|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,916 Year: 4,173/9,624 Month: 1,044/974 Week: 3/368 Day: 3/11 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence that the Great Unconformity did not Form Before the Strata above it | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
But that doesn't change the fact that none of the pictures show a surface as level and straight as those of the G.U. in the pictures I posted. The surface in the picture in the post that you replied to is as level and straight as those of the G.U. in the pictures you posted. Why are you saying that that they are different? Is it because the slope, i.e. the increase in height over the increase in width, is different in the images? Is it possible that you are comparing different scales of height/distance, and that is causing you to misapprehend how "level" these surfaces are?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Your picture doesn't look anything like the Siccar Point picture, what is it you want me to see there?
I want you to see something different. I want you to explain the photographe. I want an alternative to erossion as the origin of the unconformity surface. No luck so far.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Yes, that's what it looks like to me.
Even though it doesn't look like that to anyone else...
But other evidence is the straightness of the upper strata too, showing no signs of having had to conform to irregularities in the lower section, as I already mentioned.
Yes, sometimes that happens So what? You have been given explanations, which you summarily ignored. You heave also been give examples of flat unconformities. So, what is your point?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Wet sediments seek the horizontal. If it's a very long incline they will nevertheless butt into it eventually. I can't read the legend at the bottom of the cross section but ABE: Don't know what I was thinking. I'd found some time ago that the distance from the Grand Canyon to the north end of the Grand Staircase was about two hundred miles. I just checked Google and the distance from the GC to Cedar Breaks at the N end of the GS is only 113 miles. SO the mound is a little less than half that distance, call it fifty miles, rising from 1000 to 9000 feet or 8000 feet, making a rise of 160 feet in one mile. Even that's not much but still enough for three fifty-foot layers to butt into it in one mile. /ABE I honestly don't know. So out of curiosity, from this spacestation image:
Where do you put the end of what you have called the GU? Can you download that image and put a mark on it where the end is? (I realize that's a lot of work to ask of you, but I think it'll help clear up the communication)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
I started out this discussion with some pictures noting what look to me to be amazingly level (horizontal) straight (flat but nothing's perfect) contact lines at various locations of the Great Unconformity. (except the third picture does seem to be a rogue that got in there by mistake: I think it is an unconformity, however, but from some place in South America).
A lot of things seem to be amazing to you...
So I start with that impression from those pictures in Message 213 and Message 313. Some dispute that they are as straight and level as I claim but the lines are there to show it so the objections make no sense.
So, some unconformities are 'straight and level', while some are not. What's the problem? You have been given examples of both. Do you have a point?
Anyway, the challenge was to show that erosion alone could produce such remarkably level and flat surfaces on top of distorted strata or lumpy hard rocks like schist.
And that has been done...
Many NEAR- level surfaces were shown, but none as level and flat as those in my pictures IMHO. Nobody's succeeded at that, and Dr. A's doesn't either, IMHO.
There is nothing humble about your opinions. On the other hand, you have not addressed the instances of flat and level erosional surfaces.
I wouldn't say that layers NEVER deposit unevenly, I'm only saying that's not the case in my pictures, and the ones of very uneven examples of the G.U. had to have been disturbed after deposition IMHO, could not have been deposited that way.
Sure, you have cherry-picked selected cases and said that they are the rule and exceptions have been altered.
I hope this is clearer.
What is clear is not what you think.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
I thought that's what Percy wanted me to indicate: to explain the unevenness of the lower section as the result of erosion after the deposition of the above section. I'm sure you are still free to offer a different interpretation.
I have offered a different interpretation. The lines represent a modern unconformity.
The only debris I see is in what I called the eroded zone above the lower section, which I outlined in blue; is that what you are referring to? In the lower section I yellow-lined evidence of recent erosion since exposure.
No. However, it doesn't matter, the material is still derived from the lower section.
But I HAVE answered this. They ARE tremendously weathered, judging by their being mere splinters, mere "shadows of their former selves" as I put it.
Pure nonsense. The bedding planes in view are intact. And yet the 'level' plane that you surmise is completely eradicated. You have not explained.
The upright strata below offer exposed upper ends to the weather, explaining their unevenness, and unevenness seen at many levels too, as I marked in yellow; but straight flat strata would remain straight, just be reduced to such skeletal remains as seen. This is how I've interpreted the difference more than once already.
But, you said that the unconformity surface has changed... Please explain... This does not answer my question if the unconformity surface has changed so dramatically since Hutton described the location, why is the uppermost bedding plane intact and unchanged? I can see a clear, long bedding plane in the photograph. I outlined it on a previous schematic. Do you deny this? Please answer this question.
The amazing thing is that there are so many examples of remarkable levelness and straightness of the G.U.
And? There are also many examples of irregular unconformity surfaces. You have been shown some of them.
There must be others, with monadnocks for instance, where they were originally irregular, and YET EVEN THERE THE OVERALL IMPRESSION IS OF A REMARKABLE LEVELNESS AND STRAIGHTNESS MERELY INTERRUPTED HERE AND THERE BY SUCH IRREGULARITIES.
So, you are saying that, since some unconformity surfaces are planar and level, that they must have all been so at one time? Just,... wow ... Another example of YEC all-or-nothing -ness. You are clearly delusional.
I don't see anything I've said or shown on the picture that contradicts that description. The surface of the unconformity is now shown only in the uneven upper broken ends of the strata of the lower section.
Yes, and there is no reason to believe that they have never been anything else.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I quoted amply for him to get the context.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
This does not answer my question if the unconformity surface has changed so dramatically since Hutton described the location, why is the uppermost bedding plane intact and unchanged? I can see a clear, long bedding plane in the photograph. I outlined it on a previous schematic. Do you deny this? BECAUSE IT IS HORIZONTAL. As I said already.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
BECAUSE IT IS HORIZONTAL. As I said already.
But that plane is almost exactly parallel to the unconformity. Why would it weather differently from the unconformity? In fact, it should weather more severely since it is more exposed. Please explain. And, actually, I don't see anything that is horizontal. Why would that make a difference? Edited by edge, : No reason given. Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
But that plane is almost exactly parallel to the unconformity. Why would it weather differently from the unconformity? In fact, it should weather more severely since it is more exposed. Because the surface of the unconformity is vertical strata and that upper surface is horizontal. The vertical ends of the strata would be more vulnerable to severe weather, being easily broken when thinned down. That's why there are so many stumps of the upright lower strata. The upper strata are severely weathered nevertheless as I noted, but being horizontal the weather batters against it but doesn't break it as easily. There must be a simple principle of physics that explains this: The horizontal gives less resistance to the weather than the vertical? The vertical has more exposed surfaces? Would you be more or less stable standing up or lying down in a gale? No it isn't horizontal any more, it's on a slant, but it still presents more of a flat surface to the weather than the upright strata do. Would a picket fence do better in a gale or a flat deck? Is there a reason airplanes have horizontal flat wings or would they do OK if they were vertical? Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I want you to see something different. I want you to explain the photographe. I want an alternative to erossion as the origin of the unconformity surface. Abrasion between upper and lower sections as already explained somewhere back there. ABE: Message 416 about 2/3 of the way down. ABE: And here I should add that I'm not answering parts of your posts because I don't get what you are saying. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Because the surface of the unconformity is vertical strata and that upper surface is horizontal.
Hunh? The unconformity is horizontal... at least in my universe.
The vertical ends of the strata would be more vulnerable to severe weather, being easily broken when thinned down.
But they are not exposed. They are covered by the upper strata...
That's why there are so many stumps of the upright lower strata.
That was when they were exposed to weathering during Cambrian time.
The upper strata are severely weathered nevertheless as I noted, but being horizontal the weather batters against it but doesn't break it as easily. There must be a simple principle of physics that explains this:
Stop the insanity. The horizontal gives less resistance to the weather than the vertical? The vertical has more exposed surfaces? Would you be more or less stable standing up or lying down in a gale? No it isn't horizontal any more, it's on a slant, but it still presents more of a flat surface to the weather than the upright strata do. Would a picket fence do better in a gale or a flat deck? Is there a reason airplanes have horizontal flat wings or would they do OK if they were vertical? Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Abrasion between upper and lower sections as already explained somewhere back there.
Except that there should be evidence of abrasion. Why is there evidence of cross-bedding?
ABE: Message 416 about 2/3 of the way down.
You are not kidding... ABE: And here I should add that I'm not answering parts of your posts because I don't get what you are saying. Edited by edge, : No reason given. Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
But they ARE exposed, as Percy just got me to clarify.
But hey, so much for civil discourse.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024