Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
198 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (2 members, 196 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,038 Year: 5,150/6,534 Month: 570/794 Week: 61/135 Day: 1/6 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Young earth explanations for Angular Unconformities
Percy
Member
Posts: 20833
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 96 of 202 (796444)
12-30-2016 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Faith
12-30-2016 3:01 AM


Re: Siccar Point angular unconformity video
You're just repeating your Siccar Point fantasy without addressing any of the impossibilities that, after all the time you've spent discussing this, you know exist. Rock doesn't form by drying, buried rock layers cannot tilt without affecting the layers above, and rocks will react to weathering according to their composition and length of exposure, with lower rocks being exposed less long than upper rocks.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Punctuation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Faith, posted 12-30-2016 3:01 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Faith, posted 12-31-2016 3:28 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20833
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 104 of 202 (796588)
12-31-2016 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Faith
12-31-2016 3:28 PM


Re: Siccar Point angular unconformity video
Faith writes:

Addressing the impossibilities of the accepted view ought to go some way to making the point.

There are two problems with this response. One is that the accepted view of Siccar Point contains no impossibilities because, as was said so long ago, in geology the present is the key to the past. The accepted view of Siccar Point employs nothing more than processes we can observe taking place in the present. We know they're possible because we can see them happening.

The second problem is that in a thread titled Young earth explanations for Angular Unconformities you're supposed to be presenting your young Earth explanations for angular unconformities. And anyway, as has been explained to you many times, ignorant rejections are not positive evidence.

Of course I'm repeating my theory,...

You don't have a theory. You don't even have a hypothesis. You have a fairy tale.

...it's as good as or better than the establishment view which has plenty of holes in it.

Your fantasy is impossible.

You've been called on your endless claim that rock doesn't form by drying,...

Someone misunderstood at some point that the context was sedimentary rock, which does not form by drying. Very few types of rock form by drying, and certainly not sedimentary rock. It forms by being buried under great pressure. As pressure increases unconsolidated sediments become more and more consolidated. It isn't a drying process. I invite correction if I'm wrong about this.

But what does that have to do with this point anyway?

You repeated your claim that the strata were "still damp and malleable from the Flood".

I've made the case many times for the tilting of lower layers affecting the upper by pushing them up and abrading the contact.

What I recall is you abandoning discussion. You've never explained how layers could tilt while leaving overlying layers unaffected. For one thing it's impossible because it requires material from the tilted layers to simply disappear.

The rocks were formed under water according to standard theory.

Rocks do not form under water according to standard theory. If they did then the deep sea bottom would be rock instead of calciferous ooze.

They would have been stripped down to their skeletal form after the Flood receded, by the same tectonic force that tilted the lower layers, exposing them to the weathering we see at that location.

This defies rational interpretation. "Stripped down?" "Skeletal form?" "Tectonic forces that tilted the lower layers?" It's nonsense.

It looks to me like a few thousand years of weathering of both top and bottom layers should suffice to explain what is observed there, both exposed for the same length of time. This interpretation holds together just fine.

What things look like to your very uninformed eye carries no weight.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Faith, posted 12-31-2016 3:28 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20833
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 110 of 202 (796599)
01-01-2017 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by edge
12-31-2016 9:57 PM


I wasn't sure where to look in the photo, so consequently I didn't understand this:

edge writes:

This weathering occurred because the granite was exposed for a long time prior to deposition of the Sawatch sandstone was deposited. This is different from the case at Siccar Point where erosion occurred right up to the point where deposition of the sand started.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by edge, posted 12-31-2016 9:57 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by edge, posted 01-01-2017 11:39 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20833
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 126 of 202 (796635)
01-02-2017 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by edge
01-01-2017 11:39 AM


edge writes:

The issue was an apparent lack of weathering below the unconformity at Siccar Point. Faith thinks that because the rocks are not so weathered that they were never exposed at the surface. This is support her idea that the unconformity is actually some kind of a shear zone.

I'm not so sure that this is what Faith believes. She thinks that buried layers like this:

Can become tilted by tectonic forces to look like this:

Of course, this is impossible, for one thing because it requires cubic milies of material to simply disappear. This diagram attempts to illustrate some of the missing material after rotation. All the material represented by the diagonal lines and up through the upper left has simply disappeared:

Clearly it's impossible for so much material to disappear into thin air, and so her scenario could never happen, and so it could never form a shear zone. If I'm wrong about this please let me know. I just think it important that we all are talking about the same scenario. Faith is often so vague that there's a tendency to fill in the blanks with ideas she never imagined.

My point is that, because erosion was strongly mechanical (wave action) the more weathered rock was being constantly removed right up to the point of deposition of the Red Sand. Consequently, there is little evidence of a long period of erosion.

I'm still not sure where on the image I should be looking:

Or were you talking about the Siccar Point image?

Faith has countered with the idea that the weathering has occurred with the modern exposure of the outcropping and affected both sides of the unconformity. That doesn't quite work because then all outcroppings of the granite would show such weathering, not just where the unconformity occurs.

Faith may not have followed your argument about the degree of mechanical action, and I may not either. You seem to be drawing a contrast between relatively fast erosion (high mechanical action) that leaves a clean and new looking surface, versus weathering which results from long exposure with small scale erosion (low mechanical action) that results in the aged appearance we're familiar with in some rocks such as at Siccar Point. If I have that right then I get it, but I'm not sure Faith does.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by edge, posted 01-01-2017 11:39 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Faith, posted 01-02-2017 11:27 AM Percy has replied
 Message 133 by petrophysics1, posted 01-02-2017 3:08 PM Percy has replied
 Message 139 by edge, posted 01-02-2017 10:39 PM Percy has seen this message

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20833
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 132 of 202 (796654)
01-02-2017 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Faith
01-02-2017 11:27 AM


Faith writes:

I can't figure out how to copy and paste the image alone so here's a page of my blog where I posted it some time ago. It's the third image down.

Here's your diagram:

First, the strata below the unconformity happen to be straight upright at Siccar Point, not tilted as you've illustrated,...

This is incorrect. As you can see in your own diagram, some of the layers are nearly upright, some are tilted, but at any rate the degree of tilt doesn't matter. What you're missing is that tilting or bending or buckling of underlying layers without affecting the layers above isn't possible because it requires cubic miles of material to simply disappear into thin air.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Faith, posted 01-02-2017 11:27 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Faith, posted 01-02-2017 7:40 PM Percy has replied
 Message 138 by edge, posted 01-02-2017 10:33 PM Percy has seen this message

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20833
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 134 of 202 (796661)
01-02-2017 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by petrophysics1
01-02-2017 3:08 PM


Re: Edge's photo of the GC
petrophysics writes:

Google "spheroidal weathering images", now look at Edge's photo. The lower pinkish rocks are the granite, do you see the spheroidal weathering in the granite now? The granite was being weathered chemically but the weathered material was not being removed.

Oh, yes, I could see the eroded granite boulders, but I think I didn't ask the question clearly enough, didn't quote enough or say enough. Trying again, here's Edge's image from Message 107:

This is the passage from Edge where I didn't know where to look in the image:

edge writes:

Note the weathering rinds that formed along fractures in the Pikes Peak Granite, ostensibly before the overlying Cambrian sandstone was deposited.

Is Edge referring to those granite boulders when he says, "weathering rinds"? What fractures is he referring to, the ones between layers, or the fracture in the layer to the right of the boulders? Anyway, because I didn't understand this paragraph, I wasn't sure how to interpret the next one either.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by petrophysics1, posted 01-02-2017 3:08 PM petrophysics1 has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by edge, posted 01-02-2017 9:56 PM Percy has seen this message

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20833
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 142 of 202 (796690)
01-03-2017 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Faith
01-02-2017 7:40 PM


The degree of tilt doesn't matter. It's the same problem no matter what the degree of tilt. The missing material has to go somewhere. In the view of standard geology the missing material was once at the surface and was removed by the forces of erosion and carried away toward the lowest elevation (most often the ocean where most sedimentary layers originate) by wind, rain, streams and rivers. Erosion tends to level a landscape, and then when deposition begins again sediments are deposited in mostly flat layers upon the older eroded surface. The boundary between the older layers and the new layers is an unconformity.

Your scenario is impossible, and I can explain why. Here are the sedimentary layers as they originally appeared. I've labeled them A through H:

And here are the layers after E through H rotated 90 degrees to become vertical:

I've labeled as X and Y the regions next to layers E through H. What fills regions X and Y now? Your answer is that material scraped and eroded and broken off from layers D through H should fill region X and Y.

But the reality is that X and Y are not filled with material from layers D through H. At the Grand Canyon (where the tilt is much less than 90 degrees) X and Y are filled with Vishnu basement rocks. At Siccar Point X and Y are filled with other sedimentary layers. And as Edge has pointed out, there is also no evidence of shear at the boundary.

Once tilted vertical, layers E through H have a limited extent, bounded by layers A through D at the top and by other rock at the bottom. In your scenario the miles of extent of layers have become truncated into a very short distance. Where did all the missing material go?

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Faith, posted 01-02-2017 7:40 PM Faith has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by edge, posted 01-03-2017 11:24 AM Percy has seen this message

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20833
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


(2)
Message 143 of 202 (796691)
01-03-2017 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Faith
01-03-2017 1:50 AM


Faith writes:

You keep claiming that this or that phenomenon WOULD HAVE been present if my theory is correct. But clearly the rock WAS folded, which can be seen on Lyell's drawing, and you say they don't show those phenomena.

This isn't the point that's being made. No one thinks the layers weren't folded by geologic forces. The point is that when the layers were folded the current overlying layers were not present. There were other layers atop the folded layers that were folded along with them and then were later eroded away.

AND assuming that the folding occurred before the strata above were laid down, how on earth could that happen at all, one, meaning I'd think it would be hard to explain how it could occur without a counterweight above it.

Why do you think tectonic forces generated from within the Earth require some sort of counterweight?

and two, assuming somehow it did fold without anything above it, where did the material go that presumably disappeared by the time the strata came along?

It was eroded and carried away to the lowest geologic point (often the ocean) by wind, rain, streams and rivers. It's the same process we see happening all around the world today. The present is the key to the past.

It's amazing that after all your time here you still don't know the basics of geology. To disagree with them is one thing, but to not even know them despite years of discussion is unfathomable.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Faith, posted 01-03-2017 1:50 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Faith, posted 01-03-2017 10:41 AM Percy has replied
 Message 147 by edge, posted 01-03-2017 11:34 AM Percy has seen this message

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20833
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


(3)
Message 148 of 202 (796704)
01-03-2017 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Faith
01-03-2017 10:41 AM


Faith writes:

This isn't the point that's being made. No one thinks the layers weren't folded by geologic forces.

Then why bother talking about supposed evidence for folding that in fact is not present although you know folding occurred?

I'm not sure why there's any confusion about this, so I'll just repeat the point, but first here's the image again:

Of course folding is present. No one said folding isn't present.

The point is that when the layers were folded the current overlying layers were not present. There were other layers atop the folded layers that were folded along with them and then were later eroded away.

Wowsy wow. Now there's an entirely new theory I've never heard before. Never ever has such an idea entered into these discussions of the formation of angular unconformities.

It's amazing that you don't already understand this. It's very basic geology. Before new layers were deposited atop it, what did you imagine was being eroded away to form the top surface of the angular unconformity?

Here's a modified copy of the Siccar Point diagram showing in red where the layers that were eroded away might have been:

All the red layers that I added were eroded away, the sediments carried away to lower elevations like the ocean by wind, rain, streams and rivers. Then the layers visible today atop the angular unconformity were deposited.

Golly gosharoony, I was making the intelligent rational point that folding isn't too likely to occur without some resistance above it. More than a layer or two I'd venture. And I note that you don't have an explanation. Perhaps you should leave such questions to edge.

Ah, okay. I don't think "counterweight" was the word you were looking for. All it takes is one area being uplifted or subsided more than another to bend or fold layers. That could mean different amounts of force in different areas, or it could mean different amounts of overlying layers, or a combination.

The thing is, we've got these folded slabs of rock that cover who knows how much geography when first formed, and somehow their tops were cut off, presumably by erosion before strata were laid over them. Thing is, they would form a surface riddled by cracks,...

It *does* "form a surface riddled by cracks," but not in the way you're thinking. Erosion and weathering, especially things like rising/falling temperatures and freezing/thawing water, cause minute cracking and flaking of rock, gradually wearing it away particle by particle.

...not a surface conducive to, say, water runoff, and yet the cracks wouldn't be large enough to hold much eroded material. Seems to me it would pile up. Ya know, on ordinary physical principles, given the actual surface that would have been formed by folded sheets of wannabe rock.

The eroded material is carried away to the lowest elevations, often the ocean, but on its journey it will encounter many local low elevations, and there the eroded material will remain until it piles high enough to continue toward even lower elevations. Any landscape eventually erodes away, and the eroded material it contains eventually reaches a low elevation.

This discussion at this point has absolutely nothing to do with the basics of geology. This idea you've been describing has never before entered into the discussion of angular unconformities. I strongly recommend that you stay out of it to avoid contributing further to the utter nonsense. Edge is capable of confusing things enough without your help.

I think we should appreciate all the help we can get from Edge. Hopefully he can confirm what I've told you about angular unconformities, that basic geology believes they form when the higher portions of the tilted layers are eroded away.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Faith, posted 01-03-2017 10:41 AM Faith has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by edge, posted 01-03-2017 12:34 PM Percy has seen this message

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20833
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 151 of 202 (796717)
01-03-2017 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Faith
01-03-2017 2:13 PM


Faith writes:

And this idea that there were strata above them that eroded away before more strata were deposited, is, as I said, a brand-new idea never before applied in the discussion of these things.

What was it you imagined was eroded away when people described the surface of an angular unconformity as forming due to erosion of the higher portions of the tilted layers?

This understanding of angular conformities has been around forever and is what everyone has been saying. This is from a 1985 geology textbook in a paragraph describing angular unconformities:

quote:
At least four major events are involved in the development of an angular unconformity: (1) an initial period of sedimentation during which the older strata were deposited in a near-horizontal position, (2) a subsequent period of deformation during which the first sedimentrary sequence was folded, (3) development of an erosional surface on the folded sequence of rock, and (4) a period of renewed sedimentation and the development of a younger sequence of sedimentary rocks on the old erosional surface.

Nothing new about it. It's what Hutton surmised when he first saw Siccar Point. Regarding my drawing where I completed the layers of the angular unconformity that had been eroded away:

You included an extremely similar diagram from James Lyle on your blog page titled Angular Unconformities, Part 3: Lyell on how the rocks were tilted:

You had obviously read about geology's very long understanding that the upper portions of tilted layers erode away to form angular unconformities back in 2011 when you wrote that blog page.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Typo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Faith, posted 01-03-2017 2:13 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by edge, posted 01-03-2017 6:32 PM Percy has replied
 Message 163 by Faith, posted 01-03-2017 7:46 PM Percy has seen this message

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20833
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 153 of 202 (796727)
01-03-2017 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by edge
01-03-2017 6:32 PM


I'm not sure what is meant by "lower sequence", so Faith might not know what is meant, either.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by edge, posted 01-03-2017 6:32 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by edge, posted 01-03-2017 7:15 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20833
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 162 of 202 (796736)
01-03-2017 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by edge
01-03-2017 7:15 PM


edge writes:

I'm not sure what is meant by "lower sequence", so Faith not know what is meant, either.

Well, there is one sequence of rocks above the unconformity and another below. I called them 'upper' and 'lower'. The could be called something else if that makes things clearer. I'm open to suggestions.

Calling them the lower sequence is fine, but in that case I don't know what you meant by "a whole lot of the lower sequence has been somehow removed." If the lower sequence is the portion below the unconformity, none of it has been removed. I still have a feeling there may still be a terminology issue in play, either that or I'm missing something.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by edge, posted 01-03-2017 7:15 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by edge, posted 01-03-2017 7:55 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20833
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 165 of 202 (796740)
01-03-2017 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Faith
01-03-2017 7:38 PM


Faith writes:

He's the one making the dogmatic claim that there were horizontal strata that eroded away, which is the idea I'm saying has never entered into this discussion before.

No, Faith, I never said anything like that, and until just now you never said that was your understanding of what I said. You might at least try keeping to a consistent story.

Summarizing the big problems with your fantasy scenario, cubic miles of strata cannot disappear without a trace (meaning no remains of rubble or signs of shearing), disturbances to buried strata cannot fail to disturb overlying strata, rocks weather to form the appearance of age according to their composition and length of exposure and not how long ago they formed, and sedimentary rocks do not form by drying.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Faith, posted 01-03-2017 7:38 PM Faith has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by edge, posted 01-03-2017 8:14 PM Percy has seen this message

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20833
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 169 of 202 (796744)
01-03-2017 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by edge
01-03-2017 7:55 PM


edge writes:

What I'm saying is that the portions of the fold that were above the current location of the unconformity (the red lines) are gone.

Oh, I see what you're saying. I thought that by "lower sequence" you meant only what exists today, but I see what you mean now.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by edge, posted 01-03-2017 7:55 PM edge has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20833
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 172 of 202 (796749)
01-03-2017 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Faith
01-03-2017 8:01 PM


Faith writes:

It had to go somewhere on either theory, and as I said before if it was all eroded away at the surface there would be some evidence of it in the folds of the rocks, but apparently there isn't.

The scenario you describe can and does happen. As soon as some strata has been uplifted above the nearby landscape, sediments from the uplifted region will be deposited upon the lower elevations. If the region remains uplifted long enough then even the lower elevations will erode away, potentially leaving no signs of the eroded material in the area. But if the region subsides again before that can happen then the sedimentary deposits may well be preserved, possibly to be exposed again in the future for us to find. Perhaps Edge knows of some examples.

On my scenario I suggest it was pushed out at the "front" of the formation, the front being the part exposed to view in all the pictures.

In your scenario the material pushed to the "front" of the formation while buried is unlikely to be the same part that erosion just happens to reveal.

There's usually lots of rubble around formations.

That's scree and has nothing to do with the deformation of strata. It forms after exposure due to erosive and weathering forces.

Somewhere there is an unidentified pile of rubble that is where it went.

This contradicts what you said just before about the rubble being at the "front...in all the pictures," but regardless this is just the kind of evidence you need to find, cubic miles of broken off rubble from the strata of the angular unconformity. I liked the label Edge had for it, the "room" problem. Basically it means that everything has to be somewhere - it can't just disappear.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Faith, posted 01-03-2017 8:01 PM Faith 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