Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
109 online now:
Dredge, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), nwr (3 members, 106 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,114 Year: 6,226/6,534 Month: 419/650 Week: 189/278 Day: 29/28 Hour: 0/3


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 760 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 241 of 1939 (753726)
03-21-2015 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by edge
03-21-2015 7:31 PM


Re: Erosion simply CANNOT explain the flat contact line
I think what you are really saying is that we should acknowledge that 'Faith is correct'. Isn't that right?

No.

I'm trying to follow your argument, but it doesn't make sense. You say that the unconformity is 'flat', even though it isn't.

Look at the pictures for a definition of "flat."

Then you say that erosion can't create such a surface, even though we show you places where it has.

But you haven't. You've shown flat surfaces but without any evidence that they are the sort I've been talking about.

You don't seem to be doing much other than just requiring that we agree with you before engaging in civil discourse.

Well that's not what I'm doing.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by edge, posted 03-21-2015 7:31 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by edge, posted 03-21-2015 7:40 PM Faith has replied
 Message 321 by Admin, posted 03-23-2015 8:52 AM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1022 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 242 of 1939 (753727)
03-21-2015 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Faith
03-21-2015 7:35 PM


Re: Erosion simply CANNOT explain the flat contact line
Look at the pictures for a definition of "flat."

I'm not asking for a definition.

Several lines of evidence have been shown to you that the Great Unconformity is not flat. Even by your pictorial definition.

But you haven't. You've shown flat surfaces but without any evidence that they are the sort I've been talking about.

Then maybe you are not being very clear in what you'd like to see. You have shown several flat bedding planes, so I showed you a couple of images where bedding planes have been exposed by erosion over a fairly large area.

So what do you want?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Faith, posted 03-21-2015 7:35 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Faith, posted 03-21-2015 7:43 PM edge has not replied
 Message 323 by Admin, posted 03-23-2015 8:58 AM edge has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 760 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 243 of 1939 (753730)
03-21-2015 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by edge
03-21-2015 7:40 PM


Re: Erosion simply CANNOT explain the flat contact line
I can't continue this discussion. This is nonsense. Just TRY to get what I'm saying. Somebody shoot me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by edge, posted 03-21-2015 7:40 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by herebedragons, posted 03-21-2015 8:04 PM Faith has replied
 Message 324 by Admin, posted 03-23-2015 9:05 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 760 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 244 of 1939 (753733)
03-21-2015 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by herebedragons
03-21-2015 5:39 PM


Re: Erosion simply CANNOT explain the flat contact line
I went back and reread this and I guess I really don't understand your point (I guess you were right, I just didn't think about it )

Thank you. I just noticed this. But I can't read the rest. I'm not up to continuing this miserable discussion right now anyway.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by herebedragons, posted 03-21-2015 5:39 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 173 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 245 of 1939 (753737)
03-21-2015 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Faith
03-21-2015 7:43 PM


Re: Erosion simply CANNOT explain the flat contact line
OK I think I know what you are trying to get at. Here is some pictures that Percy posted back in Message 88

You're saying that erosion could not have caused this process.

Here's the first problem... if we show you images of angular unconformities where it has been flattened, it the same situation; erosion could not have done it. If we show you images of tilted blocks in the process of being eroded (which is not practical because everything but the erosional surface will be buried) that is not evidence because it is still all bumpy and lumpy. By your standards nothing is evidence that erosion could wear a mountain range into a flat plain.

The second problem is... how do you know that erosion couldn't do this? You don't think it could. That's not evidence, that's not an valid argument. The way we know (or at least think that it could) that erosion can wear a mountain range down to a flat plain is that we see evidence of it in the rock record.

The idea seems strange to me too, it's hard to picture. But the evidence suggests that what happened.

You start with the premise that erosion can't reduce a mountain to a plain and then reject the evidence of it in the rock record.

If you are interested in the evidence of this, we can continue discussing why the Great Unconformity is actually an unconformity.

The other direction this could go is propose a way other than erosion that the Great Unconformity could form.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Faith, posted 03-21-2015 7:43 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Faith, posted 03-21-2015 8:15 PM herebedragons has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 760 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 246 of 1939 (753739)
03-21-2015 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by herebedragons
03-21-2015 8:04 PM


Re: Erosion simply CANNOT explain the flat contact line
The second problem is... how do you know that erosion couldn't do this? You don't think it could. That's not evidence, that's not an valid argument.

YOU DON'T HAVE EVIDENCE EITHER. YOU THINK IT COULD AND THAT'S THAT. HOW DO YOU KNOW EROSION COULD DO THIS? YOU THINK IT COULD. THAT'S NOT EVIDENCE, THAT'S NOT A VALID ARGUMENT.

... You start with the premise that erosion can't reduce a mountain to a plain and then reject the evidence of it in the rock record.

I DO NOT START WITH THIS AS A PREMISE. I LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE AND DRAW MY OWN CONCLUSIONS. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF IT IN THE ROCK RECORD. THERE ARE LUMPY ROCKS WITH FLAT SURFACES. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF HOW THEY GOT THAT WAY. THAT IS ALL MENTAL CONJURING, THEORY, ASSUMPTION...

AAAAAAGH.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by herebedragons, posted 03-21-2015 8:04 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by jar, posted 03-21-2015 8:23 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 248 by herebedragons, posted 03-21-2015 8:51 PM Faith has replied
 Message 257 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 10:56 AM Faith has replied
 Message 325 by Admin, posted 03-23-2015 9:13 AM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 247 of 1939 (753741)
03-21-2015 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Faith
03-21-2015 8:15 PM


Erosion simply CAN explain the flat contact line
Shouted nonsense is still nonsense Faith.

If erosion/weathering moves material from high points and deposits it in the low places why would the surface not change from lumpy to smoother?

After a while continuing to shout nonsense is just stupid.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Faith, posted 03-21-2015 8:15 PM Faith has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 173 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 248 of 1939 (753745)
03-21-2015 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Faith
03-21-2015 8:15 PM


Re: Erosion simply CANNOT explain the flat contact line
YOU DON'T HAVE EVIDENCE EITHER. YOU THINK IT COULD AND THAT'S THAT. HOW DO YOU KNOW EROSION COULD DO THIS? YOU THINK IT COULD. THAT'S NOT EVIDENCE, THAT'S NOT A VALID ARGUMENT.

I think it could... you think it couldn't. So we are on equal footing here.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF IT IN THE ROCK RECORD.

Are we going to discuss it or are you going to assert it? I have not asserted that erosion is the force that made "it" flat. I said what alternative is there? I said how do you know that erosion couldn't do that? I said we don't need to even discuss erosion if the GU is not even an unconformity; erosion is right off the table if the GU is not an unconformity.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF HOW THEY GOT THAT WAY.

I bet there is... How about we check?

Now is the Great Unconformity an unconformity or not?

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Faith, posted 03-21-2015 8:15 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 12:40 AM herebedragons has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 367 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 249 of 1939 (753758)
03-21-2015 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Faith
03-21-2015 3:19 PM


Re: Erosion simply CANNOT explain the flat contact line
Perhaps this would be a good time to remind you that according to your own version of events, the top of the Kaibab Plateau (blue) was exposed by erosion.

It's no less flat than all the things you keep claiming can't be produced by erosion because they're too flat. (Many of which geologists don't claim were produced by erosion, but which are perfectly ordinary bedding planes, so you're using a bad argument to fight against a straw man.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Faith, posted 03-21-2015 3:19 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 12:38 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 367 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(4)
Message 250 of 1939 (753759)
03-21-2015 9:54 PM


Let's look at some more things that aren't flat.

Large paleovalleys carved into the underlying Redwall Limestone developed through dissolution i.e. karstification, and likely were enlarged by west-flowing streams. --- Timons and Karlstrom (eds.), Grand Canyon Geology, Geological Society of America, 2012.

Sink holes, caverns, and solution cracks common in upper parts of the Redwall limestone are in places partly or entirely filled with red mudstone accumulated during deposition of the overlying Supai formation. --- E. D. McKee, U.S. Geological Survey, "The Redwall Limestone", Ninth Field Conference of the New Mexico Geological Society

The top of the Mississippian Redwall limestone in the Grand Canyon area was subject to extensive karstification during a period of about 30 million years from the late Meramacian to early Morrowan time. This hiatus has recently been shown to be much shorter, possibly only 5 million years, in the western Grand Canyon where tidal and deltaic channels draining westward toward the retreating sea are eroded into the Redwall surface. These channels have average depths of about 107 m (350 ft). --- T. Troutman, University of Texas at Austin, "Genesis, Paleoenvironment, and Paleogeomorphology of the Mississippian Redwall Limestone Paleokarst, Hualapai Indian Reservation, Grand Canyon Area", Cave Research Foundation Newsletter vol. 29 no. 1, 2001.

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 760 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 251 of 1939 (753766)
03-22-2015 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by Dr Adequate
03-21-2015 9:51 PM


Re: Erosion simply CANNOT explain the flat contact line
If you had bothered to read what I wrote you'd know that I was talking about the impossibility of eroding down to flatness tilted surfaces like the angular strata of an angular unconformity and lumpy surfaces like schist and granite, and specifically said I was NOT talking about naturally FLAT surfaces like the Kaibab which is the upper surface of a limestone layer. I SAID THAT IN SO MANY WORDS. Sheesh.

And your second post isn't addressing anything even remotely related to the topic here.

Nobody here reads carefully, nobody thinks.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-21-2015 9:51 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by herebedragons, posted 03-22-2015 8:52 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 258 by edge, posted 03-22-2015 11:09 AM Faith has replied
 Message 326 by Admin, posted 03-23-2015 9:20 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 760 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 252 of 1939 (753767)
03-22-2015 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by herebedragons
03-21-2015 8:51 PM


Re: Erosion simply CANNOT explain the flat contact line
No, there is no evidence of how they got that way, it's all fantasy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by herebedragons, posted 03-21-2015 8:51 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by herebedragons, posted 03-22-2015 8:41 AM Faith has replied
 Message 327 by Admin, posted 03-23-2015 9:23 AM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 253 of 1939 (753768)
03-22-2015 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Faith
03-20-2015 3:14 AM


Re: The Reformers on Science
Yes, amen. But while that's true of the Bible's descriptions of the heavens, it's not true of its statements about the creation of life and the age of the earth, which limit science to those statements.

One thing we can say is that Christians are not of one mind about what you state here. Geocentrists would probably tell people who held your belief that they were letting science dictate their interpretation of the Bible, while people like me would insist that essentially none of the Bible is intended to teach science or mathematics.


Je Suis Charlie

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Faith, posted 03-20-2015 3:14 AM Faith has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 173 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 254 of 1939 (753777)
03-22-2015 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Faith
03-22-2015 12:40 AM


Denial is not evidence either
Declaring there is no evidence is nothing but evasive. Of course there is evidence. Maybe there is not enough evidence to come to a conclusion; maybe the evidence doesn't support the premise; maybe what evidence there is supports a different hypothesis besides erosion... but there certainly is evidence.

We could compare two competing hypotheses and see which one better fits the evidence. If the erosion hypothesis has no evidence to support it, then the competing hypothesis should find at least some support.

What you are saying is that you don't want to discuss the evidence, you just want to make unsupported declarations. You pretend that you have brought down the conventional view of geology and therefore any unsupported hypotheses are just as valid. That's nothing but basic denial.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 12:40 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 12:33 PM herebedragons has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 173 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 255 of 1939 (753778)
03-22-2015 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Faith
03-22-2015 12:38 AM


Re: Erosion simply CANNOT explain the flat contact line
The point Dr. A, edge and myself are trying to get across is that those surfaces you say couldn't be brought down by erosion because they are so flat are not flat.

So the question becomes "Can erosion make a lumpy, bumpy surface into a lumpy, bumpy surface?"

Nobody here reads carefully, nobody thinks.

You're the worst one for this. When we "misunderstand" your point you just keep repeating the same thing over and over often resorting to yelling and name calling. I try different approaches trying to get at what your saying, you just keep up the same mantra "declaration X is right, just think about what I said." over and over.

Sheesh yourself.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Faith, posted 03-22-2015 12:38 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by jar, posted 03-22-2015 9:06 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022