Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9071 total)
40 online now:
Dm14174, dwise1, ringo, Theodoric (3 members, 1 guest login, 36 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,053 Year: 4,165/6,534 Month: 379/900 Week: 85/150 Day: 16/42 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Story in the Rocks - Southwestern U.S.
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 673 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 19 of 121 (779352)
03-03-2016 4:13 PM


As for bombing ranges in Nevada, I understand that the underground caverns formed by the underground nuclear tests of a few decades ago are lined with thick glass, a later stage of what happens to sand under heat and pressure, yes?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by NoNukes, posted 03-03-2016 4:22 PM Faith has taken no action
 Message 21 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-03-2016 4:24 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 673 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 23 of 121 (779365)
03-03-2016 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by edge
03-03-2016 4:32 PM


That is one reason why younger rocks are noticeably softer and recognizable as being younger in the field.

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

Again, the rocks do talk.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by edge, posted 03-03-2016 4:32 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by edge, posted 03-08-2016 10:10 AM Faith has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 673 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


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 taken no action

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

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 673 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


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 taken no action

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

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 673 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


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 replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by edge, posted 04-07-2016 1:53 PM Faith has replied
 Message 45 by edge, posted 04-07-2016 2:21 PM Faith has replied
 Message 82 by Admin, posted 04-08-2016 4:00 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 673 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


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 replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by edge, posted 04-07-2016 2:24 PM Faith has taken no action
 Message 48 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-07-2016 2:34 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 673 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 47 of 121 (781773)
04-07-2016 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by edge
04-07-2016 2:21 PM


Re: A Testament to Erosion
You're right, we've been over this before and I don't see any reason to continue it.

Except to say, what you call a religious reason I call caring about the truth, and I've certainly learned that you guys do not have the truth despite all your posturing about the superiority of Science. I am totally convinced of my argument, I know it's right, it's far from some kind of "religious" position.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by edge, posted 04-07-2016 2:21 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-07-2016 2:51 PM Faith has replied
 Message 54 by jar, posted 04-07-2016 3:20 PM Faith has replied
 Message 56 by edge, posted 04-07-2016 4:10 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 673 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 49 of 121 (781775)
04-07-2016 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Tanypteryx
04-07-2016 2:34 PM


Re: A Testament to Erosion
This whole "buckled section after the overlying layers were deposited thing" is something you made up.

Of COURSE I "made it up," it's MY THEORY for cryin out loud. And it's a fantastically good theory, it answers a lot of the blithering nonsense of OE geology.

You are the only one who claims the contact surface of the Grand Canyon unconformity is flat. It may look that way if you are viewing it from miles away, but up close it is quite irregular.

I posted pictures demonstrating the flatness, and I added a link to that post in Message 44 that you missed because you were answering it already. The pictures show the contact to be flat both close up and at a distance.

Again, we've done this to death and there is no reason to continue.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-07-2016 2:34 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-07-2016 3:03 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 673 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 51 of 121 (781778)
04-07-2016 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Tanypteryx
04-07-2016 2:51 PM


Re: A Testament to Erosion
I do not argue from the Bible. I argue the physical facts.

I've answered your "evidence" many times over. The thing is this is all a war of interpretations but you think it's about evidence. It's not. We all have the same facts, we interpret them differently.

And your tactics are deceitful. You pull rank instead of thinking about my argument. My argument doesn't need the kind of research you demand. It's just a way for you to beat your chest and claim superiority, it has nothing to do with the facts being discussed.

THIS CONVERSATION IS OVER.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-07-2016 2:51 PM Tanypteryx has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 673 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 53 of 121 (781780)
04-07-2016 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Tanypteryx
04-07-2016 3:03 PM


Re: A Testament to Erosion
Subsequent posts all aimed at finding a surface some where flat enough to justify the Party Line. Eventually one was found. But it blew nothing out of the water because getting a flat surface from mere erosion on top of a stack of angled slabs of rock isn't going to happen. In fact I think it probably occurred the way I keep postulating. The angled rock was sheared by the friction between it and a previously present very deep stack of horizontal sediments when tectonic force caused the buckling of the lower section.

There is no reason whatever for erosion to choose a level to flatten out a bunch of broken upright slabs of rock. Doesn't happen. Nothing but OE Geo fantasy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-07-2016 3:03 PM Tanypteryx has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by edge, posted 04-07-2016 4:25 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 673 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 55 of 121 (781782)
04-07-2016 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by jar
04-07-2016 3:20 PM


Re: A Testament to Erosion
Typical twisting. The usual definitional gameplaying.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by jar, posted 04-07-2016 3:20 PM jar has seen this message

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 673 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 60 of 121 (781799)
04-07-2016 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by edge
04-07-2016 4:38 PM


Try it with compacted semi-hardened sediments, and be sure you have different kinds or at least two different kinds, and apply the pressure to the LOWER HALF of the stack. Then you'll be getting somewhere near what I'm talking about. But I've worked on a model for this problem for a long time and there really isn't a set-up that would fairly represent it. Yours certainly doesn't. It's just the usual OE flimflam, just a way to delude yourself and others like Tanypteryx.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by edge, posted 04-07-2016 4:38 PM edge has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 673 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 61 of 121 (781800)
04-07-2016 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by edge
04-07-2016 4:25 PM


Re: A Testament to Erosion
I have ignored nothing relevant,. I don't even know what you are talking about but that doesn't stop the accusations and slanders from you.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by edge, posted 04-07-2016 4:25 PM edge has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 673 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 62 of 121 (781801)
04-07-2016 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by edge
04-07-2016 4:25 PM


Re: A Testament to Erosion
I don't want to have this discussion. Of course they have to move vertically, what kind of sap are you to suggest I don't know that?

Don't you ever get tired of your accusations and deceits?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by edge, posted 04-07-2016 4:25 PM edge has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 673 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 63 of 121 (781803)
04-07-2016 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by edge
04-07-2016 4:10 PM


Re: A Testament to Erosion
A THEORY IN THE BEWGINNIONG STAGES ISN'T A RELIGIOUS VIEWPOINT. All you are doing is playing word games, you aren't interested in truth at all.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by edge, posted 04-07-2016 4:10 PM edge has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022