Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Motley Flood Thread (formerly Historical Science Mystification of Public)
edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 256 of 877 (834266)
06-01-2018 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Faith
06-01-2018 9:47 PM


Re: Video on the formation of the Grand Canyon
So do you at least agree that this mountain was eroded out of a large area of stacked flat sediments just like those it is made of?
Sure, what's the problem with that? There a plenty of local lacustrine formations and we see them forming today.
ABE: Do you happen to recognize the mountain or the area?
It's like a hundred other places. These are mere badlands.
Would you happen to know just how much area the stacked sediments would have covered out of which the pretty mountain was eroded?
No, but the Green River Formation covers parts of Wyoming, Utah and Colorado. And that's rather huge example.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 9:47 PM Faith has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 257 of 877 (834267)
06-01-2018 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Faith
06-01-2018 9:06 PM


Re: show us how its done
YOu can't tell that an illustration of extinct animals purported to be romping in a time period called the Jurassic is a fiction? My evidence is that everybody knows that.
I can see that an illustration is not a photograph. But now you've left me more confused than I started. What are you saying? Is this what you want to persuade me science communicators should be doing? Confusing people with ambiguity? I don't think that's an improvement.
But shouldn't science and scientists be required to produce this sort of information before a mere layperson is nagged to death about it?
Yes. The stuff that is presented for the layperson's consumption - at their leisure (hardly being nagged) - generally follows the scientists producing the evidence and the communicators trying to translate that into language a layperson can easily relate to without requiring a degree. I already provided a few papers and more technical descriptions for how the general climate of the Jurassic was inferred based on mineral deposits and the flora and fauna. That stuff comes first.
The stuff in the Nat Geo is the stuff that's so well established and has been for so long its utterly uncontroversial. Occasionally a magazine will run a story about a newer, more speculative set of ideas - but a good magazine will indicate its a more tentative position.
So - erm - I guess you aren't going to show me an example of it being done right? In history, science, mathematics, flood geology or anything? I can't agree with your thesis if I don't know what your target level of detail actually looks like.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 9:06 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 258 of 877 (834268)
06-01-2018 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Percy
06-01-2018 9:59 PM


Re: Still as weirded out by historical science as ever
You continue to misunderstand this. Strata formed by processes related to Walther's Law, which includes most of the layers of the Grand Canyon, are not terrestrial. The slow transgression of a sea onto land does not preserve the terrestrial landscape of the land. It in effect grinds it up and separates the resulting sediments into sand, silt, mud and clay. The sequence of Tapeats Sandstone, Bright Angel Shale and Muav Limestone formed this way. We will never know what was on the land that the sea transgressed across. That landscape is gone, transformed into seascapes that did get preserved in the stratigraphic record.
An interesting point here is that the basal sandstone of any transgressive sequence is usually composed of detritus derived from the local bedrock. In other words, the Tapeats is composed of fragments from the Precambrian crystalline rock and the GC Supergroup.
If you look at other basal Cambrian sandstones, they also are derived from local bedrock whether you are talking about the Potsdam or the Sawatch or a hundred other equivalent formations.
The implication is that the local bedrock is eroded and recycled into the new sedimentary record.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Percy, posted 06-01-2018 9:59 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Percy, posted 06-03-2018 8:17 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 259 of 877 (834269)
06-01-2018 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Faith
06-01-2018 5:38 PM


Re: Lithostratigraphy and chronostratigraphy
And they'd have to be exposed and cleaned off to become a rock in the stack of rocks known as the geological column, ...
What? This makes no sense at all. Try again.
... and in becoming the rock, whenever that happens, nothing could live there.
Of course nothing could live in a rock that is lithifying. What are you trying to say?
OK, so not just A rock per time period, a whole formation of stacked rocks per time period. Same problem.
I'm not seeing why. Your post is making no sense at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 5:38 PM Faith has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 260 of 877 (834270)
06-01-2018 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by edge
06-01-2018 9:57 PM


Re: Faith's sheet flow to stream flow epic fail
Please provide a reference. I'm not sure you got that correctly
She did give her reference.
quote:
After all the flat layers are deposited at sea level, there was a major uplift, event called the Laramide Orogeny, which lifted these rocks without tilting them - still flat - lifted them up to higher elevations.
Source: Karl Karlstrom at 13:40 in the video I posted in Message 147 that Faith was referencing when she said 'And I also mentioned in Message 156, a real bona fide official certified geologist's comment that the Laramide Orogeny lifted the land without tilting the strata. '

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by edge, posted 06-01-2018 9:57 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by edge, posted 06-01-2018 10:47 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 261 of 877 (834271)
06-01-2018 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by edge
06-01-2018 9:57 PM


Re: Faith's sheet flow to stream flow epic fail
Faith writes:
And I also mentioned in Message 156 a real bona fide official certified geologist's comment that the Laramide Orogeny lifted the land without tilting the strata.
Please provide a reference. I'm not sure you got that correctly.
Message 147 Video at 13:47 but start a few seconds earlier to get the context. I think the geologist's name is Karl Karlstrom or something like that

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by edge, posted 06-01-2018 9:57 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by edge, posted 06-01-2018 10:55 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 262 of 877 (834272)
06-01-2018 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Modulous
06-01-2018 10:28 PM


Re: Faith's sheet flow to stream flow epic fail
She did give her reference.
(snipped)
Ah, yes, okay.
Well, it still seems a bit watered down. But when Karlstrom refers to 'all the flat layers', that does not include the Vishnu Schist or the GC Supergroup.
He also does not discuss anything that happened after the Laramide.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Modulous, posted 06-01-2018 10:28 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 263 of 877 (834273)
06-01-2018 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Faith
06-01-2018 10:36 PM


Re: Faith's sheet flow to stream flow epic fail
Message 147 Video at 13:47 but start a few seconds earlier to get the context. I think the geologist's name is Karl Karlstrom or something like that
Okay, sure. I have no problem with that. In fact there is fairly recent evidence about how this happened.
I was just unsure of the timing. The local uplifts occurred later than Laramide time.
The point is that all we know about meandering streams is that they occur in mature landscapes with low gradients, near base level. It would make sense that the meanders were etched into the Kaibab Limestone at that point and that the younger terrestrial deposits were washed away by a long period of meandering stream action; all prior to uplift which would result in downcutting of the canyon within the confines of the meandering pattern. Hence, 'incised meanders'.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 10:36 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 264 of 877 (834274)
06-02-2018 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by Faith
06-01-2018 9:31 PM


Re: Faith's sheet flow to stream flow epic fail
Faith writes:
I've referred to the example of the tablecloth trick of removing it without disturbing the objects on top of it.
Great.
Please provide the post where you explain the model, method, mechanism, process or procedure that will allow your imaginary flood to pull a sheet of rock out of layers of rock without leaving evidence?
Faith, your theories are just really really silly.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 9:31 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 265 of 877 (834275)
06-02-2018 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by Faith
06-01-2018 9:41 PM


Re: Lithostratigraphy and chronostratigraphy
quote:
To become a rock in the geo column it's going to have to be cleaned off because so many of those contacts are clean and tight.
You’re still making no sense,
quote:
If things are living way above this lithifying rock, on what I would assume would be normal soil with normal plants and normal hills and valleys and other normal features of an actual landscape, there is no way it will ever become a rock in the geo column, but it has to become a rock in the geo column because that's what we actually see that supposedly points to the landscape. You can't leave it buried with animals romping on it, or in the case of sea creatures swimming over it. somehow you've got to have an actual rock with other rocks on top of it, and that can't possibly happen while anything is living in any of those "time periods."
You are actually claiming that the presence of life on the surface will somehow stop lithification of the material below ? Or are you just asserting that material above it will never lithify ? (I will also point out that it is certainly not necessary to have any higher rock layers. There is no place on Earth where the geological column is infinite in height - there is always an uppermost stratum with no rock above it)
Both are daft. The first is just ridiculous. The second is little better. The material above may or may not lithify. But I f it gets buried deeply enough it will. It just isn’t lithifying now - and the presence of life is not a factor preventing it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 9:41 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 266 of 877 (834277)
06-02-2018 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Faith
06-01-2018 1:24 AM


Re: EDGE'S OBJECTIONS
Faith writes:
What boulders are you talking about?
The ones that occur in the Colorado River beds downstream from the GC.
Why would you assume the chunks of strata I attribute to the first stages of the receding Flood would be those boulders?
What are you saying happened to those boulders? That every one eroded away? Every one was washed into the sea? What?
In any case I have a sort of related question: If rocks form by drying, why are the rocks beneath the riverbed of the Grand Canyon just as hard as rocks elsewhere in the canyon?
I have no idea what form the broken up chunks of st
rata ended up in after being washed through the canyon
I'm sure you don't.
The point is the sediments were probably too soft to form boulders at that stage.
If a large chuck of broken off strata is not a boulder, what is it?
-- but most of that would have gone over the sides lower in the canyon, not down the river from the upper part of the canyon. Why do you assume boulders?
But all of those rocks were deposited by the flood, not? Why are they so much harder than the rocks of the Grand Canyon such that they survived hundreds of miles of river transport?
I do't know where you are getting this? The earliest broken up strata were probably just loose sediments. You probably wouldn't get boulders for a few years.
Again raising the question of what large chucks of broken off strata are. Now you're changing your story and saying there were no large chucks of broken off strata, just loose sediments. What happened to your story of tectonic forces creating the Kaibab Uplift that in turn created strains that broke up the strata into chunks that the receding flood waters carried away.
And if these chunks "would have gone over the sides lower in the canyon" then aren't they still there, just as Edge said earlier? And so don't you have to address the question of why these chucks, however big they are, are just as hard as all the other rock in the canyon?
But further, if the rocks of the GC were relatively soft compared to now, how did they get to be so hard just being exposed at the surface for the last 4 thousand years?
As I understand it compaction alone can make a very hard rock, but I also think chemical lithification doesn't take anywhere near as long as is usually supposed.
You state that "chemical lithification" doesn't take as long as we think, implying that these chucks that resulted from the breakup of strata above the Kaibab from the strains of the uplift were already hard, so why have you in the past described that they only broke so easily into chucks because they were still "wet and malleable".
When you change a thread title you should include in the edit comment what you changed it from. There is now no record of the original title.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 1:24 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by edge, posted 06-02-2018 10:19 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 267 of 877 (834278)
06-02-2018 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by Percy
06-02-2018 9:34 AM


Re: EDGE'S OBJECTIONS
Again raising the question of what large chucks of broken off strata are. Now you're changing your story and saying there were no large chucks of broken off strata, just loose sediments. What happened to your story of tectonic forces creating the Kaibab Uplift that in turn created strains that broke up the strata into chunks that the receding flood waters carried away.
Heh, heh ... soft rocks don't make really good boulders, or 'river rocks', do they?
And if these chunks "would have gone over the sides lower in the canyon" then aren't they still there, just as Edge said earlier? And so don't you have to address the question of why these chucks, however big they are, are just as hard as all the other rock in the canyon?
It is wondrous that rocks torn from soft, deeply buried sediments can be carried hundreds of miles and then somehow lithify in shallow stream sediment deposits at the surface. I'll have to do some research into that...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Percy, posted 06-02-2018 9:34 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 268 of 877 (834279)
06-02-2018 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Faith
06-01-2018 1:33 AM


Re: forming the meander
Why "massive?"
OKay, fine. Moving a two-mile deep body of water off the continent isn't massive. Fine with me.
But I thought we're talking about how the meander formed, and that would have happened long after the two miles of strata not just water) above that level had drained away, leaving the stream that became the meander.
You have a stream flowing through a terrain so level that the stream flowed so slowly that it could form meanders. How did it also have enough energy to erode through a half mile of anything, whether it was loose sediments or your crazy "wet and malleable rock" or normal rock?
At some point the water got down to the volume where streams running across the plateau could form a meander.
That's the point. It's not about the volume of water. It's about gradient and time to create meanders.
What point are you making here? I'm just trying to show how the recedeing Flood could have reached a level where it could have formed the meander that actually exists. I've pictured the water reduced to that level already.
By gradient Edge means the terrain was pretty level, i.e., there wasn't much gradient. That would create the time to create meanders. But you also need water with sufficient energy to quickly erode.
We're talking about a great volume of water gradually decreasing. It's silly to think it couldn't have decreased to the point of forming a meander, given a huge flat area which is where meanders commonly form.
That isn't what we see in the real world.
Well you might have seen it if you'd been around at the time of the Flood. Sheesh.
Since you weren't around at the time of the Flood, and since there is no evidence for the Flood, you have no basis for this claim. As Edge points out, you are describing something we never see in the real world. The reason for that isn't that it's a rare one-time event but that it's not what happens when water rolls catastrophically across a landscape. The Missoula Floods are an example of that. Try finding a meander created by these massive floods.
And remember, you still don't have evidence of such a sheet flow in the first place.
I don't have to have a sheet flow, but what is this supposed evidence I'm supposedly lacking?
If you have to ask what the evidence is, obviously you have none. Edge is asking for the evidence that you demand magazine articles should include.
It figures it would decrease to a sheet before becoming separated streams, that's the only reason for including a sheet, it's the natural transitional form from a larger volume of water to the right amount and shape to make meanders.
Except that we don't have sheet flow.
And again, how do you know that?
Things like flows of thin sheets of water don't magically come into existence on your say so. Acceptance of the idea of such a flow would be driven by evidence, of which you have none.
ABE: Overall I have the question why you keep saying my scenario lacks this or that evidence, the gravel, the turbulence, the back flooding and so on and so forth.
Edge keeps saying that your scenario lacks evidence because nothing we see today lends any credence to the events you claim happened.
You are imagining the Flood being appreciably different from whatever you think formed the meander and I have no idea why.
Rapidly flowing water capable of significant erosion cannot create meanders. There are meanders in the main canyon:
And there are more meanders downstream from the canyon:
So there are meanders in Marble Canyon, in the Grand Canyon, and downstream from the canyon, and they're all eroded significantly into the landscape, some a mile deep. A landscape cannot have two different gradients at the same time, one steep enough to create rapidly flowing water capable of deep deep erosion, and another gradient low enough to create slow flowing water capable of meanders.
Seems to me whatever you see now could just as well be explained by the scenario of water left running across a plateau after the Flood as by water from any other source.
Many impossible things seem possible to you. Why do you think this possible?
Sheet flow isn't necessary so I can drop that but I still wonder what evidence you think would be there if it had occurred. /ABE
So thin sheet flows are out again. For now.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 1:33 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 269 of 877 (834280)
06-02-2018 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by Minnemooseus
06-01-2018 3:53 AM


Re: Lithostratigraphy and chronostratigraphy
minnemooseus writes:
Remember out favorite "Walther's Law" diagram:
The bottom left of this diagram illustrates the difference between lithostratigraphy and chronostratigraphy. As you go right to left, the lithostratigraphy (say, the sand unit) becomes progressively younger.
And the top surface of the various sediments are the "landscape" of the time.
It would probably also be useful to explicitly point out to Faith that by "landscape" you mean seascapes being created according to the principles of Walther's Law. These seascapes that become preserved in the stratigraphic record are not the landscapes that the sea transgressed across. Those landscapes are gone, ground away by active coastal waters into sand, silt, mud and clay. The constituent elements of the landscape are preserved as particles of sediment. For example, if the landscape was rich in some element like iron, then the marine sedimentary layers will include that element.
Also, terrestrial life living near the coast can be washed into the sea, buried and preserved. Rivers can carry carcasses downstream and out to sea. So sandstone layers, which form at the coast, should also include terrestrial fossils. The Tapeats contains no terrestrial fossils because at approximately 550 million years in age it predates land life. But what about other sandstone layers (not the Coconino, which is a terrestrial stratum). The upper Supai group is mostly sandstone, the rest formed in low, swampy environments, and at 300 millions years in age life has just begun to appear on land, so the Supai should include amphibian and primitive reptilian fossils. Does it? A quick Google reveals that "fossils include amphibian footprints, reptiles, and plentiful plant material in the eastern part and increasing numbers of marine fossils in the western part." Just as expected.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-01-2018 3:53 AM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 668 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-17-2018 2:20 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 270 of 877 (834281)
06-02-2018 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Faith
06-01-2018 8:34 AM


Re: Video on the formation of the Grand Canyon
Faith writes:
I keep trying to locate exactly where the Kaibab Uplift is because it is a big part of my own scenario. Perhaps it is the Kaibab Plateau but I haven't been able to pin it down.
Place names of geography and formation names of geology don't always match up exactly. The name of the Kaibab Plateau seems to apply from the Grand Canyon northward. South of the Grand Canyon the region is called the Coconino Plateau. But as you can see from RAZD's topographic map, the Kaibab Uplift extends a bit south of the Grand Canyon.
That being said, I don't think you need to precisely identify the boundaries of the Kaibab Uplift. The point is that the Colorado River runs directly through the uplift, and through another uplift further west. Since water doesn't run uphill, this needs to be explained. Here's RAZD's image:
Anyway as I picture it the uplift occurs at the end of the Flood when there are two miles worth of sedimentary layers on top of the Kaibab Plateau and the whole canyon area. The uplift creates strain on the upper strata as they are pushed upward, causing cracks that eventually form the canyon. The upper strata break up and wash away, some of it into the cracks which scour out the canyon area.
This paragraph raises so many questions. We'd like to see the evidence "spelled out" as per the request in the thread's opening post:
  • What evidence dates the uplift as coincident with the end of the Flood 4500 years ago?
  • What evidence indicates that there were two miles of sedimentary layers atop the Kaibab 4500 years ago?
  • What evidence indicates that the Colorado River followed the path of cracks created by tectonic forces?
  • Why does the Colorado River have a number of meanders if it followed the path of tectonic cracks?
  • What evidence indicates that some of the chunks of upper strata washed into the canyon only 4500 years ago, since they should still be there?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 8:34 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by edge, posted 06-02-2018 1:32 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 283 by RAZD, posted 06-02-2018 5:04 PM Percy has seen this message but 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