Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
73 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 69 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,321 Year: 4,433/6,534 Month: 647/900 Week: 171/182 Day: 4/47 Hour: 0/1

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
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 684 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1878 of 1939 (762670)
07-14-2015 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1877 by edge
07-14-2015 11:45 AM


Re: Resuming Discussion
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?

I've stated I'm no longer making claims for which I don't have evidence. 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.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1877 by edge, posted 07-14-2015 11:45 AM edge has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 1879 by Admin, posted 07-14-2015 12:37 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 684 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1880 of 1939 (762675)
07-14-2015 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1879 by Admin
07-14-2015 12:37 PM


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

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1879 by Admin, posted 07-14-2015 12:37 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1881 by edge, posted 07-14-2015 1:02 PM Faith has taken no action
 Message 1882 by Admin, posted 07-14-2015 1:04 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 684 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1883 of 1939 (762678)
07-14-2015 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1882 by Admin
07-14-2015 1:04 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1882 by Admin, posted 07-14-2015 1:04 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1884 by Admin, posted 07-14-2015 2:03 PM Faith has replied
 Message 1885 by Coyote, posted 07-14-2015 2:05 PM Faith has taken no action
 Message 1886 by edge, posted 07-14-2015 2:06 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 684 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1888 of 1939 (762706)
07-14-2015 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1884 by Admin
07-14-2015 2:03 PM


Re: Resuming Discussion
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?

Floods may lay down layers of sediment, and rivers and rising sea level also lay down layers of sediment, but I will reword this to remove the word "fact" and say that my hypothesis is that the Flood would have laid down ALL the strata in the Grand Canyon including the Supergroup.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1884 by Admin, posted 07-14-2015 2:03 PM Admin has seen this message

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 684 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1889 of 1939 (762714)
07-14-2015 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1886 by edge
07-14-2015 2:06 PM


Re: Resuming Discussion

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?

I'd be well advised to say nothing at all on this miserable thread, since I know I'll only be subjected to abuse of some sort or other and even I can only take so much. But I'm an ***** so I'll give the usual answer, which I've given before, maybe on this thread but I don't remember.

This is the part I always disagree with:

Most of us would interpret that as a tectonic event occurring during that time period,

I don't know in this case but the usual example is of the rock of that particular time period being exposed at the surface. Is that the case here?

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.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 1890 by Admin, posted 07-14-2015 8:02 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 684 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1891 of 1939 (762719)
07-14-2015 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1890 by Admin
07-14-2015 8:02 PM


Re: Resuming Discussion
Your judgments and rulings are getting positively ridiculous. I'm sick of your professed inability to understand my simple descriptions. If you can't understand what that paragraph says, I'm off this thread.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 1892 by Admin, posted 07-14-2015 8:31 PM Faith has taken no action
 Message 1893 by Admin, posted 07-14-2015 8:52 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 684 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1898 of 1939 (762738)
07-15-2015 1:02 AM


Unbelievable. I'm leaving this thread. Have fun with your ridiculous trash talk against me.

Replies to this message:
 Message 1899 by Admin, posted 07-15-2015 8:19 AM Faith has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 684 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1901 of 1939 (762871)
07-16-2015 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1896 by herebedragons
07-14-2015 9:18 PM


Re: Resuming Discussion
... it seems to me Faith's hypothesis all goes back to the original topic of this thread which is that the Great Unconformity is not an erosional feature; that it formed during the flood's deposition of the strata - even AFTER most of it was in place.

After ALL of it was in place.

IMO, 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.

Yes, I'm certainly not giving up on my hypothesis yet. You've forced me to concede that some things are POSSIBLE that nevertheless could not possibly have happened, according to my hypothesis, such as the apparent scouring of such a flat surface as in those original pictures of the GU I posted, by normal surface erosion. Somebody finally found a very flat straight surface so I have to say it's possible for such a surface to be formed by erosion over some distance -- though not nearly the huge distances of most of the strata. But I don't believe for half a second that that explains the GU at those locations where it IS flat and straight -- and there are plenty of other locations where it isn't too, such as at that road cut in New York.

I'm with the creationists in general on this point too, such as the British group of which Paul Garner is a part, the one who did the video lecture on the Grand Canyon that I posted. In that video he claims that the GU lacks necessary evidence of surface erosion and proposes the action of a debris flow as the cause of the eroded surface.

You did make a good case from the diagrams of the draped Tapeats sandstone, with the help of the video Percy posted of the draped layering of sand deposited in a tank on an irregular surface, that the sand could have been deposited on top of the "monadnocks" rather than the monadnocks intruding into the already-existent layer of sand, but that's really the only good case. The extremely flat surfaces, especially the flat undersurface of the Tapeats that can be seen in some photos, especially where it juts out as a shelf over the underlying basement rock, is evidence for my view.

So, is her argument nonsense? Sure, I think it is total nonsense. I think it was made crystal clear in the last 1800+ posts that the Great Unconformity IS an erosional surface.

"Crystal clear" is hardly the case. Ambiguous at best.

However, she holds that it has not been adequately demonstrated and that her hypothesis better explains the observations.

I don't think the proof is there yet, just that you haven't proved your case either. Again I look at the road cut and see a layer that was deformed in the damp state where you all insist it was deposited that way. It's been proved possible for a layer to deposit evenly on a slope but as I see it (according to my hypothesis) there is simply no way that's how that layer formed or any of the layers of the geologic column. I think that's obvious just by looking at it, and that I've described well enough how it's obvious -- the appearance of the sagged layer, the fact that layers above also were slightly tilted downward to the left above it, the narrowing of the layers to the right and the rough rock where the droop to the left apparently originated, which may in fact be the result of the upward thrust of the gneiss to the right; but beyond that I can't prove it.

So the next step is obviously for her to provide an unambiguous description of the hypothesis (that is, how the Great Unconformity formed while under a mile of sediment),

That I've described many times and described it at my blog as well. There should be no doubt about my hypothesis in this case.

... otherwise we keep guessing and she keeps complaining that we are all crazy (like thinking that sediment can deposit on a slope was madness).

I still think you're all mad to think strata could have formed that way. I think the dismissal of the formerly trusted Steno's principle of original horizontality (gollygee, science PROGRESSES ya know) is just too too convenient and basically a fraud.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1896 by herebedragons, posted 07-14-2015 9:18 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1904 by herebedragons, posted 07-17-2015 8:12 AM Faith has taken no action
 Message 1905 by Admin, posted 07-17-2015 8:41 AM Faith has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 684 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1902 of 1939 (762872)
07-16-2015 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1894 by edge
07-14-2015 9:16 PM


Re: Resuming Discussion
But yes, your understanding is correct. Using fossils and mapping techniques, we can trace a specific age and 'tectonostratigraphic unit' virtually across continents. ...

I don't have any reason to doubt the ability to trace a LAYER (not a time period) and don't know why you think I would. I've many times said that I understand the strata to extend across whole continents.

I can't of course accept your timeline for any particular formation such as this one. According to my hypothesis the Rockies formed after the Flood as part of the tectonic upheavals occurring at that time. Their formation would have interrupted the strata that had already been laid down, of course.

.. 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).

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. How about the possibility that the Pennsylvanian deposits were lithified when the mountains were uplifted?

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

That what can't 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.

Unfortunately that diagram is totally invisible to me. I put it in Paint and expanded it so I now can at least see the blue patch in the center and basic outlines but can't make out the words.

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.

I wouldn't doubt that there is some relation between the uplifting of the mountains and the rocks at their base but of course I have to put the timing off to the end of the Flood, the mountainbuilding disrupting the already-deposited strata, not during the laying down of one of the buried layers. So in my hypothesis it would be the mountain-building itself that caused the rubble or conglomerate fans, also lithified or even metamorphosed the sedimentary rock where the tectonic pressure occurred

But I also have to say that cross section is hard to decipher. For one thing a vertical stack of alluvial fans is hard to grasp.

The point is that this all makes sense from the fossil data to the reconstruction of the Pardox evaporitic basin.

No problem with the extension of the Supai group into this formation, only problems with the timing of the events.

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.

Again I don't have a problem with the idea that the erosion of the mountains could have created the conglomerate fans or rubble, only with the timing, so that the raising of the mountains itself could have created the rubble. That tectonic action would have compressed the strata it was pushing upward, and erosion of chunks off its rising surface would make sense.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1894 by edge, posted 07-14-2015 9:16 PM edge has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 1908 by Admin, posted 07-17-2015 10:57 AM Faith has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 684 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1903 of 1939 (762873)
07-16-2015 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1897 by edge
07-14-2015 10:40 PM


Re: Resuming Discussion
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."

I have no reason to think that though.

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.

No idea what you are referring to, some completely mistaken misreading of your own perhaps.

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).

Nothing biblical at all about my hypothesis. As usual the Biblical framework defines what is possible but the interpretation of the rocks doesn't come from the Bible. And really nothing has changed anyway. I like to use assertive language when I believe something is true but all I can possibly have is an hypothesis and since it helps with communication I think it's best to stick to that concept.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1897 by edge, posted 07-14-2015 10:40 PM edge has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 1909 by Admin, posted 07-17-2015 11:06 AM Faith has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 684 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1906 of 1939 (762883)
07-17-2015 9:22 AM


I think I've said all I have to say on this thread. Take it or leave it.

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 684 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1914 of 1939 (762904)
07-17-2015 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1913 by edge
07-17-2015 2:34 PM


How the Flood REINTERPRETS the Cutler et. al.
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.

AS I ALREADY SAID, I don't accept that they are "ancestral" to the strata, I applied my hypothesis which says the mountains were tectonically pushed up after all the strata were in place and in that process shed the rocks that formed the fans. It is relevant to MY hypothesis if not to anything anybody else thinks, that the strata would have been lithified in the process of being raised, because that shows a view of the order of things that puts the strata first and the mountain-building afterward, makes the strata not the result of erosion of the mountains but the mountains an interruption in the path of the strata and a source of the conglomerate fans AFTERward.

edge writes:

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?

I thought this was answered too, and again you show how hard it is for you to think outside your geological box, which makes conversation with you so frustrating.

As my own separate model suggests, since the strata do NOT represent time periods the mountain-building with its resultant erosion into the alluvial fans occurred AFTER THE FLOOD, which is when I've said ALL ALONG that according to my hypothesis the tectonic activity occurred that created all the massive erosion in the GC area AND the Rockies. The fans had to have been pushed into the different layers of the strata as seen on the cross section, at the same time the strata were being compressed and raised into the mountains. I can picture it but it would be hard to describe.

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.

IT WAS NOT "IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FLOOD" for crying out loud. The Flood had come to an end; all the strata were already laid down all the way across the continent. The change in rock type is easily explained by the tectonic forces that raised the mountains, the thickness, if I'm getting what that refers to, explained by the shedding of chunks of rock from the rising mountains.

I thought you were talking about how the Pennsylvanian layer was the result of the erosion which implied the same kind of rock in different forms, to which I reply that the Pennsylvanian sediments, not yet lithified, GOT lithified by the tectonic force that raised the mountains and turned them into solid rock, shedding chunks in the process that built up into the fans. I already said all this I thought. But perhaps it involves different kinds of rock, not just the Pennsylvanian. That's OK too, I just wasn't clear what you are referring to.

Even if you don't accept the equivalence of the Cutler rocks to the Supai rocks...

But I have no reason not to accept that and I thought I said that loud and clear tloo.

...you need to wonder just why these deposits formed long before the end of the flood.

I wonder no such thing because I don't accept your timeline, and really, that much ought to be very clear by now. The fact that you can't seem to break out of your own presuppositions long enough to grasp this simple fact I've repeated a bazillion times makes communication IMPOSSIBLE.

I'M OFFERING A DIFFERENT EXPLANATION ON DIFFERENT TIMING for how those deposits formed --AFTER 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?

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 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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

Oh of course. If you don't understand something you call it "nonsense" and disallow it. You're quite the "neutral" moderator.

Well, I just now tried to explain how I visualize them being forced into the spread-out strata that butts up against the mountains after they've been raised or during their raising, abrasion at that point contributing to the shedding of the conglomerate rock.

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.

This is so ludicrously false I hardly know what to say. I certainly never "demanded" anything, but I did say that the Grand Canyon has the virtue of CLARITY that makes it easier to argue the order of things, whereas most other geological formations are messy enough to make it difficult to show the same order of things. BUT I'VE NEVER EVER DENIED, and in fact I believe I've affirmed, that THE VERY SAME EVENTS HAD TO HAPPEN EVERYWHERE IN THE SAME ORDER. There certainly DID have to be tectonism and erosion on a global scale and wherever I've been able to figure out the geological situation at all I've made that case.

You and Percy are the blind leading the blind, taking turns at it, Abbot and Costello, Mutt and Jeff.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1913 by edge, posted 07-17-2015 2:34 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1915 by edge, posted 07-17-2015 7:36 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 684 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1916 of 1939 (762911)
07-17-2015 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1915 by edge
07-17-2015 7:36 PM


Re: How the Flood REINTERPRETS the Cutler et. al.
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.

The Flood hypothesis denies that they are old.

I made a drawing that I'll post despite your snarky attitude:

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.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1915 by edge, posted 07-17-2015 7:36 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1917 by Admin, posted 07-17-2015 9:31 PM Faith has replied
 Message 1922 by edge, posted 07-17-2015 10:15 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 684 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1918 of 1939 (762916)
07-17-2015 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1917 by Admin
07-17-2015 9:31 PM


Re: How the Flood REINTERPRETS the Cutler et. al.
Then they are misnamed.

I wish you'd stay out of this. I have more than enough trouble with edge without your intrusions and misguided rulings against my comments.

All you are doing is ruling in favor of the arguments of my opposition. That ought to disqualify you from playing moderator on this thread. Or anywhere for that matter.

I am disallowing all your disallowings. You can suspend me of course. Fire away.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1917 by Admin, posted 07-17-2015 9:31 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1919 by Admin, posted 07-17-2015 9:55 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 684 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1920 of 1939 (762920)
07-17-2015 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1919 by Admin
07-17-2015 9:55 PM


Re: How the Flood REINTERPRETS the Cutler et. al.
I don't want to fight with you any more. You are way out of line and can't see it. Either get off the thread or suspend me, I don't care which.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1919 by Admin, posted 07-17-2015 9:55 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1921 by Admin, posted 07-17-2015 10:00 PM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022