Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
47 online now:
dwise1, jar, Tangle, Theodoric (4 members, 43 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,252 Year: 4,364/6,534 Month: 578/900 Week: 102/182 Day: 9/27 Hour: 1/1

Announcements: Security Update Released


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 944 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 taken no action

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33903
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 287 of 1939 (753829)
03-22-2015 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Faith
03-22-2015 3:27 PM


why can't erosion do it????????????
Faith writes:

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.

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?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 3:27 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 5:14 PM jar has seen this message
 Message 294 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 6:24 PM jar has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 944 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

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

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 95 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 289 of 1939 (753834)
03-22-2015 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by edge
03-22-2015 5:14 PM


Re: why can't erosion do it????????????
It's kind of confusing.

No doubt.

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.

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.

Basically, the logic is convoluted by a series of ad hoc explanations.

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. 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.

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 288 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 5:14 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 6:03 PM herebedragons has taken no action
 Message 291 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 6:10 PM herebedragons has taken no action
 Message 334 by Admin, posted 03-23-2015 10:41 AM herebedragons has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 682 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 290 of 1939 (753836)
03-22-2015 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by herebedragons
03-22-2015 5:53 PM


Re: why can't erosion do it????????????
I have no idea what a "flexural slip folding mechanism" is.

I've also said nothing about surfaces having to be "perfectly planar" and I don't even think it.

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.

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. -

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.

And looking at problems piece-meal - geology (and the GC in particular) are huge subjects with multiple lines of reasoning. 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.

Your judgment of what makes sense is not something I'd trust.

And I believe I do look at the big picture. Everybody else is looking at minuscule amounts of erosion between layers in my experience.

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 289 by herebedragons, posted 03-22-2015 5:53 PM herebedragons has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 6:16 PM Faith has replied
 Message 336 by Admin, posted 03-23-2015 10:44 AM Faith has taken no action

  
edge
Member (Idle past 944 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/.../Fold_%28geology%29#Flexural_slip

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 taken no action

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 95 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 292 of 1939 (753838)
03-22-2015 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by Faith
03-22-2015 3:04 PM


The other pictures are pretty good, except the first one and that farm,

Odd, the first one was my favorite example. Are you looking at the ridge in the background? It is very Grand Canyon - like. I the farm (actually a church, but whatever) picture, you can't actually see the strata from the side view, but it should be clear they are practically vertical.

but I would guess they were all once angular unconformities and not just eroded tilted strata.

Now why would you guess that? If you are saying what I think you are saying, you are still right that erosion can't flatten tilted strata but these were flattened by another process, buried and then unburied. Now they look like eroded tilted strata but really aren't.

However, you came up with some examples so you win.

Worse concession speech ever.

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 282 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 3:04 PM Faith has taken no action

  
edge
Member (Idle past 944 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

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 682 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 294 of 1939 (753840)
03-22-2015 6:24 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?

Because erosion tends to CUT INTO horizontal surfaces, making fissures, trenches, riverbeds and so on. Also the strata are of different kinds of material. Some is hard and resistant to weathering, and it's all on an incline and water runs off inclines. And then eroded material would collect and make bumpiness. However, given millions of years of course ...

Again, the G.U. contact line is REMARKABLY straight and level in all those photos I posted. NOBODY said "perfect," the standard I'm using is right there in the pictures: THAT is straight and level.

A question though: if this Supergroup was the root of a mountain range a LOOOONG time ago, with that enormous weight over it for millions of years, why is it sedimentary rather than metamorphic rock:?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by jar, posted 03-22-2015 4:16 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 6:44 PM Faith has replied
 Message 298 by jar, posted 03-22-2015 7:00 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 682 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 295 of 1939 (753841)
03-22-2015 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by edge
03-22-2015 6:16 PM


Re: why can't erosion do it????????????
Faith, we spent pages debating the presence of shadows in one localized photograph...

That has never happened before. Why even mention it?

AND I KNOW PLANAR MEANS SMOOTH. Good GRIEF.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 6:16 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 6:46 PM Faith has taken no action

  
edge
Member (Idle past 944 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 296 of 1939 (753842)
03-22-2015 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by Faith
03-22-2015 6:24 PM


Re: why can't erosion do it????????????
Again, the G.U. contact line is REMARKABLY straight and level in all those photos I posted.

And in all of the photos we posted, it was not so straight and level.

But certainly you have a point here. What is it? Why do you insist on

NOBODY said "perfect," the standard I'm using is right there in the pictures: THAT is straight and level.

Good, then you agree that erosion can make a rock terrace that is straight and level, because we have shown them to you.

A question though: if this Supergroup was the root of a mountain range a LOOOONG time ago, with that enormous weight over it for millions of years, why is it sedimentary rather than metamorphic rock:?

Who said it was the 'roots' of a mountain range?

And how much weight was there? Remember, the Paleozoic section was not on top of it until it had been eroded.

Metamorphic grade is dependent upon geothermal gradient It is entirely possible to have low gradients and preserve the original mineralogy and textures to very deep regions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 6:24 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 7:15 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 944 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 297 of 1939 (753843)
03-22-2015 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by Faith
03-22-2015 6:25 PM


Re: why can't erosion do it????????????
That has never happened before. Why even mention it?

Because now we are going down another rabbit hole of what is flat and what is smooth, etc. ...

AND I KNOW PLANAR MEANS SMOOTH. Good GRIEF.

Not in the technical sense...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 6:25 PM Faith has taken no action

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33903
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 298 of 1939 (753844)
03-22-2015 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by Faith
03-22-2015 6:24 PM


Re: why can't erosion do it????????????
Faith writes:

Because erosion tends to CUT INTO horizontal surfaces, making fissures, trenches, riverbeds and so on. Also the strata are of different kinds of material. Some is hard and resistant to weathering, and it's all on an incline and water runs off inclines. And then eroded material would collect and make bumpiness. However, given millions of years of course ...

But you have been shown conclusive evidence of buried valleys and river beds.

Faith writes:

Again, the G.U. contact line is REMARKABLY straight and level in all those photos I posted. NOBODY said "perfect," the standard I'm using is right there in the pictures: THAT is straight and level.

That is only true if you ignore all the stuff that is not straight; in other words the actual evidence.

Faith writes:

A question though: if this Supergroup was the root of a mountain range a LOOOONG time ago, with that enormous weight over it for millions of years, why is it sedimentary rather than metamorphic rock:?

If you had paid attention to what folk have been telling you the Super Group was never the root of a mountain but rather the surface. That is why so much of it got worn away; in fact the Great Unconformity is direct evidence that it was at the surface and then eroded away before the Tapeats Sandstone was laid down..


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 6:24 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 7:19 PM jar has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 682 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 299 of 1939 (753847)
03-22-2015 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by edge
03-22-2015 6:44 PM


Re: why can't erosion do it????????????
Again, the G.U. contact line is REMARKABLY straight and level in all those photos I posted.

And in all of the photos we posted, it was not so straight and level.

YOU DID NOT POST ANY PHOTOS OF THE GREAT UNCONFORMITY AT ALL in this recent discussion.

But certainly you have a point here. What is it? Why do you insist on it.

I'm not explaining things again that were clear enough the first hundred timesl.

NOBODY said "perfect," the standard I'm using is right there in the pictures: THAT is straight and level.

Good, then you agree that erosion can make a rock terrace that is straight and level, because we have shown them to you.

YOU in particular have NOT shown me anything that answers the observation of the level flatness in those pictures I posted. You showed naturally flat surfaces and otherwise completely irrelevant images.

And although HBD posted some that sort of qualify, none of them is as horizontal and straight as the examples I gave in Message 213

And how much weight was there? Remember, the Paleozoic section was not on top of it until it had been eroded.

THERE WAS A MOUNTAIN RANGE ON TOP OF IT!!! Site after site says it was the "root" of a mountain range.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 6:44 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 7:30 PM Faith has replied
 Message 337 by Admin, posted 03-23-2015 10:50 AM Faith has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 682 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 300 of 1939 (753848)
03-22-2015 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by jar
03-22-2015 7:00 PM


Re: why can't erosion do it????????????
BURIED VALLEYS AND RIVERBEDS ARE TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. You have obviously not grasped the point.

ALL THE INTERNET DISCUSSIONS OF THE SUPERGROUP DESCRIBE IT AS THE ROOT OF A MOUNTAIN RANGE.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by jar, posted 03-22-2015 7:00 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 7:32 PM Faith has replied
 Message 306 by jar, posted 03-22-2015 7:42 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