Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9073 total)
66 online now:
AZPaul3, kjsimons (2 members, 64 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,263 Year: 4,375/6,534 Month: 589/900 Week: 113/182 Day: 20/27 Hour: 0/1

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 301 of 1939 (753849)
03-22-2015 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by Faith
03-22-2015 7:15 PM


Re: why can't erosion do it????????????
YOU DID NOT POST ANY PHOTOS OF THE GREAT UNCONFORMITY AT ALL in this recent discussion.

Sure I did. I posted the one of Siccar Point. It's actually a very rough surface, even in two dimensions.

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

Okay, let's put it this way... Why do you care that the unconformity surface is so smooth?

YOU in particular have NOT shown me anything that answers the observation of the level flatness in those pictures I posted.

No. I have shown you tilted rocks below a modern unconformity.

You showed naturally flat surfaces and otherwise completely irrelevant images.

Well, they're all natural. What are you talking about?

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 I recently showed you one exactly the same with no overlying rocks and yet the only explanation is erosion.

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

I suggest you check your references. The metamorphic complex was likely at the root of a mountain range, but the Supergroup, not so much.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 7:15 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 7:38 PM edge has replied

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


(2)
Message 302 of 1939 (753850)
03-22-2015 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 300 by Faith
03-22-2015 7:19 PM


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

Actually, they are relevant to the point that unconformities are not just smooth planar.

ETA: Faith, I detect your level of frustration. But you can fix that. Learn some geology and see how it all comes together. You don't have to shoehorn everything into a young earth and a flood.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 7:19 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 7:40 PM edge has taken no action

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


Message 303 of 1939 (753851)
03-22-2015 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by edge
03-22-2015 7:30 PM


Re: why can't erosion do it????????????
Okay, let's put it this way... Why do you care that the unconformity surface is so smooth?

THAT IS A TOTALLY IRRELEVANT QUESTION. I NOTICED HOW AMAZINGLY STRAIGHT AND LEVEL THEY ARE AND THAT RAISED THE QUESTION HOW A MILLION PLUS YEARS OF EROSION COULD HAVE DONE THAT.

NATURALLY FLAT AND LEVEL. UNLIKE SCHIST AND TILTED STRATA. SHEESH. YOU NEVER READ ANYTHING I WROTE DID YOU?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 7:30 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 7:46 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 304 of 1939 (753852)
03-22-2015 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 302 by edge
03-22-2015 7:32 PM


Re: why can't erosion do it????????????
THE FRUSTRATION COMES FROM PEOPLE NOT READING WHAT I WRITE AND NOT THINKING AND IMPUTING RIDICULOUS NOTIONS TO ME.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 7:32 PM edge has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by Admin, posted 03-23-2015 11:00 AM Faith has taken no action

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


Message 305 of 1939 (753853)
03-22-2015 7:41 PM


Faith, how about you check out my post Message 286 and tell me if it satisfies your demands. Please tell us what formed that surface as shown if not erosion?

Then check out me post Message 281 and tell me that the rocks under the modern erosional surface are not tilted.


Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 7:51 PM edge has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33905
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 306 of 1939 (753854)
03-22-2015 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 300 by Faith
03-22-2015 7:19 PM


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

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 you remember the composition of the layers of the Super Group?

Since they were not subject to metamorphism we can accept that as a fact.

We can also accept that they represent at least two miles of material.

So we can begin with facts.

We can then look at the composition of each layer and develop a knowledge of how they were created.

It's amazing what can be learned when you look at the earth and not some 2000 year old collection of stories.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 7:19 PM Faith has taken no action

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


(1)
Message 307 of 1939 (753855)
03-22-2015 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by Faith
03-22-2015 7:38 PM


Re: why can't erosion do it????????????
THAT IS A TOTALLY IRRELEVANT QUESTION. I NOTICED HOW AMAZINGLY STRAIGHT AND LEVEL THEY ARE AND THAT RAISED THE QUESTION HOW A MILLION PLUS YEARS OF EROSION COULD HAVE DONE THAT.

So you are saying that if it were eroded for millions of year it should look different, maybe rougher?

So, why should that be?

NATURALLY FLAT AND LEVEL. UNLIKE SCHIST AND TILTED STRATA. SHEESH.

So, tilted strata are not natural? Naturally planar and tilted?

ETA: Ah! I think I see now. You are saying that some of these examples are not erosional, but depositional. You know if you weren't so disagreeabe, we might be able to help you with these things.

YOU NEVER READ ANYTHING I WROTE DID YOU?

I try to read everything you write, but it's a lot of work figuring out what you mean. It's not necessary to be angry when someone asks you for clarification.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 7:38 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 7:53 PM edge has taken no action

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


Message 308 of 1939 (753856)
03-22-2015 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 305 by edge
03-22-2015 7:41 PM


edge writes:

Faith, how about you check out my post Message 286 and tell me if it satisfies your demands. Please tell us what formed that surface as shown if not erosion?

-- That's the sort of formation that is often part of an angular unconformity, and if it was then the upper part washed away and the lower part was then exposed to erosion. Otherwise it was formed by erosion, which IS WHY IT IS NOT STRAIGHT AND LEVEL LIKE MY EXAMPLES IN Message 213 ---

Then check out me post Message 281 and tell me that the rocks under the modern erosional surface are not tilted.

---I can't even see that formation in the distance. ---

Edited by Admin, : Add missing quotes. The original style left it very unclear which words were Faith's and which were Edge's. For some reason Faith has put her own words (at least I think they're her words" between dashes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 7:41 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 7:59 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 309 of 1939 (753857)
03-22-2015 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 307 by edge
03-22-2015 7:46 PM


Re: why can't erosion do it????????????
You aren't understanding the simplest most obvious things and I can't stand it any more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 7:46 PM edge has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 342 by Admin, posted 03-23-2015 11:08 AM Faith has taken no action

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


Message 310 of 1939 (753858)
03-22-2015 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by Faith
03-22-2015 7:51 PM


-- That's the sort of formation that is often part of an angular unconformity, and if it was then the upper part washed away and the lower part was then exposed to erosion. Otherwise it was formed by erosion, which IS WHY IT IS NOT STRAIGHT AND LEVEL LIKE MY EXAMPLES IN Message 213 ---

Faith the rock surface is more straight and level than the road in the foreground. You cannot get more 'straight and level'.

But have it your way, Faith.

---I can't even see that formation in the distance. ---

That's why I highlighted them with yellow lines. There is also one in the foregound.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 7:51 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 8:07 PM edge has replied

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


Message 311 of 1939 (753859)
03-22-2015 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 310 by edge
03-22-2015 7:59 PM


I cannot make out the formation in the background.

There is nothing in the foreground but some battered boards of what was probably once a wharf.

No, have it YOUR way about the other picture. Sure, just as straight and level over as long a distance as the contact in the G.U.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 7:59 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 11:12 PM Faith has taken no action

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


Message 312 of 1939 (753867)
03-22-2015 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 311 by Faith
03-22-2015 8:07 PM


I cannot make out the formation in the background.

Zoom in on the yellow highlight line in the upper left and you can see the layering in the outcrops.

In this image, the upper contact is smooth and almost flat. The schist has a near vertical, gray, platy schistosity about parallel to the direction of the roadway.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 8:07 PM Faith has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by Admin, posted 03-23-2015 11:10 AM edge has taken no action

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


Message 313 of 1939 (753869)
03-23-2015 3:33 AM


More G.U. flatness
So. Here's a picture of the V. schist with the Tapeats sitting on it. And there's a narrow ledge in front of the Tapeats, which shows how flat the top of the Vishnu is. Of course to me that flatness couldn't be the result of erosion over some long period of time.

You think that little Colorado river managed to cut the entire canyon through every kind of rock and yet you think erosion would have left a flat surface on top of the Vishnu and even a flat surface that cuts horizontally across the uptilted strata of the Supergroup. Oh well. The geologists must be right.

Now is what I have written here simply incomprehensible?

Will it be argued that it isn't REALLY flat, flatness is a relative term, and there's eroded material piled up on it too so we can't really tell a thing about it? Or will I just be asked, Why do you think that?

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.


  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12792
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 314 of 1939 (753871)
03-23-2015 7:32 AM


Moderator On Duty
This morning will be reading through the hundred or so posts since I last checked in on Saturday, and I'll respond as I read. In many cases I may be noting an issue that has been resolved or is no longer relevant, so please just bear with me.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12792
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 315 of 1939 (753872)
03-23-2015 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by herebedragons
03-21-2015 4:09 PM


Re: Erosion simply CANNOT explain the flat contact line
herebedragons writes:

Faith writes:

And I'd ask the same question about the actual contact line there as well, which can only be seen when the whole context is included in the picture

But it's not flat, that was the point of Message 204 which the only thing you took out of that was the point about quartzite. Go back and read the rest of the post that describes the contact surface.

You refer to Message 204, but that message wasn't making any arguments about non-flatness. It had this image, where all the contact surfaces appear to be flat (also, the angular conformity between the Shinumo Quartzite and the Bright Angel Shale isn't apparent, I assume because from this angle the unconformity is in a frontal rather than side orientation):

And this description from Cambrian History of the Grand Canyon Region uses enough technical terms and unfamiliar references as to be indecipherable to many:

quote:
The principal points are as follows:
1. Weathering of the Archean rocks has extended downward 10 to 12 feet in many places and as far as 50 feet below the surface in some places.
2. Weathering of Algonkian rocks has been slight, presumably because they are composed of minerals that have already survived at least one cycle of weathering.
etc...
etc...

What does it mean where it says that weathering has extended downward 10 to 12 feet? Does that mean that there's a dip in the surface of 10 to 12 feet. Of is that what it's referring to when it uses the term "weathered zone", and that the effects of weathering can be observed to a depth of 10 to 12 feet below the contact surface?

I'm going to try to draw an analogy to the problem faced by those arguing that the Great Unconformity represents an eroded surface. Images like this would seem like undeniable evidence of tilted layers being eroded flat:

I'll draw an analogy to a car accident, where images like this would seem like undeniable evidence of a car accident:

What does one do in response to denials that this image proves there was a collision between two vehicles. Once one overcomes the initial bewilderment at the denial of the apparently obvious, one is forced to draw upon other more technical evidence, say by quoting from the report of an expert analyst: "Analysis of the detritus is consistent with fragmentation caused by a serendipitous confabulation." Huh?

In other words, I think you're making your case very well with all the appropriate images and explanations, but some of the important details may not be getting across.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by herebedragons, posted 03-21-2015 4:09 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by edge, posted 03-23-2015 10:42 AM Admin has seen this message
 Message 339 by herebedragons, posted 03-23-2015 10:55 AM Admin has seen this message

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022