Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
539 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK, ringo, Taq (4 members, 535 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,027 Year: 5,139/6,534 Month: 559/794 Week: 50/135 Day: 2/25 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
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 256 of 1939 (753779)
03-22-2015 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by herebedragons
03-22-2015 8:52 AM


Re: Erosion simply CANNOT explain the flat contact line
Faith has even been shown the evidence of whole river valley systems that were filled in and covered over to create flat plains (since I happen to live in one) yet just responds with denial.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by herebedragons, posted 03-22-2015 8:52 AM herebedragons has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 1:25 PM jar has taken no action

  
edge
Member (Idle past 977 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 257 of 1939 (753786)
03-22-2015 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by Faith
03-21-2015 8:15 PM


Re: Erosion simply CANNOT explain the flat contact line
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.

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.

If it is lumpy, how did it get to be that way? I am confused by your line of questioning. It seems you say unconformities are flat when everyone else shows that are not necessariy so. Then you say that erosion cannot form flat surfaces when, demonstrably, it can; but we are not saying that it always does.

What is your point? What is your evidence that the Great Unconformity is not erosional (and therefor, NOT an unconformity). All I can see you doing right now is denying our evidence, but providing none of your own. You seem to be only capable of disagreeing in order to be disagreeable.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Faith, posted 03-21-2015 8:15 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 12:44 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 977 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 258 of 1939 (753787)
03-22-2015 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Faith
03-22-2015 12:38 AM


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, ...

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?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 12:38 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 1:10 PM edge has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 715 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 715 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 taken no action

  
edge
Member (Idle past 977 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 261 of 1939 (753794)
03-22-2015 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Faith
03-22-2015 12:44 PM


Re: Erosion simply CANNOT explain the flat contact line
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.

Well, that's pretty obvious from the picture. The point is that this surface is demonstrably caused by erosion.

To prove that's possible you need to find uptilted strata somewhere that have been eroded flat but without anything deposited on it.

Why would I need to do that? It's your point, not mine.

I'm not the one saying that the Great Unconformity is 'flat'.

Nevertheless, it does happen. Of course I'm not sure what you would accept as 'flat', so I'm still reluctant to provide what you want.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 12:44 PM Faith has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by Admin, posted 03-23-2015 9:32 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 977 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 262 of 1939 (753796)
03-22-2015 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by Faith
03-22-2015 12:33 PM


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.

So, which is it? You want 'lumpy' or 'tabetop flat'?

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.

Actually, it does. Remember when I told you that there are more things out there than you can imagine?

But once again, why do we need a 'flat' erosional surface?

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.

But we have shown you that the surface is not uniformly flat. Are you talking about small areas?

If the theory that such a formation eroded flat before further deposition on top of it was true, it should exist somewhere even now.

But the theory does not say that.

But, as I have said, it does happen. What is your point?

... (that is, a horizontal flat tabletop surface without strata or anything else on it.)

But you have been shown such surfaces.

It doesn't because it's impossible. Something else explains those flat contacts we see in the Great Unconformity.

Sure, previously flat lying surfaces will erode to modern flat lying surfaces.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 12:33 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 1:12 PM edge has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 715 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 taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 715 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 264 of 1939 (753798)
03-22-2015 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by edge
03-22-2015 1:06 PM


Again you are talking about NATURALLY flat surfaces, not uptilted strata and lumpy rocks that have been ERODED to flatness. The former of course exist, the latter do not exist.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 1:06 PM edge has taken no action

  
edge
Member (Idle past 977 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 265 of 1939 (753800)
03-22-2015 1:14 PM


How about this photo taken of a wave cut bench in South Wales?

I know what you are going to say, "the rocks are flat-lying." But they aren't. On the bench, they are tilted to the right and there is no reason to suspect that if the section were tilted more steeply that the topography would be much different.

Or is it not 'flat' enough for you?


Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 1:20 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 977 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 266 of 1939 (753801)
03-22-2015 1:19 PM


Here is another one from Sunset Bay in Oregon. You can see that the strata are steeply dipping in the distance but eroded flat in the foreground.

Again, probably not 'flat enough' for Faith...


Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 1:21 PM edge has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 715 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 267 of 1939 (753802)
03-22-2015 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by edge
03-22-2015 1:14 PM


Oh good grief. Why is this so difficul?. It wouldn't erode flat if it was tilted, but even if it was tilted it would be nothing like tilted STRATA.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 1:14 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 1:28 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 715 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 268 of 1939 (753803)
03-22-2015 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by edge
03-22-2015 1:19 PM


Stand them upright or on a tilt and see if they'll erode flat on the top the way the tilted strata at the base of the G.U. have flat surfaces.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 1:19 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 1:32 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 715 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 269 of 1939 (753804)
03-22-2015 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by jar
03-22-2015 9:06 AM


Re: Erosion simply CANNOT explain the flat contact line
Your example is ludicrously irrelevant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by jar, posted 03-22-2015 9:06 AM jar has taken no action

  
edge
Member (Idle past 977 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 270 of 1939 (753805)
03-22-2015 1:26 PM


And just to beat a dead horse to its atomic components:

This one is especially interesting to me because it has two generations of wave cut terraces: the large one with the lighthouse on it, and several more recent ones down at the wave line; all indicating uplift of the shoreline at this location near Singley Creek in California.


Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 1:33 PM edge has replied
 Message 330 by Admin, posted 03-23-2015 10:25 AM edge has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022