Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9073 total)
73 online now:
AZPaul3, Tanypteryx (2 members, 71 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,345 Year: 4,457/6,534 Month: 671/900 Week: 195/182 Day: 28/47 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence that the Great Unconformity did not Form Before the Strata above it
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 1613 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


Message 361 of 1939 (753986)
03-23-2015 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 351 by Faith
03-23-2015 4:31 PM


Re: G U too flat to be eroded: images
Faith writes:

And again, get your surface as flat as you can, does the rain stop? Does the wind stop? If not they are going to continue to cut into the surface and unsettle its flatness.

And as further evidence that your position in absolute nonsense, those of us who have regularly used the lake beds of the west actually rely on the wind and rain to 'reset' the surface every year.

Due to people getting caught on the surface in summer thunderstorms, ruts abound by the end of the year.

We rely on the wind and water of the winter to smooth out the surface for another year of high speed fun.

What resets this surface from spiky and rough to smooth and flat? Erosion.

Wind and rain do NOT continue to cut into a flat surface and unsettle it's flatness. Just the opposite is demonstrably true year after year.

JB


This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by Faith, posted 03-23-2015 4:31 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 363 by Faith, posted 03-23-2015 4:59 PM ThinAirDesigns has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 946 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 362 of 1939 (753988)
03-23-2015 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 357 by Faith
03-23-2015 4:44 PM


Re: G U too flat to be eroded: images
Far as I know images of how rock erodes aren't available.

So images in Message 312 and Message 284 are not eroded? Not a clue?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 357 by Faith, posted 03-23-2015 4:44 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 684 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 363 of 1939 (753989)
03-23-2015 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 361 by ThinAirDesigns
03-23-2015 4:54 PM


Re: G U too flat to be eroded: images
So you think the basement rocks of the G.U. were once like the Great Salt Lake? And all that schist and/or tilted strata was buried beneath the surface?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-23-2015 4:54 PM ThinAirDesigns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 365 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-23-2015 5:02 PM Faith has taken no action
 Message 366 by edge, posted 03-23-2015 5:15 PM Faith has taken no action

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33913
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 364 of 1939 (753990)
03-23-2015 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 358 by Faith
03-23-2015 4:45 PM


Re: G U too flat to be eroded: images
Faith writes:

You are never going to get such perfect flatness that there won't be some differences in elevation to get erosion started, even if only inches.

As I already said:

quote:
Actually, all of the evidence shows that is exactly what happens. The process of course has been continuing for billions of years and you have been shown the results numerous times but here are a few examples.

There are whole buried river systems as you were taught in Message 191 of Origin of the Flood Layers.

There is the scree found at the bottom of monoliths as you were taught in Message 227 of this thread.

And the process moves material from high points to lower points which lowers the high and raises the low resulting in flatter surfaces.

Unless you can explain how erosion does not move material from high to low and how that would not lead to a flatter surface you once again have nothing.


Yes, the process continues as long as there is an elevation difference.

That is clearly shown by the Great Unconformity. There, over two miles of material was eroded away, the land subsided and became a sea, coarse sand stone was eroded from elsewhere and deposited as the Tapeats Sandstone, additional layers were added over time and the whole area later raised to its current elevation.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by Faith, posted 03-23-2015 4:45 PM Faith has taken no action

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 1613 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


Message 365 of 1939 (753992)
03-23-2015 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 363 by Faith
03-23-2015 4:59 PM


Re: G U too flat to be eroded: images
Faith writes:

So you think the basement rocks of the G.U. were once like the Great Salt Lake? And all that schist and/or tilted strata was buried beneath the surface?

Faith, what I think is exactly what I wrote. You made several assertions that were demonstrably false. I demonstrated how false they were through evidence. That's what I think.

JB


This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by Faith, posted 03-23-2015 4:59 PM Faith has taken no action

  
edge
Member (Idle past 946 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 366 of 1939 (753996)
03-23-2015 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 363 by Faith
03-23-2015 4:59 PM


Re: G U too flat to be eroded: images
So you think the basement rocks of the G.U. were once like the Great Salt Lake? And all that schist and/or tilted strata was buried beneath the surface?

Personally, I think it looked like this Message 257, but you haven't really told me if the surface is smooth or rough in that picture.

And then, there is Message 281 which you have not yet addressed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by Faith, posted 03-23-2015 4:59 PM Faith has taken no action

  
edge
Member (Idle past 946 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 367 of 1939 (753998)
03-23-2015 5:17 PM


Query...
A question for Faith.

So, are all unconformities prior to the modern one non-erosional?


  
edge
Member (Idle past 946 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 368 of 1939 (754005)
03-23-2015 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 351 by Faith
03-23-2015 4:31 PM


Re: G U too flat to be eroded: images
"Flatter" is not as remarkably flat as the GU in the images I posted in 213 and 313. And again, get your surface as flat as you can, does the rain stop? Does the wind stop? If not they are going to continue to cut into the surface and unsettle its flatness.

Not really. If your understanding were correct we could just erode right down into the mantle.

The problem you have is that you cannot erode beyond the base level (usually sea level). You can only erode from the areas above that.

ABE: And didn't any tectonic events occur to raise the land either?

Why should uplift occur at any particular time?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by Faith, posted 03-23-2015 4:31 PM Faith has taken no action

  
edge
Member (Idle past 946 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 369 of 1939 (754008)
03-23-2015 5:53 PM


Since we are talking about erosion and the formation of 'flat' platforms, here is one mechanism:

There should be enough notation here to help with the explanation, but if not let's discuss rather than complain. I think this is an important mechnism for the Great Unconformity becuase you can easily imagine it happening as the Cambrian transgression cut into Precambrian rocks on the continent. I have personally seen this on the west coast of N.A., and many of the images we have provided show this mechanism at work.


Replies to this message:
 Message 372 by Faith, posted 03-23-2015 10:08 PM edge has replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3879
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 370 of 1939 (754022)
03-23-2015 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 352 by Dr Adequate
03-23-2015 4:36 PM


So, here's the diagram from Faith's original post.

Faith, how flat is the Great Unconformity?

1) I think you may be reading too much into a diagram that is (hopefully) a rough approximation of reality.

2) What that diagram does show, is that the Great Unconformity (nonconfromity) has itself been tilted and faulted after the deposition of the preCambrian sediments. You are getting a departure from (more or less) flatness and horizontality because of tectonic deformation.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-23-2015 4:36 PM Dr Adequate has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 378 by herebedragons, posted 03-24-2015 6:46 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 684 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 371 of 1939 (754023)
03-23-2015 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 360 by jar
03-23-2015 4:51 PM


Re: G U too flat to be eroded: images
more pictures of rock eroding

Let me know when it's eroded down to a surface as level and straight as those I've illustrated of the G.U.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by jar, posted 03-23-2015 4:51 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 373 by jar, posted 03-23-2015 10:27 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 684 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 372 of 1939 (754024)
03-23-2015 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 369 by edge
03-23-2015 5:53 PM


I don't see how that process would get you such level straight contacts as seen in the pictures I've posted. Even in your diagram the resultant platform is not level.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by edge, posted 03-23-2015 5:53 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 374 by edge, posted 03-24-2015 12:19 AM Faith has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33913
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 373 of 1939 (754027)
03-23-2015 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 371 by Faith
03-23-2015 10:00 PM


Re: G U too flat to be eroded: images
Actually all your pictures show surfaces that are as flat and smooth as the surface at the Great Unconformity.

It ain't that smooth.

But if you have been following along in this thread beginning at Message 4 you can get an estimate of just how long it took to get things as smooth as seen at the Great Unconformity and that took something over a billion years.

And that is your problem Faith, the evidence is there and all the evidence says that the process of erosion moves material from high spots to low spots and that to do so takes lots of time.

That is why Young Earth has been DeadOnArrival for over 200 years now.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by Faith, posted 03-23-2015 10:00 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 376 by Faith, posted 03-24-2015 3:48 AM jar has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 946 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 374 of 1939 (754037)
03-24-2015 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 372 by Faith
03-23-2015 10:08 PM


I don't see how that process would get you such level straight contacts as seen in the pictures I've posted. Even in your diagram the resultant platform is not level.

So you assert.

How can you tell? I think you are saying that it is not horizontal, but how do you know that the G.U. was horizontal? Certainly the lower sequence it tilted in many places, so what's to keep the unconformity itself horizontal?

Besides, we've given you plenty of examples that are pretty clear as to how they happened. So, what have you got?

Do you think this surface was level? And do you think it is smooth?

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 372 by Faith, posted 03-23-2015 10:08 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 375 by Faith, posted 03-24-2015 3:46 AM edge has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 684 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 375 of 1939 (754041)
03-24-2015 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 374 by edge
03-24-2015 12:19 AM


Siccar Point is not a useful example when we are talking about the surface of the lower formation without the upper having been deposited. For one thing it's been subjected to such severe weathering there's no way to be sure what it looked like originally.

But I would expect that when it was first formed that surface would have been level, yes. And I figure that was the case because the upper strata, even in their ruined condition, show that THEY were straight. They aren't shaped to fit into dips in the lower strata.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by edge, posted 03-24-2015 12:19 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 377 by herebedragons, posted 03-24-2015 6:36 AM Faith has replied
 Message 384 by edge, posted 03-24-2015 10:12 AM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022