Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 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 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 264 of 1939 (753798)
03-22-2015 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by edge
03-22-2015 1:06 PM


Again you are talking about NATURALLY flat surfaces, not uptilted strata and lumpy rocks that have been ERODED to flatness. The former of course exist, the latter do not exist.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 1:06 PM edge has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 267 of 1939 (753802)
03-22-2015 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by edge
03-22-2015 1:14 PM


Oh good grief. Why is this so difficul?. It wouldn't erode flat if it was tilted, but even if it was tilted it would be nothing like tilted STRATA.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 1:14 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 1:28 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 268 of 1939 (753803)
03-22-2015 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by edge
03-22-2015 1:19 PM


Stand them upright or on a tilt and see if they'll erode flat on the top the way the tilted strata at the base of the G.U. have flat surfaces.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 1:19 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 1:32 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 269 of 1939 (753804)
03-22-2015 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by jar
03-22-2015 9:06 AM


Re: Erosion simply CANNOT explain the flat contact line
Your example is ludicrously irrelevant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by jar, posted 03-22-2015 9:06 AM jar has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 273 of 1939 (753808)
03-22-2015 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by edge
03-22-2015 1:26 PM


You've given a series of straw man answers. Nothing but denial and evasion. But what on earth could I possibly have expected here anyway? Masters of obfuscation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 1:26 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 1:38 PM Faith has replied
 Message 332 by Admin, posted 03-23-2015 10:29 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 275 of 1939 (753810)
03-22-2015 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by edge
03-22-2015 1:38 PM


Your last image is of a naturally occurring flat surface as is the other one you posted of a cliff behind a beach. What's the rock?
The image of the strata is just weird. They are jagged and they are not upright or tilted so the jagged ends of the strata could be eroded to a flat horizontal surface.
You either don't understand the problem or you are intentionally obfuscating.
I refer you back to Message 213.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 1:38 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 2:02 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 278 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 2:29 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 276 of 1939 (753811)
03-22-2015 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Faith
03-22-2015 1:48 PM


Find something like this with a flat horizontal surface without the upper strata:
OR this one:
Just the tilted lower part without the upper. It's got to have a level upper surface.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 1:48 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 2:20 PM Faith has replied
 Message 280 by herebedragons, posted 03-22-2015 2:52 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 279 of 1939 (753815)
03-22-2015 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by edge
03-22-2015 2:20 PM


I'm not concerned about how table-top flat the surface is, it's flat enough in your pictures but they are of the kind of rock that would have a naturally occurring flat upper surface. ABE: Strata depositing on top of such a natural flat surface would not create an angular unconformity.
The problem is that you don't have pictures of tilted strata such as the G.U. has as its base. OR of lumpy rock like schist which is its base in other pictures.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 2:20 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 3:00 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 284 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-22-2015 3:16 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 282 of 1939 (753818)
03-22-2015 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by herebedragons
03-22-2015 2:52 PM


I am not sure why it can't have strata above it. Does the strata above somehow flatten it? But how about these
Because we want to show the base before it became an angular unconformity, since my claim is that the base would not have been eroded to the level straightness seen in the G.U. before the strata above were deposited on it.
The other pictures are pretty good, except the first one and that farm, but I would guess they were all once angular unconformities and not just eroded tilted strata.
However, you came up with some examples so you win.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by herebedragons, posted 03-22-2015 2:52 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by herebedragons, posted 03-22-2015 6:14 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 333 by Admin, posted 03-23-2015 10:37 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 285 of 1939 (753824)
03-22-2015 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by herebedragons
03-22-2015 3:13 PM


Something else explains those flat contacts we see in the Great Unconformity.
I would like to hear what this "something else" might be. I have an idea what you have in mind, but would rather you describe it before I guess at what you're thinking.
I've given my own scenario a million times already: After ALL the strata had been laid down, tectonic movement at the level of the basement rocks pushed them into folds that were sheared off by abrasion in contact with the upper strata at a point where the resistance of the weight above equaled the force from beneath, leaving the upper block of strata intact.
That's the only alternative scenario I can think of, but perhaps there are others.
Also keep in mind that any surface exposed to erosion today is in the process of being eroded. Erosion is not finished sculpting it. Deposition will not begin until the surface is low enough to begin accumulating sediment.
The lines I drew on the G.U. in Message 213 suggest to me a horizontal level straightness that erosion could never accomplish, but I've done all I can to argue this point so it's over. Edge never understood it, at least you finally did, but this has been just about the most frustrating and unrewarding discussion I've ever had here and I don't want another one.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : REWORD FOR CLARITY

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by herebedragons, posted 03-22-2015 3:13 PM herebedragons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 4:06 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 287 by jar, posted 03-22-2015 4:16 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 290 of 1939 (753836)
03-22-2015 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by herebedragons
03-22-2015 5:53 PM


Re: why can't erosion do it????????????
I have no idea what a "flexural slip folding mechanism" is.
I've also said nothing about surfaces having to be "perfectly planar" and I don't even think it.
Edge has some idea I need a mechanism to DETACH the different formations from each other? Why? It's all very damp in my scenario, all sediments recently deposited in the Flood and though compressed not dry by any means.
I think two major problems come into play (not just with any one person specifically, but with "floodists" in general). A rejection of standard geological explanations - basically, if the explanation involves long periods of time, it must be wrong. -
I wouldn't say "it must be wrong" although I suppose it amounts to that. I'd say, my job as a Floodist is to come up with a scenario that fits into the young earth.
And looking at problems piece-meal - geology (and the GC in particular) are huge subjects with multiple lines of reasoning. Basic geology is not particularly difficult (I assume it can be very difficult at levels above what we are doing here) but is rather involved and requires looking at the big picture. When you look at only one piece at a time (like that image so much time was spent arguing about and whether there was ever layers on top of it) it makes it very easy to see things that don't make sense. Geology, as a whole, is a big picture exercise in my opinion.
Your judgment of what makes sense is not something I'd trust.
And I believe I do look at the big picture. Everybody else is looking at minuscule amounts of erosion between layers in my experience.
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 289 by herebedragons, posted 03-22-2015 5:53 PM herebedragons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 6:16 PM Faith has replied
 Message 336 by Admin, posted 03-23-2015 10:44 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 294 of 1939 (753840)
03-22-2015 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by jar
03-22-2015 4:16 PM


Re: why can't erosion do it????????????
I don't think anyone understands how you can make such an assertion. Why can't erosion/weathering create a horizontal surface? In fact how could erosion/weathering do anything except move material from high spots to low spots to level surfaces out?
Because erosion tends to CUT INTO horizontal surfaces, making fissures, trenches, riverbeds and so on. Also the strata are of different kinds of material. Some is hard and resistant to weathering, and it's all on an incline and water runs off inclines. And then eroded material would collect and make bumpiness. However, given millions of years of course ...
Again, the G.U. contact line is REMARKABLY straight and level in all those photos I posted. NOBODY said "perfect," the standard I'm using is right there in the pictures: THAT is straight and level.
A question though: if this Supergroup was the root of a mountain range a LOOOONG time ago, with that enormous weight over it for millions of years, why is it sedimentary rather than metamorphic rock:?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by jar, posted 03-22-2015 4:16 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 6:44 PM Faith has replied
 Message 298 by jar, posted 03-22-2015 7:00 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 295 of 1939 (753841)
03-22-2015 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by edge
03-22-2015 6:16 PM


Re: why can't erosion do it????????????
Faith, we spent pages debating the presence of shadows in one localized photograph...
That has never happened before. Why even mention it?
AND I KNOW PLANAR MEANS SMOOTH. Good GRIEF.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 6:16 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 6:46 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 299 of 1939 (753847)
03-22-2015 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by edge
03-22-2015 6:44 PM


Re: why can't erosion do it????????????
Again, the G.U. contact line is REMARKABLY straight and level in all those photos I posted.
And in all of the photos we posted, it was not so straight and level.
YOU DID NOT POST ANY PHOTOS OF THE GREAT UNCONFORMITY AT ALL in this recent discussion.
But certainly you have a point here. What is it? Why do you insist on it.
I'm not explaining things again that were clear enough the first hundred timesl.
NOBODY said "perfect," the standard I'm using is right there in the pictures: THAT is straight and level.
Good, then you agree that erosion can make a rock terrace that is straight and level, because we have shown them to you.
YOU in particular have NOT shown me anything that answers the observation of the level flatness in those pictures I posted. You showed naturally flat surfaces and otherwise completely irrelevant images.
And although HBD posted some that sort of qualify, none of them is as horizontal and straight as the examples I gave in Message 213
And how much weight was there? Remember, the Paleozoic section was not on top of it until it had been eroded.
THERE WAS A MOUNTAIN RANGE ON TOP OF IT!!! Site after site says it was the "root" of a mountain range.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 6:44 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 7:30 PM Faith has replied
 Message 337 by Admin, posted 03-23-2015 10:50 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 300 of 1939 (753848)
03-22-2015 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by jar
03-22-2015 7:00 PM


Re: why can't erosion do it????????????
BURIED VALLEYS AND RIVERBEDS ARE TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. You have obviously not grasped the point.
ALL THE INTERNET DISCUSSIONS OF THE SUPERGROUP DESCRIBE IT AS THE ROOT OF A MOUNTAIN RANGE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by jar, posted 03-22-2015 7:00 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 7:32 PM Faith has replied
 Message 306 by jar, posted 03-22-2015 7:42 PM Faith has 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