Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8975 total)
51 online now:
AZPaul3, GDR, jar, JonF, kjsimons, PsychMJC, ringo, vimesey (8 members, 43 visitors)
Newest Member: dad
Post Volume: Total: 875,828 Year: 7,576/23,288 Month: 135/1,347 Week: 152/342 Day: 22/27 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Story in the Rocks - Southwestern U.S.
edge
Member (Idle past 223 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 31 of 121 (779774)
03-08-2016 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Faith
03-03-2016 5:10 PM


Maybe, or perhaps they simply did not undergo the pressure and compaction of harder rocks.

I assure you that there are more exceptions than you can imagine, but the general rule still stands.

But sometimes they don't speak English, or you don't hear them right.

Of course they don't speak English. That's why we study them ... just like we would study any foreign language. And who would 'hear' them better? Someone who has studied them, or someone who reads creationist websites for information?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 03-03-2016 5:10 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 223 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 32 of 121 (780766)
03-20-2016 11:52 AM


A Testament to Erosion
Here is a close-up of gravel deposits on the west flank of the Panamint Range in California. They are derived from erosion of the rising Panamint Mountains which currently reach an elevation of over 3350m. On the other side of the range is Death Valley with a minimum elevation of -85m (that would be below sea level). Most of this elevation differential has occurred in the last 3 million years resulting in monumental erosion and huge gravel deposits such as this.

My point here is that, if you look at the next picture, you can see that the gravels themselves have been uplifted and, in turn, eroded into these steep arroyos. So if anyone has a problem with the effects of erosion go here and explain this...

In the second picture, you can see the Panamint Valley (yeah, not much out there) in the background and thick gravel deposits extending as 'spurs' out into the valley. In the very lower left there is a small outcrop of Precambrian basement rock.

These gravels were once at the elevation of the valley below and even now form (tilted) terraces that one can drive a vehicle on, if you can get across the treacherous gullies.

This is extremely remote and rugged country. Charles Manson hid out in this area for a while.


Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-06-2016 7:27 PM edge has not yet responded
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 7:54 PM edge has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member (Idle past 73 days)
Posts: 2332
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 33 of 121 (781713)
04-06-2016 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by edge
03-20-2016 11:52 AM


Re: A Testament to Erosion
Sorry it took me so long to get back to this. Lots of good stuff going on in my life right now.

These are nice examples sediments ending up not being lithified but later being uplifted.

I think parts of the Pueblo Range south of Steens Mountain in SE Oregon is similar uplifted gravel deposits.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by edge, posted 03-20-2016 11:52 AM edge has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 34 of 121 (781715)
04-06-2016 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by edge
03-20-2016 11:52 AM


Re: A Testament to Erosion
Why on earth would anyone have a problem with erosion on a massive scale or any scale? The only problem I have is of course the time factor. No way that pile of gravel took millions of years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by edge, posted 03-20-2016 11:52 AM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-06-2016 8:28 PM Faith has responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member (Idle past 73 days)
Posts: 2332
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


(1)
Message 35 of 121 (781718)
04-06-2016 8:22 PM


Another testament to erosion
I decided that there is no real reason to just post images in the sequence of my road trip.

I took these three images without paying attention as closely as I should have. At the time I shot them I didn't realize that I right across from the Great Unconformity. (I know, what a dunderhead, right?).

So, this is a panorama of shots from right to left, although the 1st one was taken from a slightly different position.

Part of the reason I didn't realize where I was, must have been the tail-end of my fear of heights. My wife and Daughter and son-in-law and granddaughter had joined my grandson and me for the Grand Canyon part of our trip, so I was also feeling a bit of anxiety when they were close to the edge also.

I wish I had made some images with a telephoto so I had better detail. Oh well, next time.


The Great Unconformity is evidence of very ancient layers (Grand Canyon Supergroup) that were originally deposited mostly horizontally and were later tilted and then eroded. Later, the Tapeats Sandstone and subsequent overlying layers were deposited. There are two unconformities, one at the bottom of the Grand Canyon group where it contacts the Vishnu Schist and at the top, where it contacts the Tapeats.

An unconformity is where there is a time gap where material has been eroded away and then later newer material is deposited. It was under water when the deposition occurred and above sea level when the erosion occurred.

Edited by Admin, : Narrow image width.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by edge, posted 04-07-2016 2:05 PM Tanypteryx has responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member (Idle past 73 days)
Posts: 2332
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 36 of 121 (781719)
04-06-2016 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Faith
04-06-2016 7:54 PM


Re: A Testament to Erosion
Faith writes:

Why on earth would anyone have a problem with erosion on a massive scale or any scale? The only problem I have is of course the time factor. No way that pile of gravel took millions of years.

You know what Faith? This thread is in the science forum and we are talking about the science of Geology, not your creationist young earth mythology.

You have no argument here.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 7:54 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 8:42 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 37 of 121 (781721)
04-06-2016 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Tanypteryx
04-06-2016 8:28 PM


Re: A Testament to Erosion
I realize that brainwashing (against Christianity and in favor of evolution) has damaged your ability to think, but I said nothing about my religion, I spoke about the gravel heap and gave the opinion of any reasonable person that it wouldn't have taken millions of years.

And while I'm at it your photos of the Great Unconformity are quite nice and they also serve to prove your regurgitation of the Party Line about it ridiculous: The lower part of the formation is pretty much upright. Erosion would have eaten away at the indented parts of it and greatly increased them, knocked off a lot of the higher parts into those indentations, and in other words could not possibly, even if given the millions or billions of years allotted to it, ended up with the flat surface on which the Tapeats was later laid. It would have been rough and lumpy and bumpy and most likely the upper surface besides being a nightmare of peaks and holes, would have followed no straight horizontal line as it apparently does. At the very least sand would have flowed into the holes and indentations. This is wonderful evidence for my theory about how angular uncomformities form. Thanks for the great shot that makes it so clear.

(ABE: Erosion would not seek a particular level, it would deepen gullies and roughen down the higher spots, it would not make a smooth surface at some height on the lower section, as if predetermined. It would keep eroding until it reached rock it couldn't erode so easily).

Oh don't worry, I don't expect you to understand anything I say. Carry on.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-06-2016 8:28 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by edge, posted 04-07-2016 10:22 AM Faith has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 223 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 38 of 121 (781744)
04-07-2016 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Faith
04-06-2016 8:42 PM


Re: A Testament to Erosion
I realize that brainwashing has damaged your ability to think, ...

Now, that's a good way to start a discussion.

... I spoke about the gravel heap and gave the opinion of any reasonable person that it wouldn't have taken millions of years.

Problem is that on one says that it took millions of years to produce that particular deposit.

This is one of the things that completely baffles me about the YEC understanding of geology. For some reason, they seem to think that rapid processes mean young ages.

For instance, I would think that the gravel deposit shown in my picture might have been deposited in hundreds to thousands of years ... a million years ago (actually, in this case, I think those particular gravels are younger, but I know of no dating).

Probably this flaw in reasoning has no impact on the YEC because old ages simply do not exist, are not possible and never will exist. It is a logic barrier. As I remember, Faith also believes that geology has 'ended' and the world is fixed in its present state.

And while I'm at it your photos of the Great Unconformity are quite nice and they also serve to prove your regurgitation of the Party Line about it ridiculous: The lower part of the formation is pretty much upright. Erosion would have eaten away at the indented parts of it and greatly increased them, knocked off a lot of the higher parts into those indentations, and in other words could not possibly, even if given the millions or billions of years allotted to it, ended up with the flat surface on which the Tapeats was later laid.

First of all you are giving us reasons why the surface tends to become planed off.

" ... knocked off a lot of the higher parts into those indentations..."

And in the second place, you are just plain wrong. The Tapeats was not deposited on a planar surface. As we have shown you before, there are 'islands' of Shinumo Quartzite around which the Tapeats was deposited. (Oh, I know ... it's all in the imaginations of brainwashed scientists...)

It would have been rough and lumpy and bumpy and most likely the upper surface besides being a nightmare of peaks and holes, would have followed no straight horizontal line as it apparently does.

Except that it doesn't.

At the very least sand would have flowed into the holes and indentations. This is wonderful evidence for my theory about how angular uncomformities form.

Which you should perhaps explain again, because that sounds exactly like erosion...

Thanks for the great shot that makes it so clear.

Well, it seem to be clearer to some than others.

Oh don't worry, I don't expect the brainwashed to understand anything I say. Carry on.

Ah, nothing like a parting insult to open up conversation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 8:42 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-07-2016 12:00 PM edge has not yet responded
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 04-07-2016 1:33 PM edge has responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member (Idle past 73 days)
Posts: 2332
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 39 of 121 (781761)
04-07-2016 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by edge
04-07-2016 10:22 AM


Re: A Testament to Erosion
I realize that brainwashing has damaged your ability to think, ...

Now, that's a good way to start a discussion.

Oh don't worry, I don't expect the brainwashed to understand anything I say. Carry on.

Ah, nothing like a parting insult to open up conversation.

Ironic, isn't it? Arrogant insults are the response to anyone who disagrees with her.

It really pisses her off that we have a model that fits all the evidence perfectly. Given a vast period of time, the processes we see today would produce the world we see today. The key to it all is vast amounts of time and the dating evidence supports that conclusion perfectly. Creationists go through all sorts of contortions to try to deny the obvious, and make it fit their mythical flood.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by edge, posted 04-07-2016 10:22 AM edge has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 40 of 121 (781765)
04-07-2016 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by edge
04-07-2016 10:22 AM


Re: A Testament to Erosion

Which you should perhaps explain again, because that sounds exactly like erosion...

Yes, I was describing what erosion WOULD HAVE done, which would have made the neat flat deposition of the Tapeats impossible. There would not have been a flat surface or a horizontal surface which there is -- (oh don't get nitpicky about this -- I don't care if it's PERFECTLY horizontal, that's a straight flat horizontal rock there to any fair judgment, and if it's slightly off the horizontal now, three's nevertheless no doubt it was originally horizontal.) The sand would have filled in the gaps. But it didn't. The Tapeats sits on it so awfully neatly, straight and horizontal.

It's also interesting to me that it is like a lot of angular unconformities in that there are no layers above it at this spot. You often see upright or angled lower strata with a single slab lying across them. Siccar Point is just one case, there are lots of them. This is normally absurdly interpreted as the lower section buckling before the upper was laid down, but it's so much better explained as the buckling's occurring after the upper was laid down, and not just one layer but the whole stack to the highest and most 'recent" which would have provided the resistance that allowed the lower part to buckle separately, leaving the upper stack intact. Except that the upper stack was also disturbed by the same tectonic force that did the buckling of the lower, and only the one slab remained, having been stuck to the buckled section by the friction between them, while those above washed away in the Flood.

Most of the Grand Canyon's stack remained intact through the tectonic force that angled the lower part of the unconformity, but there are places like that shown in these pictures where the stack above the Tapeats washed away.

And just as an aside, Siccar Point is interesting for its current state of erosion of the lower section into jagged picket-like sticks of rock. That's what erosion would do, especially in that location that gets such extreme weathering. And any layer depositing horizontally on top of it wouldn't have formed a nice neat horizontal slab, it would have fallen between the pickets and got welded there over time. Of course there would have been a full stack laid down there too, then the buckling, then the washing away of those above that one weather- shredded tilted once-horizontal upper rock.

Oh and Tanypteryx started this "discussion" by accusing me of giving a religious opinion, which shows his brainwashing. It's a perfectly reasonable conclusion from the evidence.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by edge, posted 04-07-2016 10:22 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by edge, posted 04-07-2016 1:53 PM Faith has responded
 Message 45 by edge, posted 04-07-2016 2:21 PM Faith has responded
 Message 82 by Admin, posted 04-08-2016 4:00 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 223 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 41 of 121 (781767)
04-07-2016 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Faith
04-07-2016 1:33 PM


Re: A Testament to Erosion
Yes, I was describing what erosion WOULD HAVE done, which would have made the neat flat deposition of the Tapeats impossible. There would not have been a flat surface or a horizontal surface. The sand would have filled in the gaps. But it didn't. The Tapeats sits on it so awfully neatly, straight and horizontal.

There is something here that I haven't noticed before. However, it is still a fallacy.

The material that fills in the depressions is not the same as what forms the depressions. That is, they would be part of the upper (younger) package of rocks even though they are derived from the lower. In detail, the the unconformity is irregular.

I have shown this picture before. What it shows is that the unconformity, the yellow line, is irregular and the sand filling in the low spots is actually considered part of the overlying package of rocks.

This particular picture is from the Death Valley area and shows an angular unconformity that looks (based on the base of the coarse-grained unit) to be planar and smooth. But it isn't really so.

Here is the old picture of Siccar Point, where the Great Unconformity can be seen to be irregular also.

It shows an irregular surface filled in by younger sediments with a very smooth and planar layering above. Note the blue section where a channel of coarser material has run across the finer. All sediments above the unconformity are basically the same material as what is below, probably with some contamination from other sources not in the area of the image. Once again this is an angular unconformity in which the upper sediments have also been tilted.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 04-07-2016 1:33 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Faith, posted 04-07-2016 2:13 PM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 223 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 42 of 121 (781768)
04-07-2016 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Tanypteryx
04-06-2016 8:22 PM


Re: Another testament to erosion
An unconformity is where there is a time gap where material has been eroded away and then later newer material is deposited. It was under water when the deposition occurred and above sea level when the erosion occurred.

I might add something here.

At an unconformity, we cannot tell when the erosion started, we can only tell when sedimentation resumed. A short period of erosion could conceivably remove many millions of years of deposition. So just looking at a picture, we cannot tell how long the erosion took place.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-06-2016 8:22 PM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-07-2016 2:08 PM edge has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member (Idle past 73 days)
Posts: 2332
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 43 of 121 (781769)
04-07-2016 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by edge
04-07-2016 2:05 PM


Re: Another testament to erosion
Thanks, that make perfect sense.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by edge, posted 04-07-2016 2:05 PM edge has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 44 of 121 (781770)
04-07-2016 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by edge
04-07-2016 1:53 PM


Re: A Testament to Erosion
The upper picture still doesn't look like an unconformity to me but I guess I have to treat it as one.

sand filling in the gaps would have been the result of the friction between the two sections as the lower buckled.

The point is that you would not ever have gotten a flat horizontal surface from erosion of the buckled section if it occurred before the upper were laid on it, but it is always said that it was eroded flat, and this is to accommodate the fact that the upper section IS flat and horizontal in the majority of cases. These two pictures are something else. In the case of Siccar Point the rock is so extremely eroded by current conditions that reconstructing the original situation isn't all that easy. Again, however, erosion between the two sections is a separate thing from the erosion of the surface of the lower section before deposition of the upper. There wouldn't have been any sand or loose sediment, just a smooth surface as the expectable result of the erosion processes, according to all the theories I've encountered.

There was an entire thread about angular unconformities in which my opponents tried to prove to me that you could get such a flat surface from erosion so that where it exists it wouldn't need to have been the result of the buckling itself. ABE: This is how the Great Unconformity in the GC is always interpreted: flat horizontal surface of the lower section before deposition of the upper, accounting for the neat flatness of the upper. HERE's the post where I post pictures showing the flatness and straightness of the unconformity itself.

So I object that erosion would not have made such a flat surface and you produce these pictures which are obviously of something else, or of the erosion produced by the friction or the later weathering. But anbular unconformities are always described as the buckled section being eroded to a flat surface before the deposition of the strata above./abe

Siccar Point same situation. They are "basically the same material," yes, basically, being both sandstone, but they are two different kinds of sandstone, one called greywacke and the other I forget, a reddish stone I think, enough of a difference to provide a point of what I think of as slippage between the two sections, so that the entire lower section could buckle separately from the upper because they are sufficiently different for that to happen.

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 41 by edge, posted 04-07-2016 1:53 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by edge, posted 04-07-2016 2:24 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 48 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-07-2016 2:34 PM Faith has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 223 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 45 of 121 (781771)
04-07-2016 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Faith
04-07-2016 1:33 PM


Re: A Testament to Erosion
It's also interesting to me that it is like a lot of angular unconformities in that there are no layers above it at this spot.

In fact, we live on an unconformity and in many places it is an angular unconformity.

Right now, it would be easy to see flat lying deposits on top of tilted rock formations as the sea might transgress across the land.

Why not go with that? Something we can actually see and even predict.

You often see upright or angled lower strata with a single slab lying across them. Siccar Point is just one case, there are lots of them.

Not clear what you are saying here. I see several slabs of sandstone above the GU at Siccar Point.

This is normally absurdly interpreted as the lower section buckling before the upper was laid down, but it's so much better explained as the buckling's occurring after the upper was laid down, and not just one layer but the whole stack to the highest and most 'recent" which would have provided the resistance that allowed the lower part to buckle separately, leaving the upper stack intact.

And one slab would hold down the entire stratigraphic section?

Sorry, but that does not pass the giggle test.

Except that the upper stack was also disturbed by the same tectonic force that did the buckling of the lower, and only the one slab remained, having been stuck to the buckled section by the friction between them, while those above washed away in the Flood.

So that rocks below all angular unconformities are pre-flood?

Sorry, but there is no evidence of universal shearing along these unconformities. That would have to be the case as the upper unit would have to be detached from the lower, which is the opposite of what you are saying.

Most of the Grand Canyon's stack remained intact through the tectonic force that angled the lower part of the unconformity, but there are places like that shown in these pictures where the stack above the Tapeats washed away.

No. There is no detachment and there is an irregular surface at the base of the Tapeats.

We have been over this before.

And just as an aside, Siccar Point is interesting for its current state of erosion of the lower section into jagged picket-like sticks of rock. That's what erosion would do, especially in that location that gets such extreme weathering. And any layer depositing horizontally on top of it wouldn't have formed a nice neat horizontal slab, it would have fallen between the pickets and got welded there over time.

That is practically the definition of an erosional unconformity.

Of course there would have been a full stack laid down there too, then the buckling, then the washing away of those above that one weather- shredded tilted once-horizontal upper rock.

This sentence makes no sense.

Oh and Tanypteryx started this "discussion" by accusing me of giving a religious opinion, which shows his brainwashing. It's a perfectly reasonable conclusion from the evidence.

However the only real reason for making this conclusion and clinging to it is religious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 04-07-2016 1:33 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 04-07-2016 2:33 PM edge has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020