Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
469 online now:
Percy (Admin), Pollux (2 members, 467 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,162 Year: 4,274/6,534 Month: 488/900 Week: 12/182 Day: 12/28 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Young earth explanations for Angular Unconformities
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 168 of 202 (796743)
01-03-2017 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by edge
01-03-2017 7:59 PM


Oh in that case far be it from me to interfere. I'll go find something else to do. Carry on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by edge, posted 01-03-2017 7:59 PM edge has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 175 of 202 (796779)
01-04-2017 1:51 PM


a review
This thread has lurched from topic to topic without any closure on any of them. Here are a few topics I remember off the top of my head.

I mentioned the apparently equal weathering above and below the unconformity at Siccar Point as evidence that the standard interpretation is false: i.e., that the lower section was laid down and then tilted, and then eroded, and that a long time later the upper section was deposited on top of it. Since millions of years are usually ascribed to such processes, particularly the erosion phase, there should be a difference in weathering apparent between the upper and lower blocks of strata, but they show no such difference.

Edge responded that the upper was deposited quite close to the tilting of the lower, based on some claim of the formation’s having been built near a “shoreline.” This topic didn’t get pursued. My response is just that such shorelines are imaginary. I don’t recall seeing an answer to that from edge.

To my argument that the lower section was tectonically tilted/folded, edge said there is no evidence of “tectonic structures.” When I asked him to explain how the tilting occurred without tectonic pressure he eventually said of course there was tectonic pressure, he wasn’t denying that. So why then make an issue of there being no “tectonic structures?” I think he answered this somewhere but I don’t recall the answer and I find it hard to follow this sort of verbal game-playing anyway.

When I elaborated that the lower section wasn’t just tilted but folded, and put up the drawing by Lyell demonstrating that, he said there is none of the usual evidence of folding and posted a picture which I guess shows stretched rock. But we KNOW that the rock was folded so what does this supposed absence of evidence demonstrate? Just more game-playing obfuscation it seems to me.

There are also none of the usual signs of shearing, he says, to counter my idea that the unconformity must have been formed by shearing between the upper and lower sections. I don’t really care if literal “shearing” is how it happened, the point is that the two sections moved against each other. The result could be lumpy. He answered that there should be evidence in any case. I don’t find this very convincing. A lack of evidence isn’t normally considered to be acceptable evidence of the absence of a phenomenon.

At some point edge put up a picture of an unconformity with a granite base and sandstone layers topping it. He kept referring to the granite as forming boulders. I missed his point I’m afraid, I still don’t know what he intended to be arguing with that picture. But it was interesting for the fact that a depression in the granite was not filled by sand from the sandstone layers above, which to my mind shows that the depression occurred after the sandstone was in place.

Then he posted a picture of folded rock above some flat layers that was intended to answer my idea that the folding of the rock at Siccar Point was made possible by a great weight of strata that would have been above the folded rock. He claimed there had been no strata above the folded rock in the picture, but how does he know that? If the rock is very old then it is very likely that just like Siccar Point there would have been a deep stack above it at the time of folding.

Through all these different issues there was Percy’s constant refrain about how my argument fails because there would have been an enormous amount of material that just disappeared. Well, it disappeared from the pictures we have of such formations, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t get pushed somewhere that just isn’t recognized, outside the formation as we normally view it, even perhaps the cause of the formation’s being exposed on a certain surface; or deep within it somewhere we also don’t get to see.

ABE: Consider that the Grand Canyon must have been emptied of an enormous amount of material but where is the evidence of that? I think it's probably in rubble formations along the path of the Colorado River and into the Gulf of California, but there isn't anything obvious about this.

This thread has bounced from one issue to another without any of them being addressed to any useful extent, in some cases not addressed at all.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by edge, posted 01-04-2017 2:34 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 183 of 202 (796814)
01-04-2017 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by edge
01-04-2017 2:34 PM


The decrepitude of both upper and lower blocks of strata
I mentioned the apparently equal weathering above and below the unconformity as evidence that the standard interpretation is false: i.e., that the lower section was laid down and then tilted, and that a long time later the upper section was deposited on top of it. Since millions of years are usually ascribed to such blocks of strata, there should be a difference in weathering apparent between the two blocks, but they show no such difference.

No. I said that the weathered rock was removed by mechanical erosion and that the lower rocks were covered shortly after erosion.

I don't get much out of your discussions with Percy about this or anything else. I still have no idea what you are saying here. It sounds like an irrelevant pedantic point. How does it change my observation that there is no difference in the appearance of the two blocks of strata -- doesn't matter if you want to call it erosion or weathering or whatnot, they look like they've been treated to exactly the same processes of deterioration from their original state to their current decrepit splintery state. I see no difference and so far nothing you have said has made sense of this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by edge, posted 01-04-2017 2:34 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by edge, posted 01-04-2017 10:05 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 185 of 202 (796818)
01-04-2017 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by edge
01-04-2017 10:05 PM


Re: The decrepitude of both upper and lower blocks of strata
As I said. The sandstone was deposited on eroded rocks that were being removed as they were being weathered. Hence, there was very little weathering of the older rocks before the sandstone was deposited.

I must have read that a dozen times by now and it makes no sense to me. I don't know what the problem is but it isn't getting through. I'm afraid even to venture to try to interpret it for fear it will only create more confusion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by edge, posted 01-04-2017 10:05 PM edge has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by PaulK, posted 01-05-2017 12:04 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 187 of 202 (796823)
01-05-2017 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by PaulK
01-05-2017 12:04 AM


Re: The decrepitude of both upper and lower blocks of strata
I'm not looking at any cross sections, I'm looking at the usual view of Siccar Point.

Both segments of the unconformity look like they've been subjected to a very great degree of weathering or whatever has left them so desiccated and splintery looking.

Erosion removed the weathered material....How do you know that? Why does it end up looking exactly like the rock above the unconformity, where presumably erosion did not remove the westhered material?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by PaulK, posted 01-05-2017 12:04 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by PaulK, posted 01-05-2017 12:22 AM Faith has taken no action
 Message 189 by Percy, posted 01-05-2017 8:19 AM Faith has taken no action
 Message 191 by edge, posted 01-05-2017 10:57 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 192 of 202 (796852)
01-05-2017 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by edge
01-05-2017 10:57 AM


Re: The decrepitude of both upper and lower blocks of strata
Why does it end up looking exactly like the rock above the unconformity, ...

You've lost me here. I thought you agreed that the rocks above and below were very different. That's how it looks to me. One is a red sandstone (above) and the other is a greenish-gray graywacke (below). I can describe other differences if you want.

I've been saying from the point I entered this thread that the upper and lower segments of the Siccar unconformity look about equally weathered. The appearance of weathering (or erosion or whatever is the cause of the obvious breakdown of the rocks into their splintery form) is the only comparison I've commented on. The point has been from the beginning that I see no evidence of the usual interpretation of angular unconformities, that there is a difference of millions of years between the tilted lower portion and the upper horizontal portion of such formations. If that were the case, I argued, the lower section should be utterly reduced to a small pile of splintery rock at a location like Siccar Point with the constant battering of the elements. MILLIONS of years. I don't think such a huge time span can be encompassed by anybody's mental set, it's beyond comprehension. But sedimentary rock should disintegrate under the conditions at Siccar Point in far far less time.

The upper segment is identified as Devonian, the lower as Silurian, the usual difference in age between these time periods being in the millions. This is all I've been referring to from the beginning. I thought you answered earlier in terms that reduced the difference in age. Now you are answering in terms of the appearance of age. On the appearance of age I argue that the differences couldn't possibly reflect millions of years.

That's all.

... where presumably erosion did not remove the westhered material?

Well, it is being removed now, so I'm not sure what you mean.

How long does it take? How long has the upper section been there? Even that section should have been reduced to rubble by now according to the usual time spans proposed by standard geology. That any of the formation is still standing at all is testimony to a much shorter span of time than that.

The topic is still pretty confused it seems to me.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by edge, posted 01-05-2017 10:57 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by PaulK, posted 01-05-2017 2:17 PM Faith has taken no action
 Message 194 by edge, posted 01-05-2017 2:28 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(7)
Message 196 of 202 (796863)
01-05-2017 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by edge
01-05-2017 2:28 PM


Re: The decrepitude of both upper and lower blocks of strata
I realize that I made a big mistake. PaulK is right that I was talking about the cross section of the formation and that's irrelevant to this discussion. I'm ashamed of myself. That big a mistake pretty much disqualifies me from the argument, at least for now. I can make other arguments, even arguments about erosion at the surface of the lower section of the strata, but after this big a mistake I should just get off the thread. I apologize to all for creating so much confusion.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by edge, posted 01-05-2017 2:28 PM edge has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Coyote, posted 01-05-2017 8:40 PM Faith has replied
 Message 199 by PaulK, posted 01-06-2017 2:54 AM Faith has taken no action
 Message 200 by NoNukes, posted 01-06-2017 4:00 AM Faith has taken no action
 Message 201 by vimesey, posted 01-06-2017 6:06 AM Faith has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 198 of 202 (796867)
01-05-2017 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Coyote
01-05-2017 8:40 PM


Re: The decrepitude of both upper and lower blocks of strata
It was a dumb mistake, Coyote. I know better. I just wasn't thinking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Coyote, posted 01-05-2017 8:40 PM Coyote 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