|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence that the Great Unconformity did not Form Before the Strata above it | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Steno merely tells the truth about reality, it has nothing to do with him personally but you aren't interested in truth or reality because that would lead you to the Reality of the FLood, which you get to deny as long as you can invent ongoing deposition of sediments no matter how pitifully inadequate the possibilities are for that claim. Pathetic.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 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? There's oodles of cross-bedding in the Coconino. Deposited at about 25-35 degrees and lithified. From Coconino Cross Bedding:
quote: But even if we could play billiards on the Coconino, that would not give any significant support to your claim that all strata are deposited horizontally, that's one of the many millions of strata we see and the many millions more we don't see because they are completely buried.
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. They have expanded on Steno's findings and made them more accurate. You have not provided any smidgen of an attempt to support your claim of "gone from sane to innsane." You just keep repeating it. Over and over and over and over again. And over again. To address our responses you need to demonstrate with evidence and logical analysis that all the examples of lithified strata we've presented did originally deposit horizontally. Your uninformed opinion alone does not suffice. Then you also have to establish with evidenced and logical analysis why Steno's original formulation is better than the many modern definitions of strata we've provided. "All strata are deposited horizontally" is not a fact in evidence and cannot be used to support your claim, that's circular reasoning, just another unsupported assertion. Got any evidence or analysis? Didn't think so.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Faith, if you somehow missed my Message 1165, please read it now. I've already read ahead to your Message 1171 ("But you aren't interested in truth or reality..."). Please focus on the topic, not on the people you're discussing with. Everyone is treating you with great restraint and respect. I'm not going to repeat this again.
Faith writes: 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. If you see some way in which strata of variable thickness could maintain horizontality then you need go beyond requests to, "Open your eyes," and provide an explanation. Edited by Admin, : Add missing period.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2401 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
Faith writes: ALL the strata are "highly variable in thickness,... I get more and more confused regarding your fundamental position on strata the more you tell us about it. If "ALL the strata are highly variable in thickness", then how can multiple contiguous layers of strata only be horizontal? Those two positions are mutually exclusive. Do you not see the conflict? How do you reconcile such? JB
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Steno merely tells the truth about reality, ...
Well, part of it. Do you understand what I'm saying when I explain that Steno's principles are just that: principles? Do you understand that a principle is not necessarily an immutable law? Do you understand that a principle depends upon definitions?
... it has nothing to do with him personally but you aren't interested in truth or reality because that would lead you to the Reality of the FLood, which you get to deny as long as you can invent ongoing deposition of sediments no matter how pitifully inadequate the possibilities are for that claim. Pathetic.
Your personal attacks are getting tiresome. Is this all you've got?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2401 days) Posts: 564 Joined:
|
Message 1155
Admin writes: 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. Message 1157Faith writes: And you have a reference to prove this? Or did you hold a sance and ask him personally? Faith, you would do well to learn and remember that to science and engineering, the term "fluid" does not literally mean "liquid". The easy lookup dictionary definition demonstrates that clearly, while a more scientific definition is even more fluid
quote: Finding a favorite meaning with terms like "horizontal" and "fluid" that suit a particular purpose doesn't help you like you think it helps you, it only backs you further onto rapidly receding footing. Under normal gravitational conditions, particulate solids such as sand, gravel, coal, grain, etc., all act as fluids once their angle of repose is breached and thus can no longer resist shear loads. JB
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Asgara Member (Idle past 2330 days) Posts: 1783 From: Wisconsin, USA Joined: |
She is just quoting edge from a few messages above.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2401 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
You're saying that the quote I attributed to Faith actually is from edge?
Faith writes: And you have a reference to prove this? Or did you hold a sance and ask him personally? I'm not convinced that's true, but I'll await your link to where edge wrote it and Faith quoted it from. JB Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given. Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Asgara was replying to your Message 1174 where you quoted Faith saying, "ALL the strata are 'highly variable in thickness,'...". Asgara was only saying that the "highly variable in thickness" portion was just Faith quoting Edge's words.
Maybe Asgara is implying that when Faith called it nitpicking that she meant that she doesn't really believe the layers are variable in thickness, but I don't really know. I hadn't considered that interpretation, given that measurements of the thickness of layers in different parts of the canyon isn't something that can be legitimately challenged.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2401 days) Posts: 564 Joined:
|
Ok, got it. Thanks for the explanation.
And your observation is correct -- either Faith accepts that the thickness of the Coconino varies dramatically which gives her conflicting positions, or she denies the Coconino varies and is in violation of reality. JB
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 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. From BerkeleyEdu: Assuming that all rocks and minerals had once been fluid, Steno reasoned that rock strata and similar deposits were formed when particles in a fluid such as water fell to the bottom. This process would leave horizontal layers. Thus Steno's principle of original horizontality states that rock layers form in the horizontal position, and any deviations from this position are due to the rocks being disturbed later.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I can't believe you answered my objection that you have no examples of layers forming on an inclined surface by pointing to the very diagram you claim deposited that way. That's Begging the Question Beyond Beyond.
Then you ask how I think uplift produces crossbedding? And your title says you are awake? I don't know why you all make crossbedding an issue. Sandstone layers are still horizontal, crossbedded or not. Flat upper surface in the Coconino. They make very striking flat-topped block-like strata in such formations as the Tepui. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2401 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
quote: You notice is says "Steno reasoned" ... it doesn't say "Steno drilled millions of holes and studied thousands of cuts and traveled the world with the help of tens of thousands of helpers gathering data and confirming his reasoning. You can cherry pick from 300 year old science writings and you will show that 300 year old cherry picked science writings will often differ from the field observations that follow. You will show nothing more. JB
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The "field observations" so far illustrated on this thread in answer to the observation of horizontality in The Strata, Capital T, Capital S, are all diagrams, one that shows a single layer on an incline that would never ever take the form of The Strata, Capital T, Capital S, or diagrams that are better interpreted in terms of original horizontality; or a photo of gravel on a hill. And all this pitiful stuff is presented against thousands of square miles of flat horizontal slabs of rock that may cross entire continents at a depth of miles. Oh and then everybody gets SO nitpickingly prissily precise about HOW horizontal horizontal is.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Faith writes: From BerkeleyEdu: Assuming that all rocks and minerals had once been fluid, Steno reasoned that rock strata and similar deposits were formed when particles in a fluid such as water... If someone wrote "vehicles such as cars" would you then conclude that all vehicles are cars? I quoted Steno using the word "fluid" in a general context, a liquid context, and a gaseous context. ThinAirDesigns provided a couple definitions clearly stating that a fluid can be a gas or a liquid. It's time for you to give this up and move on with discussion of the topic.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024