Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


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 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 417 of 1939 (754111)
03-24-2015 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 416 by Faith
03-24-2015 1:20 PM


They are sandstone strata aren't they? Have you ever seen sandstone deposited in such a fragmented splintery condition?
As I have said before ... I have seen things out there that you can not even imagine. The answer is yes.
As for the rest of your post and previous posts, they are pretty much self-serving, fantastic, unconstrained nonsense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 416 by Faith, posted 03-24-2015 1:20 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 419 by Faith, posted 03-24-2015 2:01 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 447 of 1939 (754234)
03-25-2015 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 436 by Faith
03-24-2015 4:25 PM


I realized there are eroded stumps of the strata of the lower section that should be highlighted too so I marked them on another version of the photo:
The extra lines are irrelevant. They are drawn on the modern unconformity not the ancient one.
Yes, the lower strata are eroded and weathered with the detritus falling into low spots on the unconformity surface. That debris is considered part of the overlying sequence of rocks.
Now a couple of my questions that have been completely ignored.
1.) Why are the bedding planes in the uppermost layers in the photograph not similarly roughened by the same process that has made the unconformity rougher (according to Faith). Demonstrably, they should have been exposed to more severe weathering than the unconformity itself. And yet, there they are just as straight as when Hutton first described them. Please explain.
2.) If the Great Unconformity was smooth and then made rough by some unrevealed process, what about other unconformities? Are they likewise always smooth when formed? If they are different, why so?
After seeing this photo Message 436, I'm beginning to agree that Faith still does not understand that the unconformity is a surface of no thickness that it extends as a 'sheet' into the layers of rock and is exposed more and more as erosion of the upper layers occurs.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 436 by Faith, posted 03-24-2015 4:25 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 449 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-25-2015 12:28 PM edge has not replied
 Message 460 by Faith, posted 03-25-2015 6:21 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 448 of 1939 (754238)
03-25-2015 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 446 by Admin
03-25-2015 9:38 AM


Re: Faith, Meet Faith
I'm not replying to Faith, just clarifying. Faith's point here is that erosion cannot produce flat landscapes upon which sediments could be deposited to form the layers we find in the geological record.
This despite the fact that we have shown numerous examples of flat rock surfaces which could be subsequently buried by younger sediments.
On the other hand, this just seems like another YEC all-or-nothing proposition that if some surfaces are flat, all of them must be flat. And if they are not flat now, they must have been flat in the past.
At the same time, no one here is arguing that extremely rough surfaces do not exist. Certainly, there are some irregular unconformities and some 'flat' unconformities.
As Faith has shown, erosion can form very irregular surfaces, and certainly, irregular erosional unconformities occur in the geological record. But what's weird is that she denies this. Buried valleys and irregular surfaces such as at Siccar Point simply do not exist (except that now they do because of some unspecified and undescribed recent process that only seems to happen to unconfomities and not bedding planes).
At the same time, we have actually proposed several mechanisms for producing 'somewhat' flat surfaces. Examples are erosion to base level, wave-cut terraces, and glacial planation, not to mention depositional surfaces. What has Faith given us by way of explanation?
Nothing.
This is not a good faith (so to speak) discussion.
By the way, the first picture in your post, with the yellow line, ignores the channel cut in the lower strata. I believe that HBD or Jar pointed this out earlier. I think Faith may want to take this picture out of her cherry-picked catalog of flat unconformity surfaces...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 446 by Admin, posted 03-25-2015 9:38 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 450 of 1939 (754243)
03-25-2015 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 433 by Faith
03-24-2015 3:47 PM


Re: G U too flat to be eroded: images
Perhaps my basic rejection of the idea of how such an unconformity develops makes it too hard for me to think in such terms at all.
Perhaps you should ponder the possibility that your 'basic rejection of the idea' (religious dogma) not only prevents you from thinking in such terms, but prevents you from thinking outside of that box at all.
You are colliding headlong with reality on these very pages. That is the cause of this mass confusion that we see exposed here.
Certainly I think I get that it's the horizontal surface that cuts across the folded strata but I reject the whole idea of the order of things presented in your diagram.
Why? What is your complaint? What is your alternative?
Maybe that is causing all the miscommunication?
The fact that you reject evidence is certainly part of the problem.
Perhaps it would help if you applied your diagram to Siccar Point with a view to explaining where we are misunderstanding each other.
I'm not sure what your problem is with the diagram. HBD has given you one of the most transparent explanations of how an angular unconformity occurs in the geological record. All you need to do now is erode the last diagram to show the modern exposure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 433 by Faith, posted 03-24-2015 3:47 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 451 of 1939 (754244)
03-25-2015 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 442 by Dr Adequate
03-25-2015 12:47 AM


Re: Faith, Meet Faith
Faith, meet Faith.
But ...
but ...
It only has to be somewhat table-top flat...
Heh, heh, had to take a little sabbatical yesterday. Probably more of that on order.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 442 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-25-2015 12:47 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 453 of 1939 (754252)
03-25-2015 4:30 PM


Since we are discussing unconformities, here is another close-up example.
My only point here is that the fine-grained sand, just above the unconformity, has cross-bedding that suggests stream deposition with flows from right to left. It does not look like 'disrupted material' from the upper beds, but eroded fragments of the material below the unconformity mixed in with other transported material from another source.
Now, unless Faith wants other unconformities to be different from the Great Unconformity, how do you get these features?
--A rough (regularly stepped shape) unconformity surface that shows no weathering from a smooth surface
--An overlying sandstone derived from multiple sources
--Cross-bedding indicating stream deposition
This photo has some other interesting features. Ask if curious, AMA.

Replies to this message:
 Message 454 by jar, posted 03-25-2015 4:38 PM edge has replied
 Message 456 by Faith, posted 03-25-2015 5:21 PM edge has replied
 Message 509 by herebedragons, posted 03-26-2015 5:22 PM edge has replied
 Message 520 by Faith, posted 03-26-2015 10:03 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 455 of 1939 (754254)
03-25-2015 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 454 by jar
03-25-2015 4:38 PM


Re: and different size material
And don't forget superfine material below fine material below coarse material.
Faith needs to present a model, method, mechanism, process or procedure to explain that.
Wha???
That would spoil all the fun of YEC science!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 454 by jar, posted 03-25-2015 4:38 PM jar has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 467 of 1939 (754314)
03-25-2015 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 456 by Faith
03-25-2015 5:21 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 456 by Faith, posted 03-25-2015 5:21 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 477 by Faith, posted 03-25-2015 11:10 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 468 of 1939 (754315)
03-25-2015 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 457 by Faith
03-25-2015 5:43 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 457 by Faith, posted 03-25-2015 5:43 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 470 of 1939 (754317)
03-25-2015 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 458 by Faith
03-25-2015 5:53 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 458 by Faith, posted 03-25-2015 5:53 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 471 of 1939 (754319)
03-25-2015 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 460 by Faith
03-25-2015 6:21 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 460 by Faith, posted 03-25-2015 6:21 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 474 by Faith, posted 03-25-2015 10:28 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 475 of 1939 (754323)
03-25-2015 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 474 by Faith
03-25-2015 10:28 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 474 by Faith, posted 03-25-2015 10:28 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 476 by Faith, posted 03-25-2015 10:47 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 478 of 1939 (754335)
03-25-2015 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 476 by Faith
03-25-2015 10:47 PM


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:
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?
Stop the insanity.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 476 by Faith, posted 03-25-2015 10:47 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 480 by Faith, posted 03-25-2015 11:53 PM edge has replied
 Message 487 by Admin, posted 03-26-2015 7:53 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 479 of 1939 (754337)
03-25-2015 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 477 by Faith
03-25-2015 11:10 PM


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.
ABE: And here I should add that I'm not answering parts of your posts because I don't get what you are saying.
You are not kidding...
Edited by edge, : No reason given.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 477 by Faith, posted 03-25-2015 11:10 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 481 by Faith, posted 03-25-2015 11:54 PM edge has replied
 Message 488 by Admin, posted 03-26-2015 7:59 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 482 of 1939 (754341)
03-25-2015 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 480 by Faith
03-25-2015 11:53 PM


But they ARE exposed, as Percy just got me to clarify.
Yes, in the modern unconformity.
But hey, so much for civil discourse.
That ship has sailed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 480 by Faith, posted 03-25-2015 11:53 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024