Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9071 total)
72 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Tanypteryx (3 members, 69 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Happy Birthday: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,114 Year: 4,226/6,534 Month: 440/900 Week: 146/150 Day: 0/16 Hour: 0/3


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


Message 1881 of 1939 (762676)
07-14-2015 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1880 by Faith
07-14-2015 12:54 PM


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

How is that different from depositional processes going on today?

In other words, why must it be a biblical flood?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1880 by Faith, posted 07-14-2015 12:54 PM Faith has taken no action

  
edge
Member (Idle past 937 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 1886 of 1939 (762684)
07-14-2015 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1883 by Faith
07-14-2015 1:07 PM


Re: Resuming Discussion
As I said, I'm no longer claiming anything I can't prove. This is my hypothesis, period. My hypothesis is that the Flood laid down ALL the strata, and that would include the Supergroup.

OKay, good. Perhaps you'd entertain some suggestions as to why that cannot be so.

For instance...

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.

Most of us would interpret that as a tectonic event occurring during that time period, with deeper basement rocks being uplifted and exposed to erosion whereby sediments are shed from the higher lands above sea level.

In other words, this depicts a tectonic event on the edge of the Colorado Plateau rocks in the middle of your global flood. That would negate your proposal that there was only one tectonic event, only occurring after deposition of the entire section of sedimentary rocks.

What say you?


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 1887 by Admin, posted 07-14-2015 2:30 PM edge has taken no action
 Message 1889 by Faith, posted 07-14-2015 7:43 PM edge has taken no action

  
edge
Member (Idle past 937 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 1894 of 1939 (762723)
07-14-2015 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1890 by Admin
07-14-2015 8:02 PM


Re: Resuming Discussion
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.

Actually, for once, I understand what you are saying AND what Faith is saying (though the latter still takes some interpretation). I am sorry that my jargon is kind of difficult to understand, but I must add that I have had some pain lately and kind of rush things once in a while.

But yes, your understanding is correct. Using fossils and mapping techniques, we can trace a specific age and 'tectonostratigraphic unit' virtually across continents. In this case the Pennsylvanian aged rocks can be traced to the Ancestral Rockies from which they were eroded. This can be done from surface exposure and from subsurface data (drilling).

What Faith is saying is essentially, that this cannot be done.

I, obviously disagree. Here is an outline of the Paradox Basin in between the Grand Canyon on the lower left and the Uncompahgre Uplift in the upper right.

Here is a cross section of the Pennsylvanian rocks, although in reversed direction. In other words the NE end of the section is to the left side.

It shows a changing depositional envvironment from the Supai Formation on the right in the GC area to the Cutler Formation alluvial fans and the uplifted granite in the east (left side). I think one can see the source of the alluvial fans (conglomerates) being shed from the uplifting granite highlands.

The point is that this all makes sense from the fossil data to the reconstruction of the Pardox evaporitic basin. Notice how thick the rocks are on the left side of the diagram showing the amount of sediments being deposited in that area due to its proximity to the source. I trust that the fault which uplifts the granite is easily seen and understood.

Feel free to ask questions.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1890 by Admin, posted 07-14-2015 8:02 PM Admin has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 1902 by Faith, posted 07-16-2015 11:00 PM edge has taken no action

  
edge
Member (Idle past 937 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1897 of 1939 (762732)
07-14-2015 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1896 by herebedragons
07-14-2015 9:18 PM


Re: Resuming Discussion
MO, the only way this thread could possibly move forward is for her to provide a detailed description/model for how that could possibly be the case. That would require some diagrams that detail the steps involved and where material would be displaced to. This is the type of thing she should be encouraged to provide if there be any hope of this thread moving forward... otherwise, it may as well go into summation and simply wait for a year or so until she brings it up again as if none of this thread ever happened.

Frankly, I would be happy if Faith just agreed to disagree and say simply that, "I don't think you can trace the Supai Formation into the conglomerate fans of the Cutler."

However, the problem is not just weird explanations of faults that have no evidence and cannot mechanically exist, but then there's the odd arguments that are totally unnecessary, brought up (apparently) simply to be disagreeable.

In her defense, it appears that she is trending in the direction of admitting that she has no evidence and simply disagrees based on a biblical interpretation (and not science).

I think this way it is possible to have a discussion. The previous mode prevented discussion.

But then, I could be wrong...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1896 by herebedragons, posted 07-14-2015 9:18 PM herebedragons has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 1903 by Faith, posted 07-16-2015 11:16 PM edge has taken no action

  
edge
Member (Idle past 937 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 1912 of 1939 (762897)
07-17-2015 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1908 by Admin
07-17-2015 10:57 AM


Re: Resuming Discussion
Faith writes:
You may certainly be able to show that they are the same kind of rock in different forms, but the idea that the layer eroded from the mountain rock is pure conjecture.

This is a legitimate objection, and Edge should provide the evidence trail that leads to the conclusion that the rocks actually come from the Ancestral Rockies and are not just rocks of the same type as the Ancestral Rockies.

Yes, and that is exactly why I mentioned that I can accept the argument that someone believes this can't be done.

I disagree with it of course.

There are a few misconceptions along the way, though. First of all, they are not 'the same kind of rock in different forms', they are different rock types demonstrating different depositional environments in existence at a same time. Remember Walther's Law...

Now, if we just propagate the environments upward, we get the same picture as the cross-section shows.

(This may be hard to visualize, but, by 'propagating upward', what I'm really saying is that the basin is subsiding rather than having the sea transgress across the continent ... does this make sense?)

So, as the mountains on the left rise, they shed alluvial fans into the basin. If the basin keeps subsiding the fans keep forming through time (upward).

As a point of clarification, note that the wavy horizontal lines represent specific points in time.

So, the point of the argument is, can we trace from one contemporaneous rock-type to another? I think with transitional contacts and interlayering units, it is easily done by simple geological mapping; and with fossil evidence, we can confirm the conclusion that one formation is the time-equivalent of another. I do not intend to 'prove' this for the Pennsylvanian formations of the Colorado Plateau, but I will accept previous work of others because of the predictive pattern it creates. As further confirmation, these basin models are used extensively in the successful exploration for oil and gas resources along with certain types of copper and uranium deposits.

Feel free to ask questions if I'm not being clear.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1908 by Admin, posted 07-17-2015 10:57 AM Admin has seen this message

  
edge
Member (Idle past 937 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 1913 of 1939 (762898)
07-17-2015 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1908 by Admin
07-17-2015 10:57 AM


Re: Resuming Discussion
How about the possibility that the Pennsylvanian deposits were lithified when the mountains were uplifted?

Just to clarify, the question Edge asked wasn't about when they lithified. The question was how a single flood could create a stack of alluvial fans eroded from the Ancestral Rockies.

More to the point, how do you get these deposits, which signify rapid erosion (conglomerate fans) during a time when Faith says that there was no tectonism, or erosion?

And clearly, something was going on to create lateral changes in rock type and thickness right there in the middle of a single, global flood.

Even if you don't accept the equivalence of the Cutler rocks to the Supai rocks, you need to wonder just why these deposits formed long before the end of the flood. After the Cutler. there is still a long geological history recorded in the rocks as the continent shows a change from marine deposition to more terrestrial rocks of Mesozoic time. How does that fit into the 'one-flood, one-volcano, one mountain-building event such as Faith proposes?

ETA:

First you say you can accept that erosion could create the fans, but deeply buried fans exist where erosion could never take place in your scenario. That mountain building could create fans of alluvial sediments in deeply buried strata without ever exposing them to erosive forces at the surface seems impossible. You (or someone) have to explain how this is actually possible, otherwise I have to to disallow this argument.

This is exactly the point.

In the past, Faith has demanded that we restrict the discussion to the Grand Canyon area, but if she is saying that there was no tectonism or erosion on a global scale that makes her argument specious.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1908 by Admin, posted 07-17-2015 10:57 AM Admin has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 1914 by Faith, posted 07-17-2015 6:40 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 937 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 1915 of 1939 (762906)
07-17-2015 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1914 by Faith
07-17-2015 6:40 PM


Re: How the Flood REINTERPRETS the Cutler et. al.
the strata are spread or expanded vertically in that cross section, which suggests that the fans had space or created the space to intrude or force the conglomerate into or between the layers.

Wow...

Intrusive conglomerates.

I wonder why no one ever thought of that before.

Again, I can picture it but describing it isn't easy. Sort of how the bristles of a stiff brush spread out if you push it hard against a solid surface. Best I can do at the moment.

You're right, it's not easy.

I'm just trying to imagine how these conglomerates were deposited after the flood and then, somehow, forced themselves down the fault zone and then out into sediments that were deposited midway through the flood.

A difficult thing to visualize.

Edge, it doesn't fit into the Flood, it can't fit into the Flood, it's your own model, not mine. I do not accept that supposed "long geological history" and all that utter nonsense about changing "depositional environments" from "marine deposition" to later "terrestrial rocks" and so on. NONE OF THAT HAPPENED.

So, all of these things happened after the flood.

That's kind of odd since these processes are happening to old layers within the rock record.

... on the Flood model, that's all just the Geological Fantasy Time Scale. It's all the result of peering too closely at the rocks and inventing entire landscapes out of bits and pieces of Flood flotsam and jetsam that you misinterpret in terms of long periods of time.

So, the record of eroding mountains in the record was injected or produced by some kind of alteration of the original rocks?

Please proceed with explaining your idea that conglomerates are intrusive. And remember to explain why they are found close to older rocks that are the source of the rock fragments.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1914 by Faith, posted 07-17-2015 6:40 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1916 by Faith, posted 07-17-2015 9:01 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 937 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1922 of 1939 (762924)
07-17-2015 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1916 by Faith
07-17-2015 9:01 PM


Re: How the Flood REINTERPRETS the Cutler et. al.
I figure the contacts between layers could have been opened up by the abrasion to admit the chunks abraded off the mountain side and ends of the strata. That's how I can imagine a fan shape being formed.

Here is what one source says:

Sedimentologic data on Cutler alluvial-fan sediments at Gateway support previous interpretations of semiarid or arid paleoclimate during Permian time along the western flank of Uncompahgria and may act as a standard of comparison for tests of the role of tectonism on sedimentation trends in the Paradox basin. (http://gsabulletin.gsapubs.org/content/95/1/109)

Check it out sometime during your vacation. Despite what you think, tectonic breccias are readily discernible from conglomerates.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1916 by Faith, posted 07-17-2015 9:01 PM Faith has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 1923 by jar, posted 07-17-2015 10:23 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 937 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1924 of 1939 (762931)
07-17-2015 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1923 by jar
07-17-2015 10:23 PM


Re: How the Flood REINTERPRETS the Cutler et. al.
Is it possible to determine if alluvial-fan sediments were produced by a flood or during a semiarid or arid period?

I'm sure it's possible, though I'm not sure how. Possibly related to caliche deposits or the presence of certain plant fossils.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1923 by jar, posted 07-17-2015 10:23 PM jar has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 1926 by petrophysics1, posted 07-18-2015 10:46 AM edge has taken no action

  
edge
Member (Idle past 937 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 1931 of 1939 (762978)
07-18-2015 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1928 by Faith
07-18-2015 10:11 PM


Re: Geology is 3D
How very odd. Edge posts a two-dimensional cross section, challenges me to explain it in terms of the Flood. A way to reimagine it in terms of the Flood instead of his time scale does occur to me, I try to illustrate it, and now I'm told I'm at fault for thinking in 2D.

Well, I wouldn't say that not seeing things in 3D the only fault. For instance, there's the lack of evidence for intrusion of the conglomeratic fan deposits, along with no mechanism for intruding them into the sediments which happen to be what we'd expect for adjacent depositional environments.

Just another one of those weird coincidences, I guess.

I was actually amazed I could come up with anything at all, ...

I'm not. I'm pretty sure that a grade school child could come up with something similar.

... but I guess I'm the only one patting me on the back for that. Nothing but scorn from everybody else.

Well, usually we don't pat people on the back for coming up with outlandish interpretations that have no evidential support.

I suppose we could start. Anyone in favor?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1928 by Faith, posted 07-18-2015 10:11 PM Faith 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