Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence that the Great Unconformity did not Form Before the Strata above it
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 588 of 1939 (754606)
03-29-2015 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 587 by Admin
03-29-2015 11:03 AM


Re: Navajo Sandstone
You said, "All this is off topic." Does "all this" refer only to what you said in your post? If so, then by "'dunes' challenge" do you mean Tanypertyx's angular unconformity of dunes?
There is no angular unconformity there.
Of does "all this" include all the points that Tanypteryx raised?
ABE: YES. /ABE
He accused me of leaving out the Navajo Sandstone in my basic scenario about the Grand Canyon. I showed that he was wrong and he refused to acknowledge it. That was the point I thought he was making but then he brought up the dunes accusation as well. BOTH are off topic; NEITHER has to do with angular unconformities. And then when he said it's on topic because it's an "unconformity" he just stuck that on and in any case this thread is not about other kinds of unconformities, it's specifically about the Great Unconformity and angular unconbformities that are similar to it.
Concerned that others might not be sure how to interpret the ambiguity, it was necessary to clarify that "all this" does not include other examples of angular unconformities beyond the Great Unconformity.
No it does not, and again Tanypteryx is not talking about an ANGULAR unconformity.
There *is* a moderator paying careful attention to this thread. Please let him do his job.
I thought I was being completely cooperative.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 587 by Admin, posted 03-29-2015 11:03 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 594 by jar, posted 03-29-2015 11:26 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 595 by Admin, posted 03-29-2015 11:31 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 590 of 1939 (754608)
03-29-2015 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 589 by Tanypteryx
03-29-2015 11:16 AM


Re: Navajo Sandstone
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.
I strongly disagree. The Navajo Sandstone simply does not look like wind-blown sand dunes to anyone who has seen wind-blown sand dunes. It looks water-soaked and I don't have a problem seeing it as a product of the Flood even if you do.
And this IS off topic.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 589 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-29-2015 11:16 AM Tanypteryx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 599 by edge, posted 03-29-2015 12:00 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 593 of 1939 (754611)
03-29-2015 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 592 by edge
03-29-2015 11:22 AM


Re: Flood pattern erosion-deposition
But there were strata laid down prior to the land being 'scoured'
NO.
You misread something. I tried to correct it in the previous post. This is NOT what I was saying.
I will have to come back to the rest of your post.
Edited by Faith, : eliminate wrong punctuation

This message is a reply to:
 Message 592 by edge, posted 03-29-2015 11:22 AM edge has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 597 of 1939 (754617)
03-29-2015 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 595 by Admin
03-29-2015 11:31 AM


Re: Navajo Sandstone
Since when are those levels in crossbedded sandstone called "angular unconformities?" Since when do they represent a supposed "time gap?" The very same levels and forms appear in dry sand dunes where they are obviously not unconformities, which can only occur in rock layers.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 595 by Admin, posted 03-29-2015 11:31 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 627 by Admin, posted 03-29-2015 4:44 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 600 of 1939 (754620)
03-29-2015 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 591 by Admin
03-29-2015 11:21 AM


Re: Moderator Seeking Clarification
Re: your five pictures.
The only pictures where I had a point to make about the form of the unconformity itself are those of Siccar Point (2 and 5)where the timing of the erosion was at issue. Mosaic Canyon (3) is the only one where its appearance keeps throwing me and making it hard to form a judgment of it. The other two of the little clasts (1 and 4) were about the problem of scale but not directly focused on the topic of angular unconformities. I've been focused on Mosaic Canyon since I brought it up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 591 by Admin, posted 03-29-2015 11:21 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 624 by Admin, posted 03-29-2015 3:33 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 601 of 1939 (754621)
03-29-2015 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 599 by edge
03-29-2015 12:00 PM


Re: Navajo Sandstone
Why do they look different?
The Navajo sandstone is rocks. Sand dunes are loose sand. You equate the two because of the cross bedding, not because the rocks actually look like sand dunes. They don't. They look like rocks. Rocks that were once liquid/plastic/viscous sand.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 599 by edge, posted 03-29-2015 12:00 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 603 by edge, posted 03-29-2015 12:09 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 604 of 1939 (754624)
03-29-2015 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 602 by edge
03-29-2015 12:07 PM


mosaic canyon re GU
I have asked you repeatedly if you think that your scenario for the GU applies to all unconformities.
All unconformities or all ANGULAR unconformities. Yes to all angular unconformities, no to *all*unconformities.
You have not responded.
Sorry, not aware of avoiding it.
I would never have brought it up if you had told us that the GU is different from other unconformities (which, I suppose, is pretty much standard fare for YEC argumentation).
Perhaps you could tell us now, why the GU is so different from the Mosaic Canyon unconformity.
It's not. Both are ANGULAR unconformities. My problem with Mosaic Canyon is the three dimensional iillusion in the picture that makes it hard to be sure of its actual reality. But it IS an angular unconformity and I haven't said it was different.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 602 by edge, posted 03-29-2015 12:07 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 605 by edge, posted 03-29-2015 12:15 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 606 of 1939 (754626)
03-29-2015 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 603 by edge
03-29-2015 12:09 PM


Re: Navajo Sandstone
Do you think that sand dunes cannot be lithified and incorporated into the geological record?
Yes, I absolutely believe that sand dunes AS sand dunes cannot be lithified and incorporated into the geological record. I believe that you see crossbedded sandstone which reminds you of dunes so you interpret it as lithified dunes, but that the reality is very likely something else.
Do we really have to explain all this to you?
You can restate your theory if you like but I've said above how I see it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 603 by edge, posted 03-29-2015 12:09 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 607 by edge, posted 03-29-2015 12:23 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 608 of 1939 (754628)
03-29-2015 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 603 by edge
03-29-2015 12:09 PM


Re: Navajo Sandstone
Re the picture you posted of beach sand and tsunami sand:
So, does this look like a sand deposit or a sandstone, or a future sandstone:
I believe that all those dramatic sandstone formations in the Southwest, like the Navajo that Tanypteryx posted, and the Wave and others like it, were produced by the Flood and otherwise very rarely form if at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 603 by edge, posted 03-29-2015 12:09 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 609 by edge, posted 03-29-2015 12:37 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 611 of 1939 (754631)
03-29-2015 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 596 by edge
03-29-2015 11:36 AM


Re: Flood pattern erosion-deposition
Then she has unintentionally said that the GC is formed by 'scouring', which I interpret as being erosion.
You seem to be completely missing the context. I was describing the steps I see occurring in the Flood. The scouring is the first phase, which removes all the sediments that are loose enough to be removed from the land. There were no strata at this point. The GC did not exist nor the strata into which it was later cut.
After the scouring, the sediments that were eroded from the land were suspended in the Flood waters and redeposited on the land in layers as the water ruse. ALL the strata, including the lowest levels which later formed the Great Unconformity.
From an earlier post of yours showing the same misreading:
Please explain your definition of 'bedrock'. And why do we see sedimentary strata below the GU?
Bedrock is just a term for whatever could not be eroded away after everything that could be eroded away was eroded away. There is nothing beneath bedrock. If I'm using the term incorrectly please correct it.
When the eroded sediments are deposited on the land during the rising of the Flood water, which is Phase 2 as I laid it out, this includes the strata that later become the G.U. But at this stage they are just lower strata in the whole stack of strata being laid down during the Flood.
This is all my Flood scenario, remember. THEN we get Phase 3, in which, after the strata were all laid down and the Flood water is starting to recede, we get the tectonic and volcanic activity that formed the G.U. and cut the G.C. and the G.S.
This is all an alternate way to account for what is seen in the rock record, that you interpret completely differently. In the Flood scenario erosion does not form the GU, tectonic forces form it and there may or may not be visible erosion, created by abrasion between tilted strata and upper strata.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 596 by edge, posted 03-29-2015 11:36 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 615 by edge, posted 03-29-2015 1:17 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 614 of 1939 (754634)
03-29-2015 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 612 by edge
03-29-2015 1:07 PM


Re: Navajo Sandstone
That is exactly the sort of thing that occurs in dry sand that proves that the same thing occurring in rock is NOT an angular unconformity which supposedly represents a time gap.
THAT sand formation won't be preserved in the rock record, but wet/plastic/viscous sand itself may form similar levels and crossbeds in the process of being deposited.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 612 by edge, posted 03-29-2015 1:07 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 616 by edge, posted 03-29-2015 1:23 PM Faith has replied
 Message 619 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-29-2015 1:30 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 618 of 1939 (754638)
03-29-2015 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 616 by edge
03-29-2015 1:23 PM


Re: Navajo Sandstone
Are you saying that the upper sand was deposited at the same time as the dune beneath it?
So, nothing happened in between, like a change in wind direction or any wind erosion?
I see. So ANY time gap now makes for an angular unconformity? We don't need the millions of years then? Welcome to the Flood time frame.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 616 by edge, posted 03-29-2015 1:23 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 620 by edge, posted 03-29-2015 1:39 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 622 of 1939 (754642)
03-29-2015 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 620 by edge
03-29-2015 1:39 PM


Re: Navajo Sandstone
This is a travesty and a distraction from the topic of this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 620 by edge, posted 03-29-2015 1:39 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 626 by Admin, posted 03-29-2015 4:22 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 629 of 1939 (754660)
03-29-2015 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 615 by edge
03-29-2015 1:17 PM


Re: Flood pattern erosion-deposition
Percy did a decent job of describing my Flood scenario in Message 625, but I thought I'd add my own restatement of it.
Faith writes:
You seem to be completely missing the context. I was describing the steps I see occurring in the Flood. The scouring is the first phase, which removes all the sediments that are loose enough to be removed from the land.
edge writes:
AFAIK, that would be erosion.
Yes, erosion of ALL erodible sediments on land. By the pummeling of forty days and nights of rain, saturating the land, causing mudslides, mixing into the sea water which is starting to rise up on the land.
And where do you think that 'loose sediment' came from? Couldn't have been from the rocks that it set on could it?
There were no sedimentary rocks in this early phase of the Flood, if that's what you mean.
There were no strata at this point. The GC did not exist nor the strata into which it was later cut.
Correct, but the GC Supergroup existed.
What do you mean, "Correct?" I'm trying to describe what must have happened in the Flood.
No, the GC Supergroup did not exist yet. It was laid down as strata in the next phase of the Flood.
They are sedimentary and they are just below the Great Unconformity...
Please explain.
I'm talking about the earliest phase of the Flood, when NO sedimentary rocks yet existed. They were all laid down IN the FLood, including the Supergroup, as I even said in the post you are answering. The strata that later became the Great Unconformity did not yet exist.
After the scouring, the sediments that were eroded from the land were suspended in the Flood waters and redeposited on the land in layers as the water ruse. ALL the strata, including the lowest levels which later formed the Great Unconformity.
So you are saying that they were eroded and redeposited on top of the unconformity.
No, as you just quoted me saying, the strata of the Supergroup, "the lowest levels which later formed the Great Unconformity" are being laid down as strata by the rising Flood water. The unconformity did not yet exist because the strata of the Supergroup did not yet exist, are only now being laid down in this second phase of the Flood.
This is all being laid down on what I called "bedrock" or whatever non-erodible surface remained after all the erodible sediments had been eroded off it and suspended in the Flood water, the sediments that are now beginning to deposit as strata. If "bedrock" is not the right word, please correct it.
The sediments were, " eroded ... and redeposited on the land", according to you. So, erosion took place before deosition...
Do you have any idea what you are saying here?
Indeed I do, though apparently you aren't getting it. Percy did a pretty good job of explaining it though, perhaps that will help.
Are you trying to be funny?
Not in the slightest.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 615 by edge, posted 03-29-2015 1:17 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 631 by herebedragons, posted 03-29-2015 9:20 PM Faith has replied
 Message 640 by edge, posted 03-30-2015 1:14 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 630 of 1939 (754661)
03-29-2015 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 625 by Admin
03-29-2015 4:15 PM


Re: Flood pattern erosion-deposition
There are just a couple of small points I'd like to correct in your otherwise good description of the Flood scenario:
Since Faith hasn't replied yet and since I do think I understand what she means, let me relate my understanding of what Faith's saying in my own words. Fatih's corrections should be helpful in understanding her viewpoint:
1.Before the flood there were no sedimentary layers anywhere, not on land or sea bottom. There was limestone and clay and shale and slate and sandstone and so forth, but evidently not organized into sedimentary layers.
Yes.
2.The flood scoured all this material off the land down to bedrock (Faith's definition of "bedrock" isn't clear to me). This is the only erosion Faith is talking about, as far as I know. The eroded material became suspended in the active flood waters.
"Bedrock" is the only word I can think of to describe what must have been a surface that could not be eroded after everything above it that could be eroded had been eroded. If there is no such thing or another term is needed, please supply.
I'd say "rising" Flood waters. This is the earliest phase of the Flood. Yes, "active" too I guess. It took five months for the Flood to rise to its ultimate height so it was climbing up onto the land fairly slowly.
3.As the flood waters quieted the previously eroded material began falling out of suspension to form all the sedimentary layers of the geological record, including the Grand Canyon Supergroup.
Yes. But this would have occurred while the water was rising, which is how I now understand Walther's Law works.
Because material falling out of suspension doesn't explain the sorting of material into the homogenous sedimentary layers, more recently Faith has been placing greater emphasis on Walther's Law as being responsible for the sedimentary layers.
Yes. Walther's Law offers an explanation that is becoming clearer lately.
4.Tectonic forces caused uplift of the Grand Canyon region, and they also tilted the layers of the Grand Canyon Supergroup and broke it into blocked sections.
Yes.
5.Receding flood waters eroded the sedimentary layers to form structures like the Grand Canyon.
Yes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 625 by Admin, posted 03-29-2015 4:15 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024