Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 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
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 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 not replied

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

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 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 not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 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 1706 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

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 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

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 271 of 1939 (753806)
03-22-2015 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Faith
03-22-2015 1:20 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.
But it is tilted. Do you know how I can tell? Do you think I would have shown you this picture if I didn't check?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 1:20 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 331 by Admin, posted 03-23-2015 10:27 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 272 of 1939 (753807)
03-22-2015 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Faith
03-22-2015 1:21 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.
The are standing upright, or nearly so.
Or have you just moved the goal posts again. Now the layers have to be vertical?
Are we going to spend the next 3 pages of this thread debating what is 'tilted'?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 1:21 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 274 of 1939 (753809)
03-22-2015 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Faith
03-22-2015 1:33 PM


You've given a series of straw man answers.
How so?
You wanted flat surfaces eroded into dipping strata.
What did I miss?
Nothing but denial and evasion.
What did I deny?
But what on earth could I possibly have expected here anyway? Masters of obfuscation.
Well, one thing we have learned to not expect is civil discourse.
Why not address my images?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 1:33 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 1:48 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 277 of 1939 (753813)
03-22-2015 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Faith
03-22-2015 2:02 PM


Find something like this with a flat horizontal surface without the upper strata:
Like I said, 'flat' is relative to scale. If you look closely at that surface, it's not exactly table-top flat, certainly not more so than some of the pictures I have provided.
Besides, who is saying that unconformities are table-top flat? Besides you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 2:02 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 2:43 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 278 of 1939 (753814)
03-22-2015 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Faith
03-22-2015 1:48 PM


Your last image is of a naturally occurring flat surface as is the other one you posted of a cliff behind a beach. What's the rock?
So you are saying that erosion is not a natural phenomenon?
How do you think those layers (some kind of metasediments) got truncated at the top?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 1:48 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 281 of 1939 (753817)
03-22-2015 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by Faith
03-22-2015 2:43 PM


The problem is that you don't have pictures of tilted strata such as the G.U. has as its base. OR of lumpy rock like schist which is its base in other pictures.
Actually, they are tilted as the yellow highlighted layers show in this picture. The lighter colored bands are the surfaces of bedding planes tilted to the left and reflecting light from that direction.
I'm not concerned about how table-top flat the surface is, it's flat enough in your pictures but they are of the kind of rock that would have a naturally occurring flat upper surface.
Of course they are naturally occurring. What do you mean?
ABE: Strata depositing on top of such a natural flat surface would not create an angular unconformity.
As I have said, I chose all photos to show tilted strata. You can deny that all you want, but it just isn't so. Even in the gently dipping case, the layers show patterns that indicate the layers are not parallel to the weathered surface.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 2:43 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 286 of 1939 (753827)
03-22-2015 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Faith
03-22-2015 3:27 PM


I've given my own scenario a million times already: After ALL the strata had been laid down, tectonic movement at the level of the basement rocks pushed them into folds that were sheared off by abrasion in contact with the upper strata at a point where the resistance of the weight above equaled the force from beneath, leaving the upper block of strata intact.
But you have never provided any evidence to this effect.
The lines I drew on the G.U. in Message 213 suggest to me a horizontal level straightness that erosion could never accomplish, but I've done all I can to argue this point so it's over. Edge never understood it, at least you finally did, but this has been just about the most frustrating and unrewarding discussion I've ever had here and I don't want another one.
I'm not sure what you want. You asked for flat surfaces over tilted strata and you said that my examples were flat enough...
By the way, here is another flat erosional surface in vertically-orientied schist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 3:27 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 288 of 1939 (753831)
03-22-2015 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by jar
03-22-2015 4:16 PM


Re: why can't erosion do it????????????
I don't think anyone understands how you can make such an assertion. Why can't erosion/weathering create a horizontal surface? In fact how could erosion/weathering do anything except move material from high spots to low spots to level surfaces out?
It's kind of confusing. Apparently, she needs a flexural slip folding mechanism to get the detachment of the metamorphics from the Supergroup, from the Paleozoics, from the post-Permian; and that is why she needs perfectly planar surfaces. Otherwise the bedding planes could not slip appropriately. The first problem is that the planes are not smooth, as amply demonstrated in numerous photographs. Unfortunately for Faith, the planes have to be all smooth, or else they may as well be all rough.
So Faith insists that they are all perfectly planar because they have to be; and furthermore, the smoothness cannot be due to erosion because there is no erosion ... by definition. Otherwise, it would be an unconformity.
Basically, the logic is convoluted by a series of ad hoc explanations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by jar, posted 03-22-2015 4:16 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by herebedragons, posted 03-22-2015 5:53 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 291 of 1939 (753837)
03-22-2015 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by herebedragons
03-22-2015 5:53 PM


Re: why can't erosion do it????????????
I'm not sure this is the situation exactly. I am thinking that she is suggesting the the slip - folding is what caused the "perfectly" planar surfaces, rather than erosion. It is not a scenario you can find in any textbook, so it is something I was thinking about drawing up to show why it's not a feasible mechanism.
Well, sure. To the extent that if it happened, one would need to have slip surfaces.
Here is a description of the mechanism.
Fold (geology) - Wikipedia
At least I'm pretty sure that's what she is saying. There is, however, a host of problems with it, starting with the roughness factor of the unconformities. We could go on and on...
I think two major problems come into play (not just with any one person specifically, but with "floodists" in general). A rejection of standard geological explanations - basically, if the explanation involves long periods of time, it must be wrong. And looking at problems piece-meal - geology (and the GC in particular) are huge subjects with multiple lines of reasoning.
That pretty much sums it up.
Basic geology is not particularly difficult (I assume it can be very difficult at levels above what we are doing here) but is rather involved and requires looking at the big picture. When you look at only one piece at a time (like that image so much time was spent arguing about and whether there was ever layers on top of it) it makes it very easy to see things that don't make sense. Geology, as a whole, is a big picture exercise in my opinion.
I would say that you need to have both, but yes, YECs tend to leave out the big picture.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by herebedragons, posted 03-22-2015 5:53 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 293 of 1939 (753839)
03-22-2015 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by Faith
03-22-2015 6:03 PM


Re: why can't erosion do it????????????
I have no idea what a "flexural slip folding mechanism" is.
That's why I never brought it up before. I knew that you would just disagree.
I've also said nothing about surfaces having to be "perfectly planar" and I don't even think it.
I am not going to parse definitions with you. 'Planar', 'smooth', 'flat'; whatever you want, Faith.
Edge has some idea I need a mechanism to DETACH the different formations from each other? Why? It's all very damp in my scenario, all sediments recently deposited in the Flood and though compressed not dry by any means.
Okay, then you have a 'damp' detachment.
I wouldn't say "it must be wrong" although I suppose it amounts to that. I'd say, my job as a Floodist is to come up with a scenario that fits into the young earth.
Okay, then. How about 'it must fit into the young earth' scenario?
Your judgment of what makes sense is not something I'd trust.
Of course it isn't. That wouldn't be agreeable.
And I believe I do look at the big picture. Everybody else is looking at minuscule amounts of erosion between layers in my experience.
Faith, we spent pages debating the presence of shadows in one localized photograph...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 6:03 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 6:25 PM edge has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024