Off Topic Posts aka Rabbit Trail Thread - Mostly YEC Geology

First off, it's not likely either rock was that thick to begin with, and it would also have been in layers. Not sure if it matters but that's my first thought. Lyell did an analysis of the layers at Siccar Point and some drawings that show that the greywacke was FOLDED, and that the abrasion of the upper folds left the appearance of vertical layers having been upended but they'd really been folded. A whole long stack of layers couldn't just be upended, they'd have to break first and the way they got broken was by first being folded. With that explanation of how they acquired their final appearance, proceed: OK Inside or outside the square? I picture inside, not sure why. How did you arrive at whichever it is? The greywacke would have slid under the upper sandstone in my scenario, perhaps some distance, but then the folding/tilting would possibly have decreased its length. Again not sure if it matters.Sounds like you've left a big gap to the north into which I would expect the upper sandstone to collapse or drape itself if quite malleable. What line? And why would you expect a canyon to form at that spot? If the sandstone has collapsed into the space you seem to have left where the greywacke had formerly been it would be. Otherwise I don't see the schist rising up to meet the sandstone which is what you SEEM to be saying but probably aren't. What would cause a canyon to form? And where exactly did it form? Now you're back at the tilted greywacke and no longer the twelve mile gap? How did the upper sandstone get tilted in that area? So far I don't see the similarity. For one thing in the Grand Canyon the upper sandstone is NOT tilted, it's level. The greywacke was layered, not just a thick slab, as Siccar Point shows, and some section of the layers folded - not sure a whole half mile thickness of layers would fold like that -- with the resultant look of being tilted, which could have decreased its width/length by some appreciable amount (depends on how deep it is in its tilted form compared to its original half mile thickness). The upper folds would have been sheared off in the abrasive contact with the upper sandstone and at both Siccar Point and the interface between the Grand Unconformity and the upper layer of sandstone in the Grand Canyon there is a fairly large band of eroded material which contains chunks of the lower rock embedded in the finer grained sand of the upper sandstone. That's where a lot of it went. Maybe all of it. There might also be an area of rubble at some point along the path it slid. But except for that abrasion the greywacke is still all there, just accordioned you could say, beneath the sandstone. Did my best. Now please do your best to understand what I'm saying and correct for any misunderstandings of what you intended since it wasn't all clear.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The problem is that Faith's new and exciting version of stratigraphy appears to involve a sequence of events which (schematically) would look like this: ... which is the sort of thing a geologist might see if he dropped too much acid, but not otherwise.

Thank you, Doc, that's it. Let North = right side of the bottom frame, and you have what I was describing - which is what I take to be what Faith has been describing for pages now.Where did the rock from the top of the tilted strata go? Forget my canyon in my description above - it was only the "window" to look at the stack of rocks. How did all that rock get out of there, Faith? Folded, abraded, whatever- where is it now?ABE: I dropped enough acid once about 45 years ago to see cars turning into running tigers and lions, but not to see much geology at all.Edited by Coragyps, : No reason given.

Apart from the aeolian sandstone, the glacial till, the volcanic ash, the paleosols ...Oh, and you never did get round to explaining how water manages to lay down strata with footprints in them. In your own time. No pressure.One of the advantages of real geology over flood geology, which I may have pointed out before, is that it can explain real observations of the actual strata, not just imaginary observations of the strata in your head.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Did you read my answer to you? I explained all that.The lower strata are not "tilted" because you CAN'T tilt a hundred mile long stack of layers. If they only buckled in that one spot then you should find the same layers still intact farther down. According to Lyell tilted strata are really FOLDED and the upper folds eroded away and if a long section was buckled then you shoujld find the same effect for the whole length. The so-called "ends" of the strata didn't just disappear, they were FOLDED OVER, and the folded part in contact with the upper layer was eroded and formed the erosion layer you find in those locations and beyond the illustrated area they were either reduced to rubble where there used to be strata or they exist as tilted strata all along that same path in the same condition as the illustrated part.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith assumes that the tilted strata concertinaed, while the higher strata were largely unaffected. She bases this on an illustration by Lyell which involves placing a weighted book on top of layers of cloth and compressing the cloth from the side. She assumes that the upper strata must act like the book - and I must stress that this is a big assumption because she also assumes that those strata do NOT have the properties of the book that allow the illustration to work.The question of how this happened, then, is a problem. And it turns out that she can't really address other than by insisting that there was a hell of a lot of "slippage" at the boundary layer but virtually none elsewhere.Her answer as to why this should be the case just amounts to saying "it just is" and getting angry that anyone could possibly disagree with her opinions.

When did they erode away? After the upper layers were in place? That's when they folded, correct?

It appears the bottom four layers are gradually tilting. No problem there, but you have to have the top layers tilting as well and that isn't what the diagram is showing. You would have to have the top layers of the tilting bottom to slide to the left and shorten with no effect on the layer above them they are in contact with. What possible mechanism could bring this type of behavior into being faith?

But thinking people do. They don't assume one big flood or one big tree unless there is some reason to link them. It takes a downright perverse stubbornness to insist that the Bible is right when plain evidence shows that it's wrong.

How did the folded part in contact with the upper layer erode without the upper layers eroding away as well?Layers do tilt an not fold by the way. They do this by the process of normal faulting when the crust is being pulled apart by tension.

They were eroded rather violently in the contact between the folded lower layers and the upper standstone caused by the tectonic and volcanic force from beneath. There is a band or belt of erosion between the lower tilted strata and the upper horizontal strata both at the base of the Grand Canyon and at Siccar Point that has chunks of the lower material mixed in with the sand from the upper.

\
No, the upper layers aren't tilted. Or, WHICH 'upper layers'? What? No idea what you're picturing about the tilting and shortening and sliding but you SEEM to be asking about the underside of the upper horiztonal layer under which the folded lower layers slide? Well, there IS an effect, it DOES get eroded, but in a "smoother" way than the lower folded strata. The erosion area contains chunks from the lower and sifted type sand from the upper. Sorry, not getting the picture here.

They DO erode. See description in previous post. Lyell says otherwise and his analysis makes sense. Go read his treatise. It's online somewhere and i think this is discussed and illustrated in Chapter 5.How does a layer a mile in length TILT? It has to break into smaller sections, and Lyell's analysis from many different formations shows how this happens through folding and buckling. The upright strata at Siccar point should demonstrate the point. I don't think you know what you are talking about.

One of my brothers used to use his tongue to eat the cheese out of a grilled cheese sandwich without eating the bread or taking the sandwich apart.How did the flood do that erosion?

"Belt of erosion"? You mean the inclusions of loose surface rocks in the overlying strata?ABE: Yes, apparently you do, as you write this in a subsequent post: Yeah, it does. Like this: Or this. Now look, stuff like that is simply not going to account for all the missing rock, is it? A few small boulders, cobbles and pebbles, when what you have to account for is the disappearance of hundreds of meters of rock.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.