has replied
 Message 325 by Admin, posted 03-23-2015 9:13 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 251 of 1939 (753766)
03-22-2015 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by Dr Adequate
03-21-2015 9:51 PM


Re: Erosion simply CANNOT explain the flat contact line
If you had bothered to read what I wrote you'd know that I was talking about the impossibility of eroding down to flatness tilted surfaces like the angular strata of an angular unconformity and lumpy surfaces like schist and granite, and specifically said I was NOT talking about naturally FLAT surfaces like the Kaibab which is the upper surface of a limestone layer. I SAID THAT IN SO MANY WORDS. Sheesh.
And your second post isn't addressing anything even remotely related to the topic here.
Nobody here reads carefully, nobody thinks.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-21-2015 9:51 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by herebedragons, posted 03-22-2015 8:52 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 258 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 11:09 AM Faith has replied
 Message 326 by Admin, posted 03-23-2015 9:20 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 252 of 1939 (753767)
03-22-2015 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by herebedragons
03-21-2015 8:51 PM


Re: Erosion simply CANNOT explain the flat contact line
No, there is no evidence of how they got that way, it's all fantasy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by herebedragons, posted 03-21-2015 8:51 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by herebedragons, posted 03-22-2015 8:41 AM Faith has replied
 Message 327 by Admin, posted 03-23-2015 9:23 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 259 of 1939 (753790)
03-22-2015 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by herebedragons
03-22-2015 8:41 AM


Evidence would be a block of uptilted strata or a big lumpy rock of schist with a horizontal flat tabletop surface without strata or anything else on it. I've looked at the posts ahead of this and nothing of the sort has been offered. It doesn't exist. And some of you all aren't getting what I mean yet either.
I refer you back to Message 213 for examples of the horizontal flatness of the lower part of the Great Unconformity on which the upper strata were deposited.
If the theory that such a formation eroded flat before further deposition on top of it was true, it should exist somewhere even now. (that is, a horizontal flat tabletop surface without strata or anything else on it.) It doesn't because it's impossible. Something else explains those flat contacts we see in the Great Unconformity.
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.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by herebedragons, posted 03-22-2015 8:41 AM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 1:06 PM Faith has replied
 Message 283 by herebedragons, posted 03-22-2015 3:13 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 260 of 1939 (753791)
03-22-2015 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by edge
03-22-2015 10:56 AM


Re: Erosion simply CANNOT explain the flat contact line
Okay, Faith, I''m trying to determine if you think this is a lumpy surface or a flat surface, and why you think there is no evidence of how it got that way.
That's Siccar Point. It has both upper and lower strata. What I'm saying is that the lower were not eroded flat before the upper were deposited on it. To prove that's possible you need to find uptilted strata somewhere that have been eroded flat but without anything deposited on it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 10:56 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 12:59 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 263 of 1939 (753797)
03-22-2015 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by edge
03-22-2015 11:09 AM


Re: Erosion simply CANNOT explain the flat contact line
I'm not sure who was saying that they are 'flat' surfaces.
You do understand that 'flat' is a term relative to scale. Is that your problem?
I gave some references to what I mean by flatness in Message 213 and I used expressions that suggest RELATIVE flatness too, even though the contact lines shown are really quite flat and horizontal, as you will find throughout the Grand Canyon where the Great Unconformity is visible. Some may have vislble or invisible irregularities such as the occasional monadnock or but they are still remarkably flat. This flatness is what I'm saying is impossible to create by erosion.
To prove me wrong you need to find a lumpy rock such as schist or inclined or folded strata with a very flat horizontal surface. Then we'll know it's possible for erosion to create such a surface on the top of such a base.
and specifically said I was NOT talking about naturally FLAT surfaces like the Kaibab which is the upper surface of a limestone layer. I SAID THAT IN SO MANY WORDS. Sheesh.
IIRC, though, it was you who showed us such surfaces in a series of pictures showing how 'flat' layers can be
I did not post pictures of NATURALLY FLAT surfaces, I merely described them as the surface of layers such as the Kaibab Plateau, which is a very extensive limestone layer, the tops of mesas or buttes or the tepui which are also the surface of layers that are naturally flat and have no lumpiness or spikiness such as schist has or uptilted strata has. The pictures everybody else keeps bringing out to supposedly refute me are of such surfaces that are not what I'm talking about.
The Great Unconformity doesn't build on THAT kind of surface, it builds on a lumpy bumpy spiky surface that has been reduced to horizontal flatness, that you all say was eroded down to that condition before the upper strata were deposited, and I'm saying it couldn't have been
No. The challenge is to find such a horizontal flat surface, an originally lumpy bumpy spiky surface eroded to flatness, that began as a block of uptilted strata or a block of lumpy Vishnu schist or granite. It is upon that kind of surface that the strata are built in the Great Unconformity exposures, of which I posted examples in Message 213.
HBD in Message 245 posted Percy's diagram that gives the conventional interpretation of tilted strata being eroded flat:
You're saying that erosion could not have caused this process.
That is correct: I am saying that EROSION COULD NOT CAUSE THIS PROCESS and the evidence is that you will not be able to find such a lumpy spiky rock that has been eroded to flatness which is what you think existed before the upper strata in the G.U. were deposited. It didn't exist. It's impossible There has to be some other explanation for the straight horizontal flatness we see at the G.U. contact line.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 11:09 AM edge has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024