Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9049 total)
502 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, AZPaul3, dwise1, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (6 members, 496 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
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2578
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 17 of 1939 (752849)
03-13-2015 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Faith
03-13-2015 5:16 PM


Re: Sediments make layers over mounds?
one doesn't have to be a physicist to know that sediment is NOT going to neatly spread itself out over a contour.

Physics says that if the slope in the real world is slight enough sediment will not slide off it. The real world is not as steeply sloped as your diagrams.

If you sprinkle sediment on a mounded surface it's going to slide off the surface and pile up at the bottom of the slopes. It is not going to form an evenly distributed layer that follows the contour.

Once again, this is only true if the slope is steeper than the angle of repose.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Faith, posted 03-13-2015 5:16 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Faith, posted 03-13-2015 6:41 PM Tanypteryx has responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2578
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 20 of 1939 (752854)
03-13-2015 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Faith
03-13-2015 6:41 PM


Re: Sediments make layers over mounds?
No matter how gentle the slope you aren't going to get even deposition of sediments on it. And here we're talking about an entire stack of such layers supposedly about 300 million years apart in age all following this contour quite neatly.

You are just making it up.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Faith, posted 03-13-2015 6:41 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2578
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 58 of 1939 (752916)
03-14-2015 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Faith
03-14-2015 12:45 PM


PaulK isn't the only one who tried to make that absurd case. Both Tanypteryx and Cat Sci did also.

I was pointing out that your blanket statements that sedimentary layers cannot follow a contour in underlying strata. I think that was the point PaulK and Cat Sci were making also.

Faith in message 14 writes:

one doesn't have to be a physicist to know that sediment is NOT going to neatly spread itself out over a contour. If you sprinkle sediment on a mounded surface it's going to slide off the surface and pile up at the bottom of the slopes. It is not going to form an evenly distributed layer that follows the contour.

We were disputing Faith's rule #?

It is clear from the evidence that the strata that makes up the GU was tilted long before the overlying sediments were deposited. Most of the material was eroded away over millions of years before being covered by more sediments.

Faith, your whole problem is trying to twist your imaginary scenario into a one year flood and a few thousand years after that. That is an absurd notion that ignores all the details that have been pointed out to you.

You say that millions of years for all the strata to erode, be deposited, erode some more, be deposited some more, over and over is absurd.

But that is all you can say, IT IS ABSURD.

Not if it took millions of years. Then it nakes perfect sense and explains all the evidence we see. Sedimentation takes lots of time, erosion takes lots of time, see level rising and falling takes lots of time. TIME, MILLIONS OF YEARS OF TIME, explain it all. You don't want that to be true because then it will make your magic book wrong, but the evidence is there, in the rocks.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Faith, posted 03-14-2015 12:45 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by edge, posted 03-14-2015 2:45 PM Tanypteryx has responded
 Message 70 by Faith, posted 03-14-2015 7:32 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2578
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.0


(1)
Message 61 of 1939 (752926)
03-14-2015 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by edge
03-14-2015 2:45 PM


I'm not even sure what Faith means here. Is she saying that layers maintain parallelism to older layers or elevation contours?

I thought she was saying that sedomentation always forms flat level layers and will slide off any slope. This does not really apply to the layering that we see at the Grand Canyon. It is just a side issue, that I was disputing.

I agree with everything you said.

In past threads she has seemed to hold the position that the GU was formed by the layers of the GC Supergroup being rolled into a tilted position after all the other layers were deposited on top of it. That fails to explain where the rest of the material in the GC Supergroup disappear to.

That she imagines that the GC Supergroup could rotate enough to form the GU with thousans of feet of rock above it boggles my mind. All without major disturbance being obvious in the overlying strata. All the things she claims to have happened would have consequences and leave evidence that we could study today.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by edge, posted 03-14-2015 2:45 PM edge has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2578
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.0


(4)
Message 438 of 1939 (754165)
03-24-2015 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 437 by Faith
03-24-2015 6:12 PM


Re: miscommunications
Faith writes:

Clearly, you and edge both think within Geological definitions.

Geology is the subject being discussed. Geology is a science. After a few years, the people studying each science start to develop definitions for as much of their terminology as possible. That way, all the people studying that science, young and old, will be able to understand each other. Whenever a new term is invented, the inventor describes what the new term means and refines the description until everyone agrees. Sometimes there is already a term with that meaning or another term stands for that meaning. One of the things that is expected of scientists in a field, is to point out discrepancies in the terminology so everyone understands everyone else.

A major part of studying a science is learning the terminology that describes objects and processes. This is how you avoid miscommunication.

Faith writes:

So, if this sort of thing accounts for the miscommunications maybe it can be the basis for sorting some of it out.

Not studying GEOLOGY is what leads to miscommunications in GEOLOGY discussions.

Not learning and using the terminology of GEOLOGY is what leads to miscommunications in GEOLOGY discussions.

Faith writes:

I try to stick to what I think are simple ordinary descriptions of the physical phenomena I'm talking about.

This is what leads to your miscommunications in every single science thread you participate in.

Faith writes:

I am quite willing to use any geological terms that will better communicate what I'm trying to say.

That is not what you do though. You continuously try to us the terminology incorrectly, insist on different meanings, and introduce new terminology for things that already have defined terminology.

Faith writes:

So, if this sort of thing accounts for the miscommunications maybe it can be the basis for sorting some of it out.

What do you suggest?

Faith writes:

Or maybe it's just hopeless and this says why.

If you want people to understand you and listen to what you have to say, you have to study the subject.

There are no high school or college course titled Faith's Biology, Faith's Genetics, Faith's Geology, etc.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 437 by Faith, posted 03-24-2015 6:12 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2578
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 463 of 1939 (754280)
03-25-2015 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 460 by Faith
03-25-2015 6:21 PM


Faith writes:

I thought that's what Percy wanted me to indicate: to explain the unevenness of the lower section as the result of erosion after the deposition of the above section. I'm sure you are still free to offer a different interpretation.

empasis mine

This doesn't make any sense at all.

It is like saying that you can get a haircut while wearing a stocking cap.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 460 by Faith, posted 03-25-2015 6:21 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 464 by Faith, posted 03-25-2015 7:10 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2578
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 485 of 1939 (754346)
03-26-2015 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 484 by edge
03-26-2015 12:24 AM


Is this why repeated attempts to extract an explanation, end up in oblivion?

Short answer: yes....Long answer: yes

Sorry Dude.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 484 by edge, posted 03-26-2015 12:24 AM edge has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2578
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 497 of 1939 (754397)
03-26-2015 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 490 by edge
03-26-2015 10:17 AM


Are the boundaries between the sedimentary layers considered to be unconformities?

The change to deposition of a completly different rock type; sandstone to limestone to shale, etc. must represent gaps in deposition and changes in depositional environments, rather than continuous deposition.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 490 by edge, posted 03-26-2015 10:17 AM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 498 by Faith, posted 03-26-2015 12:02 PM Tanypteryx has responded
 Message 508 by herebedragons, posted 03-26-2015 4:58 PM Tanypteryx has responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2578
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 504 of 1939 (754422)
03-26-2015 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 498 by Faith
03-26-2015 12:02 PM


Are the boundaries between the sedimentary layers considered to be unconformities?

No.

The change to deposition of a completly different rock type; sandstone to limestone to shale, etc. must represent gaps in deposition and changes in depositional environments, rather than continuous deposition.

Check "Walther's Law." No need for gaps between sediments.

I was hoping for a more detailed answer from someone who knows something about Geology.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 498 by Faith, posted 03-26-2015 12:02 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 505 by Faith, posted 03-26-2015 2:55 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2578
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 510 of 1939 (754441)
03-26-2015 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 508 by herebedragons
03-26-2015 4:58 PM


I don't think that image is intended to depict the different layers to be separated by unconformities. The red and black lines only.

Thanks for answering. Yeah, I wasn't thinking about your illustration specifically.

I have been thinking about this through the whole discussion and comparing all the outcroppings and exposures I visited and photographed during road trips in the American Southwest the last 2 years. I think I drove my grandson crazy, stopping every few miles to shoot photos of cliffs.

Some of the boundaries between layers are clearly unconformities because there is evidence of erosion on the lower layer and filled-in streams or sand dunes.

The angled strata below the Great Unconformity makes its location and appearance pretty striking. I started thinking about some of the other places where I had seen quite distinct boundaries between layers on exposed cliff faces and wondering if a lot of them might be considered unconformities because there would have to be significant periods when there was no deposition.

Before this discussion, I thought unconformities were where tilted strata meet horizontal strata. Now I realize that they are really gaps in deposition and that they represent time, sometimes a lot of time.

Faith was right that Walther's Law would be applicable for at least one way sedimentation environments can change, as it could vary both spatially AND temporally.

I understand the concept of Walther's Law and how if sea level rises various depositional environments will move in relation to the change in shoreline.

My understanding is that Walther's Law is about a specific depositional situation and does not account for all sedimentary layers everywhere.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 508 by herebedragons, posted 03-26-2015 4:58 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 511 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-26-2015 6:48 PM Tanypteryx has responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2578
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.0


(2)
Message 517 of 1939 (754464)
03-26-2015 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 511 by ThinAirDesigns
03-26-2015 6:48 PM


Yeah, no expert but I did just spend much of the day researching this thing that Faith throws out seemingly to answer so many different sedimentary questions raised. I'm pretty damn sure it's not the magic bullet that she imagines.

She got pretty excited when she first heard about it. It became her magic method of explaining how her mythical flood deposited all the sedimentary layers in the world. She will go to extraordinary lengths to shoehorn her flood explanation into Geology and ignoring libraries full of evidence that demonstrate she is wrong.

The cool part though, is that we all end up learning a bunch of neat stuff from people like edge, RAZD, Dr. A, Roxrkool and a bunch of others.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 511 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-26-2015 6:48 PM ThinAirDesigns has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2578
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 567 of 1939 (754579)
03-28-2015 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 559 by Faith
03-28-2015 6:09 PM


Re: Flood pattern erosion-deposition
Faith writes:


  • ...erosion of all the (erodable) land mass...,

    I'm referring to what must have happened as first the heavy rain pummeled the land and saturated it, creating massive mudslides, and then the sea water rose to cover all the land in the first half of the Flood: it would have soaked all the soft sediments which would have been removed from any hard rock surfaces and carried down hill, most of which would then have been suspended in the rising sea water.

  • ...deposition back on the land in layers of different sediments, ...

    If Walther's Law is the model here the sediments would have been redepositing in layers on the land as the sea level rose. Perhaps continuing to settle out at its height as well.

  • ...tectonic disturbance that uplifts land, pushes up mountains, breaks up and washes away the looser upper strata and cuts canyons and the stairs of the Grand Staircase and so on and so forth....

    It is at this point that the massive erosion occurred that cut the G.C. and the G.S. etc etc etc, which I usually think of as ioccurring as the Flood water was receding, but the timing is open to adjustment I suppose: I see the Flood period as a period of massive catastrophe to the whole planet, drowning it in the Flood water from both rain and rising sea, but also triggering the movement of the tectonic plates, in association with volcanism, such as at the Atlantic ridge where Europe and Asia Africa were separated from the Americas and have been drifting apart ever since. That initial tectonic jolt occurred at different places all over the planet, separating all the continents from the original single land mass, so all the continents should have experienced its effects as their outer edges subducted oceanic plates, resulting in mountain building, uplifted land, twisted strata, broken strata that is then washed away in the receding Flood water, cutting canyons, and FORMING ANGULAR UNCONFORMITIES such as the G.U. and Siccar Point.

I am curious where in your scenario the Navajo Sandstone was deposited and turned to stone?

This is the Navajo Sandstone exposed in Snow Canyon in southern Utah. That is my grandson standing on top.

According to Wikipedia, "Navajo Sandstone frequently overlies and interfingers with the Kayenta Formation of the Glen Canyon Group. Together, these formations can result in immense vertical cliffs of up to 2,200 feet (670 m). Atop the cliffs, Navajo Sandstone often appears as massive rounded domes and bluffs that are generally white in color."

It is made up of lithified sand dunes and crossbedding can plainly be seen.

How the heck did this end up on top of the layers that you say were deposited by your flood in the Grand Canyon area. Why wasn't it washed away in the receding flood water that you say receded to somewhere.

Faith writes:

Even if you consider this scenario to be completely daft, don't I deserve some credit for such a comprehenisive global theory?

It seems to me that a comprehensive global theory would clearly explain all the details that we have pointed out that do not fit in your comprehensive global theory. It has to explain everything or what use is it?


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 559 by Faith, posted 03-28-2015 6:09 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 568 by Faith, posted 03-28-2015 8:58 PM Tanypteryx has responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2578
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 569 of 1939 (754581)
03-28-2015 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 568 by Faith
03-28-2015 8:58 PM


Re: Navajo Sandstone
Faith writes:

There is no reason why the Flood shouldn't explain such an obviously originally water-soaked formation.

In what way is it obviously originally a water-soaked formation? I must be missing the clues that it was water-soaked.

How do sand dunes get formed by a flood? The evidence suggest that much of the Colorado Plateau region was covered by sand dunes to a great depth. We know these were sand dunes because of the cross bedding pattern.

Can you show any place on the earth where sand dunes are forming under water? Your own diagrams show sedimentary layers that you claim were deposited by the flood above and below the Navaho.

My question is how did the flood deposit dry sand dunes between the other sedimentary layers?


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 568 by Faith, posted 03-28-2015 8:58 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 570 by Faith, posted 03-28-2015 9:29 PM Tanypteryx has responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2578
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 571 of 1939 (754584)
03-28-2015 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 570 by Faith
03-28-2015 9:29 PM


Re: Navajo Sandstone
Faith writes:

It would be nice if you would acknowledge that I did answer the question you asked in my previous post

Sorry, I don't think you answered anything.

I think the fact that the Navajo Sandstone is made up of sand dunes and that it is smack in the middle of your flood layers refutes the flood as the origin of those layers.

Faith writes:

And all this is off topic in this thread.

You were the one who brought up ypur "comprehensive global theory and I was trying to get some clarification about how it explains the evidence.

The topic of the tread seems to be unconformities. I would think that the top and bottom boundaries of the Navajo could be considered unconformities.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 570 by Faith, posted 03-28-2015 9:29 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 572 by jar, posted 03-28-2015 10:53 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2578
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 589 of 1939 (754607)
03-29-2015 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 576 by Faith
03-29-2015 4:02 AM


Re: Navajo Sandstone
Faith writes:

No, it's a comment I made about it looking water-soaked, followed by a cross section that demonstrates where the Navajo Sandstone falls in the strata, above the Grand Canyon area, since Tanypteryx wrongly thought I'd eliminated that formation altogether.

Sorry, I should have been clearer.

I meant to say that your "Comprehensive Global Theory" (Message 559) does not account for a layer of wind-blown sand dunes embedded in the middle of your flood deposited sedimentary layers. The Navajo Sandstone is 2200 feet thick in places. That is a lot to try and sweep under the carpet.

You wrongly described the Navajo as looking water-soaked, but in reality it looks like and is, wind-blown sand dunes. Your comprehensive flood theory will never be able to plausibly explain how it occurs in the middle of the stack.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 576 by Faith, posted 03-29-2015 4:02 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 590 by Faith, posted 03-29-2015 11:21 AM Tanypteryx has not yet 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