|
QuickSearch
Announcements: | Security Update Released |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 682 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
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:
|
But you have never provided any evidence to this effect.
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 33903 From: Texas!! Joined: Member Rating: 2.8 |
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!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 944 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
No doubt.
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.
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 682 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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 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.
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 944 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
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...
That pretty much sums it up.
I would say that you need to have both, but yes, YECs tend to leave out the big picture.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
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.
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.
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 944 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
That's why I never brought it up before. I knew that you would just disagree.
I am not going to parse definitions with you. 'Planar', 'smooth', 'flat'; whatever you want, Faith.
Okay, then you have a 'damp' detachment.
Okay, then. How about 'it must fit into the young earth' scenario?
Of course it isn't. That wouldn't be agreeable.
Faith, we spent pages debating the presence of shadows in one localized photograph...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 682 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 682 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
That has never happened before. Why even mention it? AND I KNOW PLANAR MEANS SMOOTH. Good GRIEF. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 944 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
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
Good, then you agree that erosion can make a rock terrace that is straight and level, because we have shown them to you.
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 944 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Because now we are going down another rabbit hole of what is flat and what is smooth, etc. ...
Not in the technical sense...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 33903 From: Texas!! Joined: Member Rating: 2.8 |
But you have been shown conclusive evidence of buried valleys and river beds.
That is only true if you ignore all the stuff that is not straight; in other words the actual evidence.
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!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 682 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
YOU DID NOT POST ANY PHOTOS OF THE GREAT UNCONFORMITY AT ALL in this recent discussion.
I'm not explaining things again that were clear enough the first hundred timesl.
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
THERE WAS A MOUNTAIN RANGE ON TOP OF IT!!! Site after site says it was the "root" of a mountain range.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 682 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022