Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
76 online now:
Dm14174, dwise1, jar, Percy (Admin), Tangle (4 members, 1 guest login, 71 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,251 Year: 4,363/6,534 Month: 577/900 Week: 101/182 Day: 8/27 Hour: 1/3

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
Admin
Director
Posts: 12792
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


(4)
Message 1854 of 1939 (762380)
07-11-2015 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1849 by Faith
07-11-2015 12:05 PM


Re: Sedimentation on a slope, take 2
Faith writes:

If you're saying something else then please explain.

You've proved it's possible,...

*You* proved sedimentation on a slope is possible, too.

...but not that it's how any of the strata actually formed, including the sagged layer in that road cut picture.

They only person claiming they absolutely knew how that layer came to be sloped was you. You said it could only have been tectonic forces, and the reason you said you knew this is because the alternative, sedimentation on a slope, is impossible. But as was explained time and time again, sedimentation on a slope is not impossible but is, in fact, incredibly common, since many surfaces (e.g., continental shelves) are not horizontal and are receiving sedimentation as we speak. And tectonic forces and sedimentation on a slope are not even the only possible causes of a sloped layer. One other possible cause is uneven isostatic depression and rebound. Another is Walther's law, which I think Petrophysics is indirectly referencing and which you continually misunderstand and misapply.

I can't prove they formed any other way, however, so there's nothing more I can say about it at this point.

There's plenty more you can say, but one thing you can no longer say is that sedimentation on a slope is impossible.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1849 by Faith, posted 07-11-2015 12:05 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1855 by Faith, posted 07-11-2015 5:33 PM Admin has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12792
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1859 of 1939 (762434)
07-12-2015 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1855 by Faith
07-11-2015 5:33 PM


Re: Sedimentation on a slope, take 2
Faith writes:

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. 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.

It's good that you understand the evidence doesn't support your scenario over other scenarios, but your scenario has one other significant problem: it doesn't make any sense. The "rougher rock" is merely what happened when the road cut was blasted and has nothing to do with anything geological. There is no evidence that the layer was "pinched," and in fact this image shows that the bottom sublayer of this layer disappears as you go from left to right, which is the real reason the thickness of the layer diminishes:

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.

I'm not even sure what this means. As Edge says, as kitchen experiments go the results of the two experiments are pretty much the same, I just controlled the evenness of the deposition better than you, and I avoided hydrophobic sand. You seem focused on irrelevant details, like the varying thickness of a layer in your experiment when controls for even deposition were absent. If you can offer reasons that make sense and can be understood for rejecting the results of your own experiment then please proceed, but otherwise my ruling that sedimentation can occur on a slope stands.

I fixed your link.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1855 by Faith, posted 07-11-2015 5:33 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1860 by petrophysics1, posted 07-12-2015 11:01 AM Admin has replied
 Message 1863 by Faith, posted 07-12-2015 12:37 PM Admin has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12792
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1865 of 1939 (762455)
07-12-2015 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1863 by Faith
07-12-2015 12:37 PM


Re: Sedimentation on a slope, take 2
Hi Faith,

I'm going to continue ruling that those arguments that are not directly relevant to the main topic and that you're unable to support with evidence can no longer be used in this thread. Feel free to propose new threads over at Proposed New Topics to discuss them further. The goal is to remove obstacles to discussing the original topic.

Faith writes:

The rougher rock is a sort of hinge point...

Unless you can present evidence that the rougher rock has some geologic origin rather than is just the result of blasting the road cut, please don't present this argument anymore.

Faith writes:

...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.

I presented an image showing a sublayer that gradually peters out as you look from left to right. Unless you can present evidence of actual pinching, which means the rock in the thinner section became denser or the material was squeezed elsewhere, please don't present this argument anymore.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1863 by Faith, posted 07-12-2015 12:37 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12792
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1866 of 1939 (762469)
07-12-2015 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1860 by petrophysics1
07-12-2015 11:01 AM


Re: How you figure this out
petrophysics1 writes:

Do you know that if you actually measured sections of rocks you would know how insane the stuff Faith is saying actually is.

I think I already know how outlandish Faith's ideas are. She seems to have no criteria by which to distinguish valid from invalid ideas, no way of judging which details are important and which extraneous, and now we see that even her own experimental results dissolve in her eyes amidst a maze of irrelevant details of her own random choosing.

If you think it would help to discuss the evidence for depositional environments by examining measured sections then by all means respond to Faith. I'm trying to stay out of the main discussion and am only focusing on bringing diversions to a quick resolution.

Edited by Admin, : Fix grammar in 1st sentence of 2nd para.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

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

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12792
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1870 of 1939 (762631)
07-14-2015 9:03 AM


Resuming Discussion
To help discussion resume I'll reintroduce the main topic. Faith's contention is that the Great Unconformity at the Grand Canyon was formed in this way:

  • 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.

If discussion doesn't resume then I'll throw this thread into summation mode in a week or so.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 1871 by Faith, posted 07-14-2015 9:13 AM Admin has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12792
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1873 of 1939 (762644)
07-14-2015 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1871 by Faith
07-14-2015 9:13 AM


Re: Resuming Discussion
Faith writes:

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

Except I don't accept the idea that whole layers eroded away. Itr's possible even in the Flood, but basically that's an idea necessary to the integrity of the Geologic Time Scale for which the evidence isn't exactly present.

I think you must have misunderstood what I said. There *are* layers at the Grand Canyon that were once present and now are completely missing at the Grand Canyon. I'm referring to layers like, for example, the Claron and the Carmel that exist in the Brain Head region but not at the Grand Canyon:

That layers like these are missing at the Grand Canyon is something you've explicitly said yourself.

So let's make sure we have a very clear and accurate statement of your basic position, please provide any necessary corrections:

  • 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.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1871 by Faith, posted 07-14-2015 9:13 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1874 by Faith, posted 07-14-2015 10:08 AM Admin has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12792
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1875 of 1939 (762659)
07-14-2015 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1874 by Faith
07-14-2015 10:08 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.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1874 by Faith, posted 07-14-2015 10:08 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1876 by Faith, posted 07-14-2015 11:26 AM Admin has seen this message
 Message 1877 by edge, posted 07-14-2015 11:45 AM Admin has seen this message

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12792
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1879 of 1939 (762674)
07-14-2015 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1878 by Faith
07-14-2015 12:00 PM


Re: Resuming Discussion
Faith writes:

I can give you my hypothesis but that's it: the basement rocks would have to have been part of the Flood strata deposition, abe: some transformed by heat and pressure plus igneous intrusions./abe In the Grand Canyon the Supergroup is made up of strata which confirms at least that much of my hypothesis. The schist and gneiss would have to have formed beneath the Paleozoic strata after all were in place, the transformative forces somehow not reaching into the strata above, and I can't prove it so that's that.

Again, I'm trying to remove confusion and ambiguity. What qualities of the strata of the Supergroup are you referring to? And when you say that those qualities confirm "at least that much of my hypothesis," what part of your hypothesis are you referring to?

Edited by Admin, : Clarification coming...

Edited by Admin, : Clarification.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1878 by Faith, posted 07-14-2015 12:00 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1880 by Faith, posted 07-14-2015 12:54 PM Admin has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12792
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1882 of 1939 (762677)
07-14-2015 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1880 by Faith
07-14-2015 12:54 PM


Re: Resuming Discussion
Faith writes:

The fact that it is made up of strata.
The fact that the Flood would have laid down strata.

Your extreme brevity is making it very difficult to discern your meaning.

Yes, it's a fact that the Grand Canyon Supergroup is made up of strata.

Yes, it's a fact that floods can result in sedimentary deposits.

But are you saying that it's a fact that the Flood deposited the layers of the supergroup? Something else? What?


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1880 by Faith, posted 07-14-2015 12:54 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1883 by Faith, posted 07-14-2015 1:07 PM Admin has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12792
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1884 of 1939 (762682)
07-14-2015 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1883 by Faith
07-14-2015 1:07 PM


Re: Resuming Discussion
Hi Faith,

I'm just trying to achieve clarity and avoid ambiguity. This is in your own best interests because you have many times accused everyone of purposefully misunderstanding you. So please work with me here.

When I read through your last few posts, they appear contradictory. On the one hand you say things like, "I'm no longer making claims for which I don't have evidence," and on the other you state things as fact, such as "The fact that it [Grand Canyon Supergroup] is made up of strata," which is indeed a fact, and "The fact that the Flood would have laid down strata," which is only a fact depending upon what you mean.

So do you mean only that floods can leave sedimentary deposits? If so, then that's fine, but you need to say that.

But if you mean something more, perhaps that it's a fact that the Flood deposited the layers of the Grand Canyon Supergroup, then that's not a fact, and it contradicts your statement that you would no longer be making claims for which you have no evidence.

So when you say, "The fact that the Flood would have laid down strata" immediately after stating that the Grand Canyon Supergroup is made up of strata, what do you mean?


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1883 by Faith, posted 07-14-2015 1:07 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1888 by Faith, posted 07-14-2015 5:32 PM Admin has seen this message

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12792
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1887 of 1939 (762686)
07-14-2015 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1886 by edge
07-14-2015 2:06 PM


Re: Resuming Discussion
edge writes:

If we trace Pennsylvanian aged rocks from the Grand Canyon to the east, we find that they become more and more coarsely clastic, meaning that more and larger rock fragments make up the units. Then suddenly, they disappear against a major fault with crystalline intrusive rocks on the other side which look very much like the material being eroded to form the sediments.

I had trouble interpreting this one. Is this a good paraphrase, if not please correct:

"If we trace Pennsylvanian aged rocks in the Grand Canyon from west to east we find that they become more and more coarsely clastic, meaning that more and larger rock fragments make up the units. Then as we continue east they suddenly disappear against a major fault with crystalline intrusive rocks on the other side which look very much like the material being eroded to form the sediments."

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1886 by edge, posted 07-14-2015 2:06 PM edge has taken no action

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12792
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 1890 of 1939 (762716)
07-14-2015 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1889 by Faith
07-14-2015 7:43 PM


Re: Resuming Discussion
Faith writes:

I see no reason to think the tectonic event occurred "during that time period" at all. My hypothesis is that tectonic events occurred right after the Flood. In the case of the exposure of a lower layer my guess would be that the layers above were eroded away due to the tectonic movement, just as they were eroded away above the Kaibab in the Grand Canyon area. The existence of the fault adds to that idea too.

I'm going to disallow this argument because it makes no sense to say that buried layers were eroded. This is a terribly confused paragraph. Please rephrase into something that makes sense. We will not be discussing nonsense, nor will we be spending pages and pages trying to make sense out of nonsense.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1889 by Faith, posted 07-14-2015 7:43 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1891 by Faith, posted 07-14-2015 8:16 PM Admin has replied
 Message 1894 by edge, posted 07-14-2015 9:16 PM Admin has seen this message
 Message 1895 by NoNukes, posted 07-14-2015 9:17 PM Admin has seen this message

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12792
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1892 of 1939 (762721)
07-14-2015 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1891 by Faith
07-14-2015 8:16 PM


Re: Resuming Discussion
Hi Faith,

You are the one who is always complaining that no one understands what you mean, and sometimes even that they're purposefully misunderstanding you. To combat this problem so that threads I moderate no longer spend any time entertaining these kinds of complaints from you I intend to seek clarification immediately. Please respond to requests to make clear what you mean or stop posting.

Feel free to recruit assistance from others. If someone understands what you're saying and can provide clarification, then that will be fine. Or if I have mistaken your meaning and there was actually no nonsense and someone can correct my error, then that will also be fine.

But we will no longer be leaving uninterpretable statements from you just hanging ambiguously out there.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1891 by Faith, posted 07-14-2015 8:16 PM Faith has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 1896 by herebedragons, posted 07-14-2015 9:18 PM Admin has seen this message

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12792
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1893 of 1939 (762722)
07-14-2015 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1891 by Faith
07-14-2015 8:16 PM


Re: Resuming Discussion
Hi Faith,

It occurred to me later that you misunderstood what Edge said. When I reinterpret your post in light of what you thought Edge said then it makes sense.

But Edge was saying something different. The layers he was talking about are deeply buried and are only visible in the canyon walls far below the canyon rim. Deeply buried layers cannot be eroded.

So please take another stab at responding to Edge's point. It might be a good idea to wait for Edge to reply to my Message 1887 to make sure my interpretation of what he was saying is correct.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1891 by Faith, posted 07-14-2015 8:16 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12792
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1899 of 1939 (762744)
07-15-2015 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1898 by Faith
07-15-2015 1:02 AM


The Cutler Fans
Hi Faith,

I've carefully reviewed the feedback from Edge, HereBeDragons and NoNukes and feel I have a good understanding of what Edge said and what you meant when you replied. I thought Edge's original statement in Message 1886 was a little difficult to understand, so I made a few minor clarifications in my Message 1887 and asked Edge for his reaction. Edge responded in Message 1894 that "yes, your understanding is correct," so here is Edge's text with my clarifications:

Edge as modified by Admin writes:

If we trace Pennsylvanian aged rocks in the Grand Canyon from west to east we find that they become more and more coarsely clastic, meaning that more and larger rock fragments make up the units. Then as we continue east they suddenly disappear against a major fault with crystalline intrusive rocks on the other side which look very much like the material being eroded to form the sediments.

Edge also provided this helpful diagram, but please keep in mind it is reversed, i.e., northeast is on the left and southwest is on the right:

The text is a little hard to read, but you want to focus on the left hand portion where the text "Cutler fans" appears written vertically. Edge explained that the jagged right side of the "Cutler fans" part of the diagram represents alluvial fans that consist of material eroded from basement rocks that had been tectonically uplifted, and he was asking how you imagined the flood doing this.

Edited by Admin, : Minor clarification in final para.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1898 by Faith, posted 07-15-2015 1:02 AM Faith has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 1900 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-15-2015 11:49 PM Admin has seen this message

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022