Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 61 (9125 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: GenomeOfEden
Post Volume: Total: 909,600 Year: 6,481/14,231 Month: 28/368 Week: 82/97 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Continuation of Flood Discussion
Inactive Member

Message 50 of 1304 (731308)
04-30-2014 6:21 AM

No scientific methodology
I know the Coconino has a crossbedding at an angle of repose that suggests it has to have been formed aerially, but this seems to me to be more than contradicted by its extreme flatness.
This link ought to go to a picture of the
Coconino sandstone that shows its straightness and flatness.
Ever measured the Coconino?
Ever measured sections through it from bottom to top where you describe it in detail? You know it's grain size, sorting, mineral content, color, cross bedding, flow direction, depositional dip, thickness etc. and their variations across an area.
Ever map it and all it's variations?
I've asked you five times to explain your procedure for determining the depositional environment of rocks. You do not have one, but somehow determined a flood deposited this, and that IS a depositional environment.
I concluded you looked at post cards and dreamed up about anything you wanted even if it violated well know physical and chemical laws. You measure nothing, you collect no data and so you think everything is interpretation. The concept of data forcing a conclusion on you is something you know nothing about since you know nothing about gathering geologic data.
I noticed you linked a picture in your quote above. As I said that is the sum total of your geologic methodology. That is not how it's done.
Here is what people who actually looked at the Coconino have to say:
Coconino Sandstone (Lower Permian)Tan to white, cliff-forming, fine-grained, wellsorted, cross-bedded quartz sandstone. Contains large-scale, high-angle, planar cross-bedded sandstone sets that average about 35 ft (11 m) thick. Locally includes poorly preserved fossil tracks and low-relief wind ripple marks on crossbedded planar sandstone surfaces. Lower 5—20 ft (2—6 m) is intertongued, thinbedded, partly calcareous, flat-bedded sandstone of Seligman Member of Toroweap Formation. Unconformable contact with underlying Hermit Formation is sharp planar, with relief generally less than 3 ft (1 m) but locally as much as 8 ft (2.5 m). Desiccation cracks in the Hermit, as much as 2 ft (0.05 m) wide and 12 ft (4 m) deep, are filled with tan sandstone of the Toroweap or Coconino, mainly in eastern third of map area. Thickness of the Coconino decreases east to west, whereas Brady Canyon and Seligman Members of Toroweap Formation increase proportionally in thickness. Forms a 500-ft (154-
m) thick cliff in southeast corner of map area, thinning northward to about 350 ft (122 m) and westward to about 150 ft (45 m) at western edge of map area.
USGS URL Resolution Error Page
The observations above blow your flood idea out of the water.

Inactive Member

Message 80 of 1304 (731338)
05-05-2014 2:13 PM

Re: protractor
I can't believe someone gave a person who doesn't know what an apparent dip is a protractor, much less know how to determine the true strike and dip from a couple of apparent ones..
I can hear it now...."It's flat, just look at it, anybody can see it."
God forbid we actually measure stuff rather than just look at it from any random angle someone taking a photo used.
Apparent dip images:
Edited by petrophysics1, : No reason given.
Edited by Admin, : Fix link.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2023