|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Motley Flood Thread (formerly Historical Science Mystification of Public) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: By the evidence of massive erosion occurring before all the strata were deposited. The tilted surface of the Supergroup was heavily eroded before the Tapeats was deposited (that’s where the missing material went). Edge has pointed out similar features in the cross-section of Britain in Message 522
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
What you've got is deformation to strata as a unit or block, already laid down as a unit or block, in this case spanning all the time eras.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
We weren't talking about the Supergroup, why are you?:
There's nothing in the cross section of England that shows erosion before deposition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: The tilting of the Supergroup didn’t affect the layers above it. The simple sensible explanation is that they weren’t there. The cross-section of Britain shows other examples. And we do have evidence of massive erosion before all the strata were deposited.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The rise over the Supergroup is evidence against your point. But stick to the Smith diagram, the Supergroup is another subject. I see no "evidence of massive erosion" before the strata were all laid down.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: You were talking about the Colorado plateau. The Supergroup is in that region.
quote: As Edge explained, there is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Edge was talking gobbledygook. Let's see if you can do better.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: You claimed that the Smith diagram shows a stratigraphic column that completely represents the geologic timescale from the Cambrian to the present, and that if he left anything out it would still be a complete representation. That's impossible. Could you stop cluttering up the thread with inane claims?
As I explained, it's the RANGE that matters to the point I'm making, not inclusiveness. I understand, but then after making that clear you later doubled-down on your claim that the geologic timescale is completely represented from the Cambrian forward. If you don't want me to keep pointing out that that is wrong then don't keep saying it.
Though in the case of that cross section all the eras are represented in any case. You originally said from the Cambrian to the present, but the Cambrian is a period, not an era, so if you're switching to eras as I suggested then you have to change it to the Paleozoic, in which case yes, this is true. But so what? You're not making any point for which that fact would be supporting evidence. Interestingly and confusingly, the Cambrian is a period while the Precambrian is a supereon (according to Wikipedia).
Of course you are missing the point as usual. It demonstrates that the strata were tilted as one block which demonstrates that tectonic deformation occurred after they were all in place. That's the whole point of this. Why do you think you're saying anything meaningful. It is a physical requirement that strata be "in place" before they can be part of deformation. How is this not something everyone already innately understands?
But I think I should stop trying to make such simple obvious points to you. I don't know why you're explaining the bloody obvious either. As I said yesterday in Message 493:
Percy in Message 493 writes: This is self-evidently true - why do you feel the need to say it. Of course strata cannot be deformed or eroded until they are "in place,", i.e., they exist. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: Geo column/strat column, the distinction is trivial to me. Opaque, even.
The whole idea that current sedimentation has anything to do with the geological column, or any stratigraphic column, is so foreign to me that even trying to remember to mention it may be impossible. But now that you've made an issue of it I hope I can make the effort if it really clarifies things. Understanding what geology says is a prerequisite for criticizing what it says, don't you think? Most of the time you're flying blind. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
The principle of cross-cutting relationships is simple. You can’t cut something that isn’t there.
Around the centre of the map (beneath and to the left of the Jurassic label) you will see that the lowest strata curve up - and stop. They have been cut by an erosional surface. The rocks immediately above do not follow the upward curve at all - they were clearly deposited on an irregular surface, but filled it in rather than following it. Likewise, beneath the Cretaceous label, there are strata curving upwards, along the side of the buried peak, and strata above them that do not follow that upwards curve at all. Again they seem to be deposited on an irregular surface, and some of them pinch out before reaching the buried peak.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
You have lost the thread.
Edge wrote "All of these are intermediate products. The ultimate product of erosion is a coastal plain." You replied with a list of things caused by erosion omitting "coastal plain". Implying that erosion does not produce flat surfaces. OThat is what I am addressing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm not interested in the flat surfaces issue, I'm talking only about the order of events: strata laid down then eroded or deformed. Sorry if something else intervened that I missed but that is ALL I'm talking about and the erosion to a flat surface issue is utterly irrelevant to that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
I just replied to what you wrote. If you don't want to discuss a topic don't raise it. If
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You "replied to what I wrote" OUT OF CONTEXT.
I need a break.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024