Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
72 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 68 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,321 Year: 4,433/6,534 Month: 647/900 Week: 171/182 Day: 4/47 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
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 684 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 684 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

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 684 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 684 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

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 684 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

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 684 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.


  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 684 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 345 of 1939 (753949)
03-23-2015 3:00 PM


G U too flat to be eroded: images
Googled "erosion" to get some images to explain why I think years of erosion would never produce a flat surface. None of these address the situation at the contact of the Great Unconformity with its lumpy schist or tilted strata base, but it clearly has severe enough effects on flatter surfaces. And if you did get a flattish surface from the erosion of those very bumpy surfaces, the sort of thing shown in the pictures should be expected to happen at that point to that flatter surface.

However, the Great Unconformity contact is amazingly straight and level, flat and horizontal, much more so than the surfaces in any of the pictures put up by HBD and edge recently. Go to my Message 213 and Message 313 to see what I mean.

{Also note that in 213 that I did say which kind of surfaces are already flat or "depositional" surfaces as edge prefers I call them: I mentioned the Kaibab plateau and the tops of buttes, mesas, tepui. To make it clear the problem is not with those but with the very irregular kind of rock that is clearly very flat at the G.U. in the pictures I posted. }


Replies to this message:
 Message 346 by jar, posted 03-23-2015 3:11 PM Faith has replied
 Message 347 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-23-2015 3:14 PM Faith has taken no action
 Message 354 by dwise1, posted 03-23-2015 4:41 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 684 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 348 of 1939 (753953)
03-23-2015 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 346 by jar
03-23-2015 3:11 PM


Re: G U too flat to be eroded: images
The processes that cut into the land aren't going to stop when a given trench has been filled with sediment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by jar, posted 03-23-2015 3:11 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-23-2015 3:50 PM Faith has taken no action
 Message 350 by jar, posted 03-23-2015 4:07 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 684 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 351 of 1939 (753969)
03-23-2015 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 350 by jar
03-23-2015 4:07 PM


Re: G U too flat to be eroded: images
"Flatter" is not as remarkably flat as the GU in the images I posted in 213 and 313. And again, get your surface as flat as you can, does the rain stop? Does the wind stop? If not they are going to continue to cut into the surface and unsettle its flatness.

ABE: And didn't any tectonic events occur to raise the land either?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by jar, posted 03-23-2015 4:07 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 353 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-23-2015 4:38 PM Faith has replied
 Message 356 by jar, posted 03-23-2015 4:42 PM Faith has replied
 Message 361 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-23-2015 4:54 PM Faith has replied
 Message 368 by edge, posted 03-23-2015 5:44 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 684 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 355 of 1939 (753978)
03-23-2015 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 352 by Dr Adequate
03-23-2015 4:36 PM


irrelevant, Dr. A because I drew those blocks to show what I thought they were like originally, but they have supposedly been "eroded" to their current horizontal flatness, which can be seen on the standard cross sections and in the messages I keep referencing: 213 and 313,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-23-2015 4:36 PM Dr Adequate has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 684 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 357 of 1939 (753980)
03-23-2015 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 354 by dwise1
03-23-2015 4:41 PM


Re: G U too flat to be eroded: images
Far as I know images of how rock erodes aren't available.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by dwise1, posted 03-23-2015 4:41 PM dwise1 has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 360 by jar, posted 03-23-2015 4:51 PM Faith has replied
 Message 362 by edge, posted 03-23-2015 4:57 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 684 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 358 of 1939 (753981)
03-23-2015 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 356 by jar
03-23-2015 4:42 PM


Re: G U too flat to be eroded: images
You are never going to get such perfect flatness that there won't be some differences in elevation to get erosion started, even if only inches.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by jar, posted 03-23-2015 4:42 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 364 by jar, posted 03-23-2015 4:59 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 684 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 359 of 1939 (753982)
03-23-2015 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 353 by ThinAirDesigns
03-23-2015 4:38 PM


Re: G U too flat to be eroded: images
Don't see any cracks in those G.U. contacts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-23-2015 4:38 PM ThinAirDesigns has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 684 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 363 of 1939 (753989)
03-23-2015 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 361 by ThinAirDesigns
03-23-2015 4:54 PM


Re: G U too flat to be eroded: images
So you think the basement rocks of the G.U. were once like the Great Salt Lake? And all that schist and/or tilted strata was buried beneath the surface?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-23-2015 4:54 PM ThinAirDesigns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 365 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-23-2015 5:02 PM Faith has taken no action
 Message 366 by edge, posted 03-23-2015 5:15 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 684 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 371 of 1939 (754023)
03-23-2015 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 360 by jar
03-23-2015 4:51 PM


Re: G U too flat to be eroded: images
more pictures of rock eroding

Let me know when it's eroded down to a surface as level and straight as those I've illustrated of the G.U.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by jar, posted 03-23-2015 4:51 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 373 by jar, posted 03-23-2015 10:27 PM Faith 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