Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9049 total)
513 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (5 members, 508 visitors)
Newest Member: Wes johnson
Happy Birthday: Astrophile
Post Volume: Total: 887,604 Year: 5,250/14,102 Month: 171/677 Week: 30/26 Day: 2/10 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence that the Great Unconformity did not Form Before the Strata above it
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 1939 (752832)
03-13-2015 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
03-12-2015 12:42 PM


3. This means that the Great Unconformity was NOT there before the strata were laid down. It was lifted right along with the whole stack, and probably tilted at the same time. Evidence is as above: the layers don’t butt up against the GU as they would if they were laid down after it was there, they rise up over it in the mounded shape, and the GU is clearly pushed up into the mounded area.

Here's a perfectly horrible attempt to show how the layers would have butted up against the Great Unconformity if it was there before the strata were laid down. I moved the GU down, figuring none of it was raised. The drawing may be so bad it isn't a good idea to post it, but I decided to just because the idea seems to need some kind of attempt at showing what I mean.

The sides of what you're referring to as the Great Unconformity were already butted up against the Vishnu basement rock so the strata were just laid down on top of all that stuff.

As shown in this pic:

That far left side of the "Great Unconformity" butts up against the Vishnu, so the strata could not have butted up against the G.U. because there was already something there.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 03-12-2015 12:42 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 03-13-2015 3:38 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 1939 (752866)
03-13-2015 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Faith
03-13-2015 3:38 PM


Yes that occurred to me and I forgot to mention it. The only thing it changes is that any new layers would have butted up against the Vishnu rather than the GU itself,

The layers are falling on top of the Vishnu, which is butted up against the GU, and they are also falling on the GU. And they're piling up on the one before them.

Same situation basically though. Originally depositng layers won't climb up over obstacles.

They're is no obstacle to climb up over. The Vishnu goes all the way out to the left.

The bump is there because the land is getting squished. The next techtonic plate to the west is pushing inward towards the one this is on.

It'd kinda be like if you took a piece of paper laying on your desk, and held the right edge down against the desk with your right hand. Then, placing your left hand on the left edge of the paper, and moving it inwards towards the right.

The paper will buckel upwards and make a bump.

Now, both this image and that paper will be horribly exagerated in the upwards direction. Take a look at the spacestation image:

How far out do you think the GU goes?

How thick do you think it is?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 03-13-2015 3:38 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Faith, posted 03-13-2015 7:53 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 1939 (752869)
03-13-2015 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Faith
03-13-2015 7:53 PM


The "bump" is the uplift over which all the strata maintain their form, which shows that the uplift occurred after they were all in place. If it is the Vishnu schist that is pushed up into the "bump" form, fine, it really doesn't matter. The point is that the strata were NOT laid down after these formations were in place because they would NOT conform to the shape of the "bump" in that case.

The slope of the bump is really small. The height of the bump in the images is distorted.

The strata can maintain levelness and conform to the shape of the bump if the slope is really shallow.

Like, if the piece of paper you made a bump with only came up from the desk by a fraction of a millimeter, then you could have layers form on that without sliding down or bumping up against it or having to jump up over an obstacle. You could sprinkle sand on a piece of paper and have it conform to the bump if you keep the bump short enough.

Also, have you considered that some of the layers could be forming while the bump is being uplifted? When the bump isn't too high, they can still conform to it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Faith, posted 03-13-2015 7:53 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 03-13-2015 8:16 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 1939 (752873)
03-13-2015 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Faith
03-13-2015 8:16 PM


I'm sorry, I just find all this rationalization about how the layers could have conformed to the mound ridiculous. Utter and complete nonsense. That is not how the world works. You are not going to get nice even layers over a "bump." Especially if the layers are forming under water as even OE Geology says most of them were. And those layers are tens to hundreds of feet thick too.

Think about how short a bump would have to be in order for a layer to deposit on it and conform to its shape.

It'd have to be pretty short. Can you honestly not imagine a little short bump that a layer could, actually, conform to?

Not at all? Like I said, if the paper only came up a fraction of a millimeter, couldn't sand sprinkle onto that and conform to the shape?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 03-13-2015 8:16 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 03-13-2015 10:30 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 176 of 1939 (753292)
03-18-2015 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Faith
03-18-2015 5:36 PM


Re: The Reformers on Science
does my not wanting to continue the topic of the OP preclude me from responding to the off-topic posts?

That depends on what your goal is.

First off, nothing precludes you from posting. Your posts can only be addressed after they are submitted.

As to whether or not you should, well that is up to you.

As to how you'll be responded to for what you post, well that is up to us.

Moderation depends on the rules we all agreed to.

"It really is that simple".

So if you don't want to be treated like an X then don't act like an X.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Faith, posted 03-18-2015 5:36 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Faith, posted 03-19-2015 12:37 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 178 of 1939 (753305)
03-19-2015 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Faith
03-19-2015 12:37 AM


Re: The Reformers on Science
Which part were you incapable of understanding?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Faith, posted 03-19-2015 12:37 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 182 of 1939 (753344)
03-19-2015 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by kbertsche
03-19-2015 10:59 AM


Re: The Reformers on Science
The ancient writers were using phenomenological language, not scientific language.

Maybe people shouldn't be using language like that to determine things like the age of the Earth...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by kbertsche, posted 03-19-2015 10:59 AM kbertsche has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 183 of 1939 (753345)
03-19-2015 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Faith
03-19-2015 11:44 AM


Re: The Reformers on Science
If the Bible is merely describing what happened, "the sun stopped moving" is quite sufficient without knowing whether the sun itself stopped or the earth's rotation stopped. There wouldn't be different results because God is doing this and there's no way to know how He did it. He's not going to stop the earth and let us all fly off into space, so what He did remains a mystery.

In fact, He wouldn't have even had to stop anything at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Faith, posted 03-19-2015 11:44 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 193 of 1939 (753478)
03-20-2015 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Faith
03-20-2015 12:39 AM


Re: The Reformers on Science
I said it takes a purely descriptive view of the heavenlies. It doesn't make scientific or analytic statements it simply describes things as we see them. Since it is from our point of view, the most natural scientific view would be geocentrism if you insist on trying to get a scientific view out of it,

If only you could extend this to everything the Bible says.

As a purely descriptive view, from our point of view, it would look like the whole planet was flooded, but actually, it was not.

As a purely descriptive view, from our point of view, it would look like the animals were created in their full form, but actually, they were not.

I know, I know, you just gotta have that Fall for everything else to work.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Faith, posted 03-20-2015 12:39 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 403 of 1939 (754091)
03-24-2015 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 401 by Faith
03-24-2015 11:16 AM


I NEVER think in terms of millions of years

Well there's your problem; you don't even know your enemy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by Faith, posted 03-24-2015 11:16 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 435 of 1939 (754149)
03-24-2015 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 433 by Faith
03-24-2015 3:47 PM


Re: G U too flat to be eroded: images
Perhaps my basic rejection of the idea of how such an unconformity develops makes it too hard for me to think in such terms at all.

How are you going to provide evidence against something if you can't even think it its terms?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 433 by Faith, posted 03-24-2015 3:47 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 466 of 1939 (754313)
03-25-2015 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 462 by Faith
03-25-2015 6:45 PM


But that doesn't change the fact that none of the pictures show a surface as level and straight as those of the G.U. in the pictures I posted.

The surface in the picture in the post that you replied to is as level and straight as those of the G.U. in the pictures you posted.

Why are you saying that that they are different? Is it because the slope, i.e. the increase in height over the increase in width, is different in the images?

Is it possible that you are comparing different scales of height/distance, and that is causing you to misapprehend how "level" these surfaces are?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 462 by Faith, posted 03-25-2015 6:45 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 469 of 1939 (754316)
03-25-2015 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Faith
03-13-2015 10:30 PM


Wet sediments seek the horizontal. If it's a very long incline they will nevertheless butt into it eventually. I can't read the legend at the bottom of the cross section but I'd guess the span of the "bump"is about 500 miles, and it rises from a thousand feet up to 9000 feet, about fifteen feet in a mile if I figured correctly. [ABE, no, I didn't figure correctly. It would rise to the highest point more sharply, about 27 feet in a mile. I made the mistake of including the whole span, both rise and fall]. That's not much, but a layer say 50 feet high is going to run into / butt up against the slope and not go over it after less than four miles. {ABE Less than two at 27 feet in a mile..
ABE: Don't know what I was thinking. I'd found some time ago that the distance from the Grand Canyon to the north end of the Grand Staircase was about two hundred miles. I just checked Google and the distance from the GC to Cedar Breaks at the N end of the GS is only 113 miles.

SO the mound is a little less than half that distance, call it fifty miles, rising from 1000 to 9000 feet or 8000 feet, making a rise of 160 feet in one mile. Even that's not much but still enough for three fifty-foot layers to butt into it in one mile. /ABE

I honestly don't know. So out of curiosity, from this spacestation image:

Where do you put the end of what you have called the GU? Can you download that image and put a mark on it where the end is? (I realize that's a lot of work to ask of you, but I think it'll help clear up the communication)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 03-13-2015 10:30 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 750 of 1939 (754828)
03-31-2015 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 744 by Faith
03-31-2015 3:58 PM


Re: houses
Really, all you have to do is remove your head from the box it's been in for decades and free it to really see reality and really think for a change.

Okay, I've done that.

Now what should I be looking at?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 744 by Faith, posted 03-31-2015 3:58 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 762 of 1939 (754843)
03-31-2015 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 761 by Faith
03-31-2015 8:33 PM


Re: houses
When I said no evidence I was talking about this part of the conversation not the earlier part, no evidence meaning the ridiculous claim that the strata represent eras of millions of years.

How could scientists have come to that conclusion without any evidence?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 761 by Faith, posted 03-31-2015 8:33 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 763 by Faith, posted 03-31-2015 9:01 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021