Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The TRVE history of the Flood...
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1141 of 1352 (812708)
06-19-2017 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1140 by Faith
06-19-2017 3:25 PM


Re: Evidence for the Flood revisited
You've somehow misunderstood my point: the faults were cut off so they are NOT above the unconformity.
So, you are saying that the fault occurred after all sediments. In that case it should have penetrated all of the layers, yes?
And yet, here you say that it doesn't.
I don't think the boulder itself moved, I think the basement rocks moved horizontally in relation to the strata above.
So, then, the boulder is not separated from its source rock?
That makes no sense.
Did it just magically appear there?
Strange, you are asking for exactly what I said didn't happen for the reasons I gave. The movement confined the granite and schist beneath the GU, why are you saying "therefore" it should be found above it? That makes NO sense whatever.
So, the movement exactly followed the contact between the upper layers and the lower?
And it meandered across the Shinumo hills and islands, bending exactly to the top of the Precambrian rocks?
Sorry, that has never been observed on a regional scale. You have some evidence, I presume.
Sorry, NO idea what you are talking about. What "detachment" -- you mean the sliding between the levels?
That's exactly what you want to have happened. The upper layers were detached from the lower basement along a flat fault.
Tectonic pressure below against enormous weight above, separated at the point where the forces are most closely balanced.
That doesn't answer my questions.
How did the forces act and what was the dynamic situation of the forces.
In fact, you have avoided several of my questions from the previous post. Am I to assume that you have no answers?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1140 by Faith, posted 06-19-2017 3:25 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1142 by Faith, posted 06-19-2017 4:06 PM edge has replied
 Message 1143 by Faith, posted 06-19-2017 4:58 PM edge has replied
 Message 1144 by Faith, posted 06-19-2017 6:24 PM edge has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1142 of 1352 (812710)
06-19-2017 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1141 by edge
06-19-2017 4:03 PM


Re: Evidence for the Flood revisited
So, you are saying that the fault occurred after all sediments. In that case it should have penetrated all of the layers, yes?
And yet, here you say that it doesn't.
The faulting and the movement all occurred so close together that the movement cut off the faults as it abraded the top of the tilted Supergroup. If it did manage to penetrate above the GU it would be found a quarter mile away from the Supergroup.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1141 by edge, posted 06-19-2017 4:03 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1149 by edge, posted 06-19-2017 8:46 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1143 of 1352 (812711)
06-19-2017 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1141 by edge
06-19-2017 4:03 PM


Re: Evidence for the Flood revisited
How did the forces act and what was the dynamic situation of the forces.
I already answered this a million times. Tectonic force from side and below pushes Supergroup strata into a tilt up against the Tapeats which is the point where the forces most closely balance out, the force from above being the weight of sedimentary strata three miles deep. The tectonic force pushed the lower rocks some distance beneath the Tapeats, also pushing the strata above upward, causing the mounded shape all the way to the top, (which cracked the uppermost strata above the canyon area and caused the formation of the canyon by receding Flood waters rushing into the craqcks, taking a lot of the broken-up upper strata with it.)
SIMULTANEOUSLY the magma was released from below into the lower rocks, forming the granite and the schist in an intense pressure chamber, which was probably mitigated by the Flood water somehow(?), all while the horizontal movement was going on, which kept the effects confined beneath the GU.
Already described that a million times, so if you want something else you're going to have to be clearer about what you want.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1141 by edge, posted 06-19-2017 4:03 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1146 by edge, posted 06-19-2017 8:29 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1144 of 1352 (812720)
06-19-2017 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1141 by edge
06-19-2017 4:03 PM


Re: Evidence for the Flood revisited
I don't think the boulder itself moved, I think the basement rocks moved horizontally in relation to the strata above.
So, then, the boulder is not separated from its source rock?
Are you really honestly misunderstanding or are you doing it intentionally? I really can't see how you could misunderstand all the stuff you've been misunderstanding. Or this.
It was the BOULDER that didn't move, sheesh. It was a boulder, so obviously it had been separated from its source for pete's sake. Here's the picture: The sliding of the lower rocks up against the Tapeats severed a piece of the Shinumo (there's also another story to be told about the quartzite monadnock but I'll leave that for now) -- the boulder was severed from its source and embedded in the Tapeats sand, and then the Shinumo was moved a quarter mile away. Perhaps the upper strata moved some also but... It would have been the tectonic lateral force causing all the movement and that would mean the lower moved but not the upper, whch was, however, raised by the upward force caused by the tilting of the lower strata.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1141 by edge, posted 06-19-2017 4:03 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1145 by 14174dm, posted 06-19-2017 7:47 PM Faith has replied
 Message 1148 by edge, posted 06-19-2017 8:42 PM Faith has replied

  
14174dm
Member (Idle past 1108 days)
Posts: 161
From: Cincinnati OH
Joined: 10-12-2015


Message 1145 of 1352 (812727)
06-19-2017 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1144 by Faith
06-19-2017 6:24 PM


Re: Evidence for the Flood revisited
...tectonic lateral force causing all the movement and that would mean the lower moved but not the upper..
How is the lower strata to move without the upper strata moving? Why didn't the upper strata just ride along with the lower strata?
The massive weight of the upper strata means there would have to be enormous forces pushing on just the edge of the upper strata to hold it in place while the lower strata moved.
Here's an experiment. Put a cookie sheet on the table. Spread a dish towel on top of the cookie sheet but leave part of the cookie sheet exposed on the right side. Put your left hand on the cookie sheet right next to the towel. Holding your left hand still pull the cookie sheet to the right like your lower strata moving.
What happens to the towel? It is pulled along with the cookie sheet until your left hand causes it to bunch up.
Now do you see the wavy layers in the rock around the Grand Canyon with flat layers underneath?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1144 by Faith, posted 06-19-2017 6:24 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1147 by edge, posted 06-19-2017 8:33 PM 14174dm has not replied
 Message 1150 by Faith, posted 06-19-2017 11:52 PM 14174dm has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 1146 of 1352 (812730)
06-19-2017 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1143 by Faith
06-19-2017 4:58 PM


Re: Evidence for the Flood revisited
I already answered this a million times. Tectonic force from side and below pushes Supergroup strata into a tilt up against the Tapeats which is the point where the forces most closely balance out, the force from above being the weight of sedimentary strata three miles deep.
But the GC Supergroup and the Vishnu (etc,) are not deformed to the same degree nor in the same direction. What's with that?
The tectonic force pushed the lower rocks some distance beneath the Tapeats, also pushing the strata above upward, causing the mounded shape all the way to the top, (which cracked the uppermost strata above the canyon area and caused the formation of the canyon by receding Flood waters rushing into the craqcks, taking a lot of the broken-up upper strata with it.)
Why is the upper package of rocks not affected? What forces are you balancing?
SIMULTANEOUSLY the magma was released from below into the lower rocks, forming the granite and the schist in an intense pressure chamber, which was probably mitigated by the Flood water somehow(?), all while the horizontal movement was going on, which kept the effects confined beneath the GU.
But that is my question. You said that all magmatism is related to a single event. Why is there no connection between the Zoroaster Granite and the basaltic dikes that penetrate above the GC?
Already described that a million times, so if you want something else you're going to have to be clearer about what you want.
Well, for one, you could show us your evidence for abrasion at the contact. You have repeatedly avoided this question.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1143 by Faith, posted 06-19-2017 4:58 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1152 by Faith, posted 06-20-2017 12:19 AM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 1147 of 1352 (812731)
06-19-2017 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1145 by 14174dm
06-19-2017 7:47 PM


Re: Evidence for the Flood revisited
How is the lower strata to move without the upper strata moving? Why didn't the upper strata just ride along with the lower strata?
The massive weight of the upper strata means there would have to be enormous forces pushing on just the edge of the upper strata to hold it in place while the lower strata moved.
Here's an experiment. Put a cookie sheet on the table. Spread a dish towel on top of the cookie sheet but leave part of the cookie sheet exposed on the right side. Put your left hand on the cookie sheet right next to the towel. Holding your left hand still pull the cookie sheet to the right like your lower strata moving.
What happens to the towel? It is pulled along with the cookie sheet until your left hand causes it to bunch up.
Now do you see the wavy layers in the rock around the Grand Canyon with flat layers underneath?
Exactly the point. If the normal forces (gravity) are so great at the bottom of the Paleozoic sequence, why would there be any detachment from the basement rocks? The key would be some kind of evidence for detachement which Faith refuses to address.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1145 by 14174dm, posted 06-19-2017 7:47 PM 14174dm has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1151 by Faith, posted 06-19-2017 11:58 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 1148 of 1352 (812732)
06-19-2017 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1144 by Faith
06-19-2017 6:24 PM


Re: Evidence for the Flood revisited
Are you really honestly misunderstanding or are you doing it intentionally? I really can't see how you could misunderstand all the stuff you've been misunderstanding. Or this.
It was the BOULDER that didn't move, sheesh. It was a boulder, so obviously it had been separated from its source for pete's sake. Here's the picture: The sliding of the lower rocks up against the Tapeats severed a piece of the Shinumo (there's also another story to be told about the quartzite monadnock but I'll leave that for now) -- the boulder was severed from its source and embedded in the Tapeats sand, and then the Shinumo was moved a quarter mile away.
But you have not given us evidence of how the boulder was separated. What structural evidence do you have? Was it sheared off, or did it roll into place during erosion at the unconformity? If the former, there should be evidence to that effect, some kind of a shear plane or fragment trail, or something.
You are not being clear.
Perhaps the upper strata moved some also but... It would have been the tectonic lateral force causing all the movement and that would mean the lower moved but not the upper, whch was, however, raised by the upward force caused by the tilting of the lower strata.
But you have exactly zero evidence that this happened.
On the other hand, we have seen evidence that boulders can roll out onto a beach and we know that the Shinumo Island was shedding talus blocks into the Tapeats sea from other locations. What is your evidence that it was tectonically separated?
What I'm not getting here is how the boulder could be sheared off of the Shinumo without any evidence and yet the Shinumo 'monadnock' still exists. Shouldn't that tectonic offset also affect the top of the Shinumo outcropping in the canyon?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1144 by Faith, posted 06-19-2017 6:24 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1153 by Faith, posted 06-20-2017 12:33 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 1149 of 1352 (812733)
06-19-2017 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1142 by Faith
06-19-2017 4:06 PM


Re: Evidence for the Flood revisited
The faulting and the movement all occurred so close together that the movement cut off the faults as it abraded the top of the tilted Supergroup. If it did manage to penetrate above the GU it would be found a quarter mile away from the Supergroup.
But if the Supergroup were being faulted (after the entire section was deposited) Where did the rocks go? They were tilted upward to the right in the diagram, so where did the extensions of those strata go? Those faults had to go to the surface at whatever time they occurred, didn't they?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1142 by Faith, posted 06-19-2017 4:06 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1154 by Faith, posted 06-20-2017 12:37 AM edge has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1150 of 1352 (812745)
06-19-2017 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1145 by 14174dm
06-19-2017 7:47 PM


Strata experiment with cloth
...tectonic lateral force causing all the movement and that would mean the lower moved but not the upper..
How is the lower strata to move without the upper strata moving? Why didn't the upper strata just ride along with the lower strata?
The massive weight of the upper strata means there would have to be enormous forces pushing on just the edge of the upper strata to hold it in place while the lower strata moved.
Here's an experiment. Put a cookie sheet on the table. Spread a dish towel on top of the cookie sheet but leave part of the cookie sheet exposed on the right side. Put your left hand on the cookie sheet right next to the towel. Holding your left hand still pull the cookie sheet to the right like your lower strata moving.
What happens to the towel? It is pulled along with the cookie sheet until your left hand causes it to bunch up.
I can't really picture your experiment unfortunately, but it doesn't sound like it would illustrate what I'm talking about anyway. Lyell did experiments with cloth to demonstrate how strata buckle so I like the basic idea.
The physical situation I'm thinking of is more like that "magic" trick where the magician pulls a tablecloth rapidly out from under a whole table setting of plates and glasses etc., leaving them all in place. It's the abruptness of the movement, as well as the angle of the cloth, that accomplishes the trick.
Sudden tectonic force from the side to the lower portion of the strata would buckle it in one way or another, breaking, tilting etc., up against any equal force above, separating the sections and moving the lower up against and horizontally along under the upper. This is how I think of all the angular unconformities, including Siccar Point. They would all originally have had a weighty stack on top against which the lower section buckled and tilted, but in most cases the upper broke up and eroded away leaving only one or two layers perched on top of the buckled section.
Or another experiment could be a stack of folded cloths, dish towels or whatever, with a cookie sheet on top, or maybe even more folded cloths on top. Place a stack of them up against a rigid barrier on one end just to keep them from sliding all over the place (Lyell put his stack of cloth between heavy books with a book on top.) Then use your flat hand or a flat piece of wood to push against the lower half of the other side of the stack -- I think it should buckle up against the upper part leaving the upper intact, and very likely lifting it at the same time.
Unfortunately cloth wouldn't be stiff like strata so the upper will sag into the gap created. A cookie sheet might work better for that reason. Or no, this is better: push the lower with a block of something, a brick or something shaped like a brick; then the upper won't sag. But it may be a matter of finding the best materials for such an experiment. I don't even happen to have enough of an appropriate kind of cloth to try this at the moment.
Now do you see the wavy layers in the rock around the Grand Canyon with flat layers underneath?
No. Do you have a picture? But I'm not sure what the point would be anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1145 by 14174dm, posted 06-19-2017 7:47 PM 14174dm has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1151 of 1352 (812746)
06-19-2017 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1147 by edge
06-19-2017 8:33 PM


Re: Evidence for the Flood revisited
Exactly the point. If the normal forces (gravity) are so great at the bottom of the Paleozoic sequence, why would there be any detachment from the basement rocks? The key would be some kind of evidence for detachement which Faith refuses to address.
My claim is that the buckling of the lower strata up against an equal force would cause the detachment. I've also many times suggested that the point of least resistance within the range of equal force would be two different kinds of sediment which would provide different textures which would facilitate slippage (the sections at Siccar Point are divided between two different kinds of sandstone). And I've used the Lyell example many times before in discussions of this phenomenon, which I just described in the previous post.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1147 by edge, posted 06-19-2017 8:33 PM edge has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1152 of 1352 (812747)
06-20-2017 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1146 by edge
06-19-2017 8:29 PM


Re: Evidence for the Flood revisited
I already answered this a million times. Tectonic force from side and below pushes Supergroup strata into a tilt up against the Tapeats which is the point where the forces most closely balance out, the force from above being the weight of sedimentary strata three miles deep.
But the GC Supergroup and the Vishnu (etc,) are not deformed to the same degree nor in the same direction. What's with that?
Don't have a picture of this. What's the problem?
The tectonic force pushed the lower rocks some distance beneath the Tapeats, also pushing the strata above upward, causing the mounded shape all the way to the top, (which cracked the uppermost strata above the canyon area and caused the formation of the canyon by receding Flood waters rushing into the craqcks, taking a lot of the broken-up upper strata with it.)
Why is the upper package of rocks not affected? What forces are you balancing?
The last two posts may answer that. Side force causing buckling of strata up against weight above facilitated by differences in texture between upper and lower sections...
SIMULTANEOUSLY the magma was released from below into the lower rocks, forming the granite and the schist in an intense pressure chamber, which was probably mitigated by the Flood water somehow(?), all while the horizontal movement was going on, which kept the effects confined beneath the GU.
But that is my question. You said that all magmatism is related to a single event. Why is there no connection between the Zoroaster Granite and the basaltic dikes that penetrate above the GC?
Don't know what you mean by "no connection." Some magma did penetrate above the GC, but some was confined beneath too. This probably needs more information than can be found on the cross section.
Already described that a million times, so if you want something else you're going to have to be clearer about what you want.
Well, for one, you could show us your evidence for abrasion at the contact. You have repeatedly avoided this question.
I need to collect the information but I'd point to the video I posted yesterday where the quartzite boulder is shown above the GU which is seriously eroded.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1146 by edge, posted 06-19-2017 8:29 PM edge has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1153 of 1352 (812748)
06-20-2017 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1148 by edge
06-19-2017 8:42 PM


Re: Evidence for the Flood revisited
Are you really honestly misunderstanding or are you doing it intentionally? I really can't see how you could misunderstand all the stuff you've been misunderstanding. Or this.
It was the BOULDER that didn't move, sheesh. It was a boulder, so obviously it had been separated from its source for pete's sake. Here's the picture: The sliding of the lower rocks up against the Tapeats severed a piece of the Shinumo (there's also another story to be told about the quartzite monadnock but I'll leave that for now) -- the boulder was severed from its source and embedded in the Tapeats sand, and then the Shinumo was moved a quarter mile away.
But you have not given us evidence of how the boulder was separated. What structural evidence do you have? Was it sheared off, or did it roll into place during erosion at the unconformity? If the former, there should be evidence to that effect, some kind of a shear plane or fragment trail, or something.
I expect the violence of movement between the two levels to suggest enough force to break off a piece of the Shinumo.
Perhaps the upper strata moved some also but... It would have been the tectonic lateral force causing all the movement and that would mean the lower moved but not the upper, whch was, however, raised by the upward force caused by the tilting of the lower strata.
But you have exactly zero evidence that this happened.
I'm giving you my theory, which is supported by a ton of simple reasoning about how physical things work.
On the other hand, we have seen evidence that boulders can roll out onto a beach and we know that the Shinumo Island was shedding talus blocks into the Tapeats sea from other locations. What is your evidence that it was tectonically separated?
How about the sheer absurdity of your theory about a "Tapeats sea" with a "Shinumo island" for starters? The nonsense of the time periods which couldn't possibly have existed bounded by flat rocks as they are. Start there. I see it, why don't you? Paradigm blindness. Just a kjowledge of the flat flat Tapeats and the stratified Shinumo ought to be enough to dispel any idea of seas and islands...
abe: the Tapeats sandstone is a remarkable bit of engineering if you see it in places where there is nothing above or below it. It forms a nice flat ledge maybe six or eight inches thick that juts into space and people lean on it and sit on it. /abe
What I'm not getting here is how the boulder could be sheared off of the Shinumo without any evidence and yet the Shinumo 'monadnock' still exists. Shouldn't that tectonic offset also affect the top of the Shinumo outcropping in the canyon?
Part broke off for some reason -- softer for some reason? -- the other part was harder and cut through the layers vertically as the movement occurred. I think the tectonic pressure was still pushing up the strata but the quartzite was hard enough to avoid being sheared off by the movement, except for that one boulder, so a long section of it cut through the strata above. Exactly where these are located would provide more clues. Perhaps the distances traveled make a difference. Perhaps there is evidence buried deeper in the sandstone.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1148 by edge, posted 06-19-2017 8:42 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1155 by edge, posted 06-20-2017 9:33 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1154 of 1352 (812749)
06-20-2017 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1149 by edge
06-19-2017 8:46 PM


Re: Evidence for the Flood revisited
But if the Supergroup were being faulted (after the entire section was deposited) Where did the rocks go? They were tilted upward to the right in the diagram, so where did the extensions of those strata go? Those faults had to go to the surface at whatever time they occurred, didn't they?
It went somewhere "off screen" though I think there is enough rubble scattered around the canyon to account for it, and I still like my idea that the Vishnu schist incorporates a lot of it although you have claimed it didn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1149 by edge, posted 06-19-2017 8:46 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1156 by edge, posted 06-20-2017 9:41 AM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 1155 of 1352 (812799)
06-20-2017 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1153 by Faith
06-20-2017 12:33 AM


Re: Evidence for the Flood revisited
I expect the violence of movement between the two levels to suggest enough force to break off a piece of the Shinumo.
And yet leave no evidence of shearing.
Right...
Faith, I can't possibly respond to the nonsense in all of these posts, but will just make a few comments. Basically, everything you say is a fantasy. It is a story that you've made up over the years full of ad hoc explanations, wishful thinking and outright denial. It is the kind of thinking that make me glad that I rejected religion a long time ago.
I'm giving you my theory, which is supported by a ton of simple reasoning about how physical things work.
No. You have not shown an ounce of evidence. Reasoning, yes, but fallacious reasoning.
You have no evidence that the unconformity has experienced shearing. You have no evidence that the igneous rocks below the unconformity are directly related to the ones above. Everything happened 'for some reason', or isn't important, or is just denied by you.
How about the sheer absurdity of your theory about a "Tapeats sea" with a "Shinumo island" for starters?
Sure, and the Mediterranean Sea is an absurdity. The island of Cyprus is just an absurdity. All we get from you is this mantra of "absurdity!" without any explanation except some vague concept that geological time doesn't exist.
The nonsense of the time periods which couldn't possibly have existed bounded by flat rocks as they are. Start there.
We've started there several times and you have no explanation for your reasoning other than you just don't believe it.
I see it, why don't you?
Lots of people 'see things' that aren't there.
Paradigm blindness.
See? That's it... That's your argument. Instead of providing evidence, you make complaints.
Just a kjowledge of the flat flat Tapeats and the stratified Shinumo ought to be enough to dispel any idea of seas and islands...
But why? What knowledge are you talking about?
What knowledge of the Tapeats do you have? Do you have any idea of how stratigraphy forms? I thought you understood Walther's Law a long time ago, but you really have no concept of time and change. So, I'd say that it's your knowledge that is incomplete.
Part broke off for some reason -- softer for some reason?
"For some reason", "for some reason" ...
Why not just say that God did it for some reason, perhaps to make us crazy.
-- the other part was harder and cut through the layers vertically as the movement occurred.
Well, then there should be evidence of this 'cutting through'. Where is it?
I think the tectonic pressure was still pushing up the strata but the quartzite was hard enough to avoid being sheared off by the movement, except for that one boulder, so a long section of it cut through the strata above.
What forces?
What caused the forces? What direction were they oriented? Where were they applied?
Why were they not uniform?
Exactly where these are located would provide more clues.
If you had 'tons of evidence' you would already know.
Perhaps the distances traveled make a difference. Perhaps there is evidence buried deeper in the sandstone.
Okay, well let us know when you find it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1153 by Faith, posted 06-20-2017 12:33 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1157 by Faith, posted 06-20-2017 9:43 AM edge has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024