Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9073 total)
71 online now:
dwise1, jar, kjsimons (3 members, 68 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,263 Year: 4,375/6,534 Month: 589/900 Week: 113/182 Day: 20/27 Hour: 0/0

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
edge
Member (Idle past 944 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1827 of 1939 (762223)
07-09-2015 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1822 by Faith
07-09-2015 2:29 PM


Re: Images from the Experiment
Of course this block of strata didn't deposit on the slope but was deformed all together AS a block by the lifting of the Kaibab plateau.

Which makes me wonder why you are presenting this in the context of our current discussion.

They climb from the Tapeats to the Kaibab or from the pre-Cambrian to the Permian, and one would think that at least the "earlier" layers would have been lithified beyond the ability to deform even if the upper were still soft enough to deform. But that's another subject.

Virtually all rocks are 'soft enough to deform' under the right conditions. Again, I'm not sure how this bears on the current discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1822 by Faith, posted 07-09-2015 2:29 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1829 by Faith, posted 07-09-2015 6:07 PM edge has taken no action

  
edge
Member (Idle past 944 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1830 of 1939 (762234)
07-09-2015 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1828 by Faith
07-09-2015 6:06 PM


Re: Images from the Experiment
But probably not in the geological column as we know it from the Precambrian to the Quaternary.

I'm sure you would know. But somehow there are lots of pictures out there, if one looked.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Edited by edge, : addition of images


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1828 by Faith, posted 07-09-2015 6:06 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1831 by Faith, posted 07-09-2015 6:19 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 944 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1832 of 1939 (762239)
07-09-2015 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1831 by Faith
07-09-2015 6:19 PM


Re: Images from the Experiment
I'm sure you're right about that.

Please refer to my edits and explain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1831 by Faith, posted 07-09-2015 6:19 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1836 by Faith, posted 07-09-2015 10:30 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 944 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1834 of 1939 (762244)
07-09-2015 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1833 by Minnemooseus
07-09-2015 8:05 PM


Re: It's a diagram
I don't know if this is a significant issue, but I must stress the "this diagram" part. You're over-interpreting things - This is not intended as being a precise rendering of reality. Your thickness variations are probably, at most, some sloppiness in the document drafting.

The source of the diagram look like it is intended to be schematic. And I REALLY don't like the way they depicted the basement topography around the faults...

Having said that, it would not surprise me at all to have some thickening and thinning of the sedimentary layers above the basement crystalline rocks.

This reference:

http://sp.lyellcollection.org/content/169/1/23.abstract

... indicates, along with some others that I have found, that the degree and brittleness of the deformation diminish upward. The Tapeats is clearly faulted but the layers above it are folded by 'flexural slip' meaning that bedding planes slid over one another and there were probably minor faults that cut bedding. This type of deformation would result in some thickening and thinning of formations.

This publications shows some more detailed information on the East Kaibab Monocline and the deformation occurring there:

http://earthquakes.ou.edu/.../Reches_monoclines_part%20I.PDF

See Figure 5.

On reference suggested that the Cretaceous Wahweap Formation shows that the deformation occurred at that time because of thickening to the southeast across the fault/fold zone.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1833 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-09-2015 8:05 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message

  
edge
Member (Idle past 944 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1837 of 1939 (762252)
07-09-2015 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1836 by Faith
07-09-2015 10:30 PM


Re: Images from the Experiment
I'm sure you're right about me being right.

As for your edits you added a totally incomprehensible picture of an unidentified something. Yes it's always possible to find a picture of something somewhere that supposedly contradicts any given general statement.


And some statements are easy to contradict.

Because they are wrong.

You seem to like that method of debate.

Well, you could have asked.

They're just facts, Faith, just facts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1836 by Faith, posted 07-09-2015 10:30 PM Faith has taken no action

  
edge
Member (Idle past 944 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1838 of 1939 (762253)
07-09-2015 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1835 by Faith
07-09-2015 10:28 PM


Re: It's a diagram
Of course it's a diagram. There's really no point in even mentioning the thicknesses except they've been indicated on the diagram ...

Not sure what you are talking about here. Where are the thicknesses indicated?

... and we're discussing whether greater thickness would be the result of deposition onto a slope.

Actually, no. We were discussing whether sediments could be deposited on a slope at all.

There is no indication of greater thickness on the horizontal parts of the diagram, just the small variations along the length of the layers.

I agree, however, as Moose indicated, you are over-interpreting a schematic diagram.

Percy announced a rule. I'm announcing my own: none of the strata of the sort known in the Grand Canyon ever deposited except horizontally.

Actually, I think you said it NEVER happened.

Anywhere.

Weary of the way everything I say is dealt with here.

There are ways of fixing that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1835 by Faith, posted 07-09-2015 10:28 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1839 by Faith, posted 07-09-2015 11:05 PM edge has taken no action

  
edge
Member (Idle past 944 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1842 of 1939 (762284)
07-10-2015 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1841 by Admin
07-10-2015 11:48 AM


Re: Sedimentation on a slope, take 2
While running errands this morning I bought a few supplies, and upon returning home I repeated the "sedimentation on a slope" experiment. Here's the tank before adding any sediments:

...


Very nice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1841 by Admin, posted 07-10-2015 11:48 AM Admin has seen this message

  
edge
Member (Idle past 944 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1852 of 1939 (762377)
07-11-2015 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1851 by Faith
07-11-2015 1:06 PM


Re: Where does the horizontal vector come from?
This slope idea is brand new, conjured out of thin air.

Well, then, it is an idea that your demonstration confirmed.

And no, it's not a new idea ... unless you want to consider me to be a twenty-something, which I could only wish. Take Geology 101 sometime in the last 5 decades or so.

The rest of your post I can't quite decipher, so I'll let it ride for a while and see what develops.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1851 by Faith, posted 07-11-2015 1:06 PM Faith has taken no action

  
edge
Member (Idle past 944 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1853 of 1939 (762378)
07-11-2015 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1850 by petrophysics1
07-11-2015 12:48 PM


Re: Where does the horizontal vector come from?
If you have a way to deposit rocks horizontally, I'm all ears but make sure you explain to me the vector forces.

Heh, heh...

Let me try.

What if all of the horizontal vectors were equal in all directions?

I know that would just resolve to a single point in a very simple basin, but it would create a point of horizontality, wouldn't it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1850 by petrophysics1, posted 07-11-2015 12:48 PM petrophysics1 has taken no action

  
edge
Member (Idle past 944 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1857 of 1939 (762408)
07-11-2015 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1855 by Faith
07-11-2015 5:33 PM


Re: Sedimentation on a slope, take 2
I believe I gave other reasons to think that sagged layer was not deposited that way other than that sedimentation on a slope is impossible.

If you want to discuss those reasons, we can do so.

Just looking at it, its form and how the whole left side of the stack tilts down to a small extent, and the rougher rock about where the sage begins, and how it the layer is narrower over the schist to the right where it must have been "pinched," tells me it sagged while still soft enough for that.
THIS IS WHAT I THINK, BUT SINCE I CAN'T PROVE IT I'M NOT ARGUING IT ANY MORE HERE.

A good idea. Often what we think we know is actually found to be in error when confronting the real, natural world.

Again my experiment did not prove what I was talking about, which was that STRATA wouldn't deposit evenly along the whole length of a layer such as that sagged layer. Yours suggests even that is possible, but mine, no. You are confining it to the slope itself, but I believe I said enough to show why I didn't accept that fact alone as a fulfillment of the experiment.

Within the margin of error for kitchen-style testing, I think the results are essentially identical.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1855 by Faith, posted 07-11-2015 5:33 PM Faith has taken no action

  
edge
Member (Idle past 944 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 1858 of 1939 (762409)
07-11-2015 10:02 PM


I have a couple of photos here from a road cut in Wyoming. I've driven past it dozens of times, but never took a photo myself. Fortunately, we have Google Earth these days and we can go there and snag a picture or two without leaving our desks.

I did a lot of clicking to find this location over the last couple of hours, but now it's recorded for posterity.

Here it is:

Anyone see anything odd, like draped beds or non-horizontal deposits in the very 'flat' siltstone sequence?

If we get a look before the truck arrives this is the detail on the above photo, with a few comments of mine.

What we are looking at is a debris flow or a kind of intraformational deformation caused by part of the sequence detaching somewhere to the left (west) and riding up upon its own depositional surface. There is no change of rock type. I have outlined the upper contact of the flow with yellow dots.

The disrupted mass has moved from left to right. The 'snout' of the flow is exposed in the right center of the image.

Some of the beds have managed to maintain some continuity and deformed to create a synclinal fold just short of the 'snout'.

After the emplacement of the debris flow, siltstone sedimentation simply continued as though nothing had happened. Some of the siltstone is draped down along the snout and eventually builds back to the normal, flat-lying nature of the formation.

The question that I think Petro would ask is, 'okay, why did the debris flow move?'

Well, we could say that God's bulldozer pushed it there, or we could say that the sediments were deposited on a very slight slope and due to some kind of over-steepening or earthquake activity, it moved into what we might call a shallow thrust fault, or an overthrust type of configuration. In sedimentation, gravity is usually the culprit.

In the draped area, there is no evidence that the snout of the debris flow moved in an upward manner to created the drapes. Basically, all we have going on here is normal sedimentation and the drapes formed as sediments collected in that area. Notice that about a foot above the top of the debris flow and across the snout, the beds very quickly become 'straight and level'.

All beds have been tilted by regional uplift to the west of this location.

Next time I get out there, I'll get some more detailed pictures...

Have fun with this.


  
edge
Member (Idle past 944 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1861 of 1939 (762446)
07-12-2015 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1860 by petrophysics1
07-12-2015 11:01 AM


Re: How you figure this out
Some time ago I asked you what exactly you do to determine the depositional environment of rocks.

The first thing you do is measure a section. This has all the descriptions of the rocks and exactly how thick they are.


I think that we might have mentioned some of this in passing, although without any quantification. Since sedimentary environments change laterally, there must be some change in water depth. Ergo, there is a slope.

We also know the thickness of units changes even in the Grand Canyon region where Faith says that they are all straight and level. This would be hard to imagine given the fact of variable thicknesses.

Someone is also suggested that since the ocean gets deeper as you go away from shore there simply has to be a slope.

This is, of course, pretty basic stuff. But Faith has made so many errors that it's hard to know where to start and explain things in a simple manner.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1860 by petrophysics1, posted 07-12-2015 11:01 AM petrophysics1 has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 1862 by Faith, posted 07-12-2015 12:28 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 944 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1864 of 1939 (762454)
07-12-2015 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1862 by Faith
07-12-2015 12:28 PM


Re: How you figure this out
I know the thicknesses vary and I've said so many times. That doesn't stop them from being visibly straight and horizontal over huge distances, even with knife-edge tight contacts.

In your very next post, you say this:

The rougher rock is a sort of hinge point where the layers start the sag to the left, the whole stack as a matter of fact, and to the right of it they are narrower, showing pinching against the basement rock.

So, what is the case?

Were the sagging rock layers deposited horizontally or not?

Your own experiment shows that they need not be originally horizontal.

And just what are the 'huge distances' that you talk about? Are you saying that the Tapeats Sandstone at the Grand Canyon does not vary over even a few feet? Are you saying that the Coconino is straight and horizontal all the way to Vermont?

C'mon, Faith, you are creating an argument where none is necessary by making vague and outlandish pronouncements. Ask yourself if you are not just being stubborn for the sake of stubbornness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1862 by Faith, posted 07-12-2015 12:28 PM Faith has taken no action

  
edge
Member (Idle past 944 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 1869 of 1939 (762500)
07-12-2015 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1867 by Faith
07-12-2015 4:12 PM


Goodbye to this utterly ridiculous thread.

What makes it ridiculous?

Good grief what nonsense you all spout. "Science?"

Why is it nonsense?

And what an absolutely disgusting excuse for moderation on this thread. Appalling.

Do you think that being less combative on your part might help?

Could it be possible that it is your interpretation and application of the Bible is what's making the thread ridiculous and nonsense?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1867 by Faith, posted 07-12-2015 4:12 PM Faith has taken no action

  
edge
Member (Idle past 944 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1877 of 1939 (762669)
07-14-2015 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1875 by Admin
07-14-2015 10:52 AM


Re: Resuming Discussion
So is this an accurate statement of your basic position or not? You just objected to part of it a short while ago, and while you've provided assent to my clarification you haven't actually endorsed that statement, and I'm trying to avoid leaving things in a state of ambiguity:

All the layers of the Grand Canyon, including missing layers that have eroded completely away, were deposited by the flood.

Tectonic forces tilted the layers below the Great Unconformity, leaving the layers above undisturbed.

I think this is a clear statement of the discussion (and it is well-needed). I can see questions beginning to form.

For starters, does Faith believe that the schist and gneiss of the basement rocks (Vishnu) are part of the same stratigraphic flood sequence as the overlying Paleozoic rocks? And what would be the evidence for that?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1875 by Admin, posted 07-14-2015 10:52 AM Admin has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 1878 by Faith, posted 07-14-2015 12:00 PM edge has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022