|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 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 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
The Strata Steno studied and that we see today are one and the same.
The rock strata, yes.
Nobody saw them as depositing sediment, ...
So, did you see the earth being created?
... only as finished strata, even rock, ...
So, there are no rocks forming to day? How do you know this? You live on land and think that is all that's going on in the earth?
... and again the sedimentary processes going on today are pitifully puny candidates for anything like them.
I'm not sure how you know this. How much sedimentation should there be going on? Have you ever seen the Mississppi River Delta? Or are you saying that all of the sedimentary rocks of the world did not originate by sedimentation? That would be weird, but not outside of the YEC realm of credulity.
THAT's the scientific fraud. One of the many you've all fallen for.
Just another assertion, Faith. Unsupported as usual.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Regarding Steno, what he means by the word "fluid" is non-solid. Water, air, dust, blowing sand, etc., are all non-solids that he envisioned overlying any sedimentary layer undergoing deposition. And you have a reference to prove this? Or did you hold a sance and ask him personally?
Sure. But what you appear to be saying, at least in my interpretation and that of others here, is that strata are always deposited horizontally, regardless of the angle of the surface being deposited upon. For example, you appear to be saying that if a surface is 99% horizontal then any strata deposited upon it will be 100% horizontal. Isn't that what you're actually saying? And if it is then just let us know, because I think it should be possible for us to make it very clear to you why this is incorrect. Yes it is what I'm saying and it is also what Steno meant and any sane person has always meant. You cannot correct reality.
Message 1094 ""Material forming any stratum were continuous over the surface of the Earth unless some other solid bodies stood in the way." Steno, 1669" Such as rocks and inclines. Strata do not climb over obstacles except in modern wonderlandish Geology. The Strata are the layered rocks we see for instance in the walls of the Grand Canyon. NOT snow. Not anything that didn't originally have a horizontal surface. That idea IS nuts, and I'm very glad to have finally understood that the whole point of it has to be in the service of denying the Flood. A very recent undertaking I'm sure. It's mad but at least there's method in its madness rather than just denial of reality for the sake of denying it, which is somewhat reassuring. The only way anyone can deal with the YEC evidence is by denying reality. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Thanks for investigating this and providing very useful additional information.
I do have a comment about one thing:
edge writes: Now, all this is not to say that dropstones do not exist, or that they do not refute Faith's notion that strata cannot fold while soft during sedimentation, or that they must be horizontal at deposition, etc., etc. While the layers might be ash rather than sediments, and while the boulder may have been blasted from a volcano rather than dropped from a glacier floating above, the principles otherwise seem the same. Also, it seems possible that the rough direction of flow can be implied from this image:
We can tell the rock hit the ash layers while travelling through the air roughly from left to right, because the layers became stacked up and compressed to the right of the rock. Assuming the boulder was blasted from the volcano, and assuming that the ash is flowing away from the volcano, and assuming the ash is from the same volcano as the boulder, then it too must be flowing roughly from left to right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
You missed the photo edge posted of the gravel on a hill? OK, you are correct there.
But this entire discussion is about this issue, whether layers could form BY DEPOSITION IN THEIR LOOSE STATE over an irregular surface such as the gneiss in the road cut photo or the monadnocks in HBD's diagrams and just about every other post for days now. I.e. it isn't about whether strata are loose today, but how they could have formed non-horizontally before they lithified, and your harping on loose layers (strata or not) today is an attempt to evade the real issue. Most sandstones were not deposited horizontally, and many examples of other lithified sediments that obviously did not deposit horizontally.
There are NO exceptions to the principle of original horizontality in relation to the STRATA. Repeating your claims doesn't make them true. You have your own personal definition of stratum and keep insisting that the geologists are wrong. "Horizontality" is not part of the definition of stratum, as you would have it. Per the geologists definitions, some strata are deposited non-horizontally. Steno's laws cover almost all, but definitely not all situations we see in the rocks. As has been demonstrated over and over. Steno's laws are not the final word, today's definitions are what real geologists work with. Those definitions differ from Steno.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
I CAN'T STAND THIS. YOU ARE ALL VIOLATING THE SIMPLEST FACTS OF REALITY AND PRETENDING YOU ARE THE ONES WITH THE EXPERTISE. YOU'VE ALL LOST YOUR MINDS! And you complained about my relatively mild criticism. Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Steno's laws cover almost all, but definitely not all situations we see in the rocks. As has been demonstrated over and over. That has not been demonstrated at all. You claim sandstone. Have you ever noticed the amazing horizontality of the Coconino?
Steno's laws are not the final word, today's definitions are what real geologists work with. Those definitions differ from Steno.
That's for sure, they've denied the clear meaning of Steno and gone from sane to innsane. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Faith writes: And you have a reference to prove this? Or did you hold a sance and ask him personally? There's no need for hostility. I'm only trying to help. In his The prodromus of Nicolaus Steno's dissertation concerning a solid body enclosed by process of nature within a solid Steno wrote:
quote: He differentiated when necessary between air and liquid fluids:
quote: You go on to say:
You cannot correct reality. I think everyone here would agree with you, but the way we determine who has the best grasp of reality (at least at a discussion board) is through discussion, not through bald declarations.
Message 1094 ""Material forming any stratum were continuous over the surface of the Earth unless some other solid bodies stood in the way." Steno, 1669" Such as rocks and inclines. Strata do not climb over obstacles except in modern wonderlandish Geology. Steno doesn't give any details of the interface between strata and solid bodies. What I'm looking for from you is an rationale for how sediment falling on a rock won't cause the sediments around the perimeter of the rock to be deeper with an upward slope.
The Strata are the layered rocks we see for instance in the walls of the Grand Canyon. NOT snow. Not anything that didn't originally have a horizontal surface. That idea IS nuts,... I'm trying to move the discussion back onto a constructive plane. Rather than just giving us your conclusion that it's nuts to note the similarity between snow falling upon a sloped roof and sediment falling upon a sloped surface, you have to provide your rationale for why it is nuts. Else you're just engaging in name-calling.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
While the layers might be ash rather than sediments, and while the boulder may have been blasted from a volcano rather than dropped from a glacier floating above, the principles otherwise seem the same.
From the standpoint of rocks being deformed by what I would call 'primary' conditons (occurring at deposition) yes. The problem is that a real dropstone situation has fewer variables such as the origin of the fragment within the ash flow, its pathway through the ash and the movement of the ash. Also, this type of deposition is subaerial. So, if we are talking about erosion, sedimentation, unconformities, etc., I think it much simpler to look at a simple dropstone system. Faith could have us running in circles trying to explain what's going on in the inside of an ash flow.
Also, it seems possible that the rough direction of flow can be implied from this image:
That would be a logical interpretation. It would really be interesting to visit the location and see what other indicators there are. The annotated figure that I mentioned in my previous post showed cross-bedding in the ash flow with transport in the opposite direction. That could have been schematic or the boulder could have had a different velocity than the ash. Just too many questions for me to feel confident here.
We can tell the rock hit the ash layers while travelling through the air roughly from left to right, because the layers became stacked up and compressed to the right of the rock. Assuming the boulder was blasted from the volcano, and assuming that the ash is flowing away from the volcano, and assuming the ash is from the same volcano as the boulder, then it too must be flowing roughly from left to right.
With only the photograph as evidence, yes. One thing to remember is that these flow can entrain boulders and 'float' them so that their immediate source is not the volcano itself, but from within the ash flow. Again, if you look at the 7th figure in the UMass lecture notes, you can see how they think volcanic rocks are transported in this type of flow. I just don't think that we can get into such details here. This is why geologists take field trips... Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 858 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
For one thing you have no examples of LAYERS formed like that. Come on, don't tell me you can't see the layers in that image... they are the dotted/dashed lines. They are internal layers, or bedding planes. They are distinct from one another, but of the same general consistency and composition. Yes, the overall impression of the stratum is that it is horizontal, but what if sedimentation would have stopped at the top of those hills.
Notice the layers flatten out once the obstacle is buried?
Why don't they drape over BOTH rocks instead of just one? Physics. ------ You should be replying to this Message 1140. What about the other images in that post? Especially this one:
How does uplift of horizontal strata produce crossbedding? HBDWhoever 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi Faith,
I've been trying to take a soft touch in this thread, but I'm beginning to feel that you're just taking advantage. I'm beginning to reconsider whether I should continue ignoring contributions like these:
Faith writes: You HAVE all lost your minds, you, edge, JonF, ThinAir, nutty as fruitcakes.... The idea that my definition of strata is unique to me is already so bonkers I might as well be addressing inmates in a maximum security asylum. ... GOOD GRIEF this discussion ought to get you ALL committed to the boobyhatch. ... Take five aspirin and a nice long nap and please avoid posting such silliness again. ... You really ARE "thin air." ... ...you are so bonkers...as if you knew anything...you are more ignorant...than the other bonkers people here. ... So now I understand the madness. ... That's for sure, they've denied the clear meaning of Steno and gone from sane to innsane. Please constructively discuss the topic or don't post. Edited by Admin, : One more.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
That has not been demonstrated at all. You claim sandstone. Have you ever noticed the amazing horizontality of the Coconino?
Have you ever noticed the presence of cross-beds in the Coconino? How are those beds deposited at such an angle? And notice that nice, flat eriosional surface that truncates the cross-beds in this picture. But of course, erosion could never do such a thing...
Or maybe you've read that the Coconino is highly variable in thickness, so how can it be perfectly horizontal?
The thickness of the formation varies due to regional structural features, in the Grand Canyon area it is only 65 ft thick in the west, thickens to over 600 ft in the middle and then thins to 57 ft in the east. Coconino Sandstone - Wikipedia
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 858 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
Yes it is what I'm saying and it is also what Steno meant and any sane person has always meant. Why do you venerate Steno so? Did you know he was born a Protestant and then after studying and comparing theologies, he converted to Catholicism? He even became a bishop. How can you trust the reasoning of a man who converted from the true faith to the faith of the anti-christ?
Nicolas Steno "Material forming any stratum were continuous over the surface of the Earth unless some other solid bodies stood in the way." Steno, 1669 What did he say was the nature of the boundary between this continuous forming stratum and the solid body that "stood in the way?" HBDWhoever 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 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
I.e. it isn't about whether strata are loose today, but how they could have formed non-horizontally before they lithified, and your harping on loose layers (strata or not) today is an attempt to evade the real issue.
I think this is an important point. No matter what definition of 'strata' you use, the sediments were all 'loose' when deposited, and they can obviously be deposited in non-horizontal fashion. So, when we see non-horizontal 'hard' strata (using Faith's criteria), we still have to describe the sagging rock structure. Faith has never given us evidence that this sagging structure is tectonic or otherwise related to intrusion (uplift) of a basement rock into the 'strata'. On the other hand, we have seen numerous cases of the sagging of loose sediments around a 'hard point' in the sequence of rocks. As far as I'm concerned, much of this discussion is really unnecessary. But perhaps some good has come from the discussion...
Most sandstones were not deposited horizontally, and many examples of other lithified sediments that obviously did not deposit horizontally.
I never thought of it this way, but it's a good observation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Why do you venerate Steno so?
I think Faith sees Steno's principles as a magic bullet she can use to refute the possibility that inclined bedding planes occurred at deposition. Remember, she wants all deformation, volcanism, etc., to have happened after the flood. Never mind that these are just principles and not immutable laws. I also think that among YECs, in general, there is a desire to accept authority. After all, their deity is the ultimate authority and he speaks through the Bible and the YEC interpretation. So, once you have an agreeable authority, he/she is revered.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
ALL the strata are "highly variable in thickness," but nitpicking is always the strategy here when real evidence fails; and the Coconino is clearly horizontal despite your sophistry. Open your eyes.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024