Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
106 online now:
Dredge, DrJones*, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), nwr (4 members, 102 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,113 Year: 6,225/6,534 Month: 418/650 Week: 188/278 Day: 28/28 Hour: 2/7


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 31 of 1939 (752871)
03-13-2015 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by jar
03-13-2015 8:07 PM


Re: where did it go?
My theory fits the conclusion that the Vishnu is made up of lots of different kinds of rocks. They sheared off the SuperGroup under great pressure from the force that pushed it all upward into the mound shape and there was magma from beneath as well which probably was released by the same tectonic force, and the magma fried the sheared off rock into schist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by jar, posted 03-13-2015 8:07 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by jar, posted 03-13-2015 8:38 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 35 by Coyote, posted 03-14-2015 12:38 AM Faith has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 1939 (752873)
03-13-2015 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Faith
03-13-2015 8:16 PM


I'm sorry, I just find all this rationalization about how the layers could have conformed to the mound ridiculous. Utter and complete nonsense. That is not how the world works. You are not going to get nice even layers over a "bump." Especially if the layers are forming under water as even OE Geology says most of them were. And those layers are tens to hundreds of feet thick too.

Think about how short a bump would have to be in order for a layer to deposit on it and conform to its shape.

It'd have to be pretty short. Can you honestly not imagine a little short bump that a layer could, actually, conform to?

Not at all? Like I said, if the paper only came up a fraction of a millimeter, couldn't sand sprinkle onto that and conform to the shape?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 03-13-2015 8:16 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 03-13-2015 10:30 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

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


Message 33 of 1939 (752874)
03-13-2015 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Faith
03-13-2015 8:21 PM


Re: where did it go?
Faith writes:

My theory fits the conclusion that the Vishnu is made up of lots of different kinds of rocks. They sheared off the SuperGroup under great pressure from the force that pushed it all upward into the mound shape and there was magma from beneath as well which probably was released by the same tectonic force, and the magma fried the sheared off rock into schist.

More simply made up shit Faith.

Where is the evidence of the magma, that anything got sheered off and fried part of the many different layers of the Super Group into the Vishnu Schist?

Evidence Faith.

Events leave evidence.

Here we find over two vertical miles of material simply missing and the Tonto Group lying directly on the Vishnu Schist.

What is the model, method, procedure, process, mechanism to explain how the whole section of the Super Group could get "incorporated into the Vishnu Schist"?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 03-13-2015 8:21 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 34 of 1939 (752876)
03-13-2015 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by New Cat's Eye
03-13-2015 8:32 PM


Wet sediments seek the horizontal. If it's a very long incline they will nevertheless butt into it eventually. I can't read the legend at the bottom of the cross section but I'd guess the span of the "bump"is about 500 miles, and it rises from a thousand feet up to 9000 feet, about fifteen feet in a mile if I figured correctly. [ABE, no, I didn't figure correctly. It would rise to the highest point more sharply, about 27 feet in a mile. I made the mistake of including the whole span, both rise and fall]. That's not much, but a layer say 50 feet high is going to run into / butt up against the slope and not go over it after less than four miles. {ABE Less than two at 27 feet in a mile..

ABE: Don't know what I was thinking. I'd found some time ago that the distance from the Grand Canyon to the north end of the Grand Staircase was about two hundred miles. I just checked Google and the distance from the GC to Cedar Breaks at the N end of the GS is only 113 miles.

SO the mound is a little less than half that distance, call it fifty miles, rising from 1000 to 9000 feet or 8000 feet, making a rise of 160 feet in one mile. Even that's not much but still enough for three fifty-foot layers to butt into it in one mile. /ABE

Besides, we also have the interesting fact that the Great Unconformity is smack dab right beneath the highest part of the mound, and in very close proximity to the canyon. I've argued before that the canyon had to have been the result of strain in the upper strata, which were more than two miles deep at that point, caused by the force of the uplift that also broke and tilted the strata that became the Great Unconformity. Sure is suggestive that all the events are related. And I still think that view has to be correct, however hard it is to prove it.

But of course maybe not hay? Maybe the strata had no problem spreading themselves along the contour of the mound, wet or not, and maybe the Great Unconformity was the root of a mountain chain that managed to erode down absolutely flat, :eyeroll: which is what I thought the strata supposedly built on, but that would mean the mound wasn't there yet. OR, the mound WAS there, which is it? Nothing caused it though. But then eventually there was some kind of uplift etc etc etc.

The GU crosscuts the faulting and that proves something or other. Oh yes, It was all there before the strata.

Something like that.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : strikeout and rewrite


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-13-2015 8:32 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by edge, posted 03-14-2015 2:23 PM Faith has replied
 Message 469 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-25-2015 9:57 PM Faith has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1422 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(3)
Message 35 of 1939 (752877)
03-14-2015 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Faith
03-13-2015 8:21 PM


Re: where did it go?
My theory fits the conclusion that...

For a theory to be valid it must fit all the evidence, not some conclusion you have reached a priori.

In science, a theory is the single best explanation for a given set of facts. But, a theory also must be tested against the facts and survive those tests. And, a theory must also make predictions which in turn are tested and survive those tests. You have done neither.

What you have is not a theory. It is pure speculation designed to support a religious belief. Calling what you do "apologetics" would be much more accurate.

You are simply unwilling and unqualified to do anything resembling science, and you have shown this time and again with your posts.

Edited by Coyote, : speeling


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 03-13-2015 8:21 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by kbertsche, posted 03-14-2015 2:09 AM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1447 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(3)
Message 36 of 1939 (752878)
03-14-2015 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Coyote
03-14-2015 12:38 AM


Re: where did it go?
You are simply unwilling and unqualified to do anything resembling science, and you have shown this time and again with your posts.

Faith has repeatedly said that she is not a scientist. She is clearly uncomfortable with scientific reasoning and in trying to interpret scientific evidence.

But as with most YECs, I think the root problem is more fundamental: YECs have been convinced that the Bible is the only reliable source of truth; nature is unreliable as a source of truth. This in spite of the fact that Paul said that nature is a reliable source of truth; he said that God's character is plain and clearly seen through nature alone (Rom 1:18-20).

A person operating from the belief that the Bible is the only reliable source of truth will not be convinced by scientific evidence, no matter how strong it is.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Coyote, posted 03-14-2015 12:38 AM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by herebedragons, posted 03-14-2015 7:27 AM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 39 by Faith, posted 03-14-2015 10:58 AM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 50 by Faith, posted 03-14-2015 1:09 PM kbertsche has replied

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


(1)
Message 37 of 1939 (752880)
03-14-2015 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by kbertsche
03-14-2015 2:09 AM


Re: where did it go?
nature is unreliable as a source of truth.

Actually, they would say it is our interpretation of nature that is unreliable. Ironically, the Bible is much more difficult to interpret than nature because it can be so subjective and we need to try to get into the minds of people who lived many years ago.

But, you are right. When the Bible is believed to be the only reliable source of truth, it makes it difficult to point out even simple scientific facts.

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 36 by kbertsche, posted 03-14-2015 2:09 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20962
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


(2)
Message 38 of 1939 (752885)
03-14-2015 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
03-12-2015 12:42 PM


Hi Faith,

I don't see you saying anything new in this thread. These are the same arguments you've made in previous Grand Canyon discussions.

This has been pointed out before in this thread (and countless other threads), but your view of what happened is impossible because it requires cubic miles of rock to just disappear. The layers in this diagram represent the layers in the Grand Canyon region as you imagine them before the uplift. The sky blue layer represents the top layer of the supergroup, the tan base is the Vishnu Schist:

You propose that tectonic forces tilted just the supergroup layers and not those above to form this:

This is impossible because it requires cubic miles of rock to just disappear. The sky blue layer and the layers beneath it represent cubic miles and miles of rock, and apparently in your view most of these layers with their cubic miles of rock just disappears. That is impossible.

The Grand Canyon Supergroup is the remains of an ancient and typical basin and range formation that occurs as a region is stretched:

We can tell that the region became elevated because this basin and range composed of supergroup layers was then eroded flat, the layers of the supergroup completely disappearing in many areas. Subsidence and/or rising seas or some combination caused the region to become submerged and marine layers began depositing atop the tilted supergroup layers, starting with the Tapeats.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Typo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 03-12-2015 12:42 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 03-14-2015 11:08 AM Percy has replied
 Message 52 by edge, posted 03-14-2015 1:35 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 39 of 1939 (752892)
03-14-2015 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by kbertsche
03-14-2015 2:09 AM


Truth
Paul says that GOD can be ascertained in Nature, not truth about Nature itself.

And it's ridiculous to say that nature and the Bible are equal sources of truth. Nature has to be figured out by fallible humanity, but the Bible is written to us in actual language. This is in fact the most transparently self-serving rationalization for Christians to accept the Old Earth.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by kbertsche, posted 03-14-2015 2:09 AM kbertsche has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by jar, posted 03-14-2015 11:01 AM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 40 of 1939 (752893)
03-14-2015 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Faith
03-14-2015 10:58 AM


Re: where did it go?
Faith writes:

Paul says that GOD can be ascertained in Nature, not truth about Nature itself.

And it's ridiculous to say that nature and the Bible are equal sources of truth. Nature has to be figured out by fallible humanity, but the Bible is written to us in actual language. This is in fact the most transparently self-serving rationalization for Christians to accept the Old Earth.

Yet none of the falsehoods, contradictions and factual errors found in the Bible are found in Nature.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Faith, posted 03-14-2015 10:58 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 41 of 1939 (752895)
03-14-2015 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Percy
03-14-2015 9:31 AM


I don't see you saying anything new in this thread. These are the same arguments you've made in previous Grand Canyon discussions

Well I had hope for it as proof that the G.U. was not formed before the strata above it, which IS a new emphasis. Nobody is really addressing that factor though, some insisting on making a case for the strata to be laid down over a mound, though even Geology doesn't make that claim, they recognize the mound as an uplift that came later.

The idea was that SINCE the strata didn't follow the contour of the mound, if the G.U. was there first they would have to butt into it. Since they didn't butt into it that's evidence it wasn't there first.

What was there was the strata that was afterward broken and tilted into the G.U. That would have provided a horizontal surface for the deposition of the strata.

Otherwise, yes, all the usual stuff is coming up, can't be avoided.

ABE: But it's boring and I may have to give up on this thread.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Percy, posted 03-14-2015 9:31 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by jar, posted 03-14-2015 11:49 AM Faith has replied
 Message 43 by Percy, posted 03-14-2015 12:29 PM Faith has replied
 Message 46 by PaulK, posted 03-14-2015 12:45 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 42 of 1939 (752899)
03-14-2015 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Faith
03-14-2015 11:08 AM


the Great uncomformity proves the Earth is old
Faith writes:

Well I had hope for it as proof that the G.U. was not formed before the strata above it, which IS a new emphasis.

Unfortunately for you all the evidence shows that the Great Unconformity was laid down before the layers above it and in addition demands that the earth is at least old enough to create all the layers of the Super Group and also then erode over two vertical miles of material and then lay down all of the layers currently above the Super Group.

Young Earth is DeadOnArrival.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 03-14-2015 11:08 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Faith, posted 03-14-2015 12:39 PM jar has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20962
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 43 of 1939 (752901)
03-14-2015 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Faith
03-14-2015 11:08 AM


Faith writes:

Well I had hope for it as proof that the G.U. was not formed before the strata above it, which IS a new emphasis.

It isn't new. Your claim has always been that the layers of the supergroup and all the layers above them were deposited at the same time by the flood.

Nobody is really addressing that factor though, some insisting on making a case for the strata to be laid down over a mound, though even Geology doesn't make that claim, they recognize the mound as an uplift that came later.

In Message 3 and Message 6 PaulK does appear to be saying that the layers were deposited after the uplift. Since that's absurd he must be saying something else. Marine layers could not possibly have been deposited on a terrestrial uplift. I don't know what contours he's referring to when he says, "First it is possible for sediment to drape over existing contours provided friction and adhesion are sufficient to keep it in place." What he says is true in some contexts, but if he's referring to your diagram where you show layers butting up against the sides of the Grand Unconformity, then no.

Calling the uplift a "mound" is misleading. The tilt is very, very gradual. The exaggeration of the vertical direction of most diagrams has already emphasized repeatedly in this thread.

The idea was that SINCE the strata didn't follow the contour of the mound, if the G.U. was there first they would have to butt into it. Since they didn't butt into it that's evidence it wasn't there first.

As all diagrams clearly show, the top of the tilted G.U. was eroded fairly flat before more layers were deposited atop it. The differences in radiometric dates make clear that the formation of the G.U. was followed by an immense timespan before the formation of the layers above.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 03-14-2015 11:08 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Faith, posted 03-14-2015 12:45 PM Percy has replied
 Message 48 by Faith, posted 03-14-2015 12:52 PM Percy has replied

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


Message 44 of 1939 (752902)
03-14-2015 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by jar
03-14-2015 11:49 AM


Re: the Great uncomformity proves the Earth is old
Unfortunately for you all the evidence shows that the Great Unconformity was laid down before the layers above it

Except the evidence I'm giving.

in addition demands that the earth is at least old enough to create all the layers of the Super Group and also then erode over two vertical miles of material and then lay down all of the layers currently above the Super Group.

But if it happened as I visualize it less time would be needed. The layers of the SuperGroup were laid down followed shortly by all the layers above it, up to the very top of the Grand Staircase, as those layers were originally over the Grand Canyon area too; after which tectonic force pushed the land up violently into the mounded uplift, breaking and tilting the SuperGroup, shearing off the upper parts against the underside of the Tapeats, its rubble becoming schist under the intense pressure and heat, the heat being generated partly by the release of magma beneath the area (its fingers are seen on the cross section) which also created the granite that is also beneath the canyon. The strata would have been laid down over a year or so, the tectonic upheaval would have occurred afterward, created the G.U. cracked the upper strata over the canyon area which opened up the canyon, all the upper strata down to the Kaibab being washed away in the receding Flood waters, also carving the Grand Staircase, where a magma dike was also released at this time. All of this timing is quite apparent on my earlier post linked at the beginning of the O.P. No reason to think in terms of millions of years.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by jar, posted 03-14-2015 11:49 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by jar, posted 03-14-2015 12:50 PM Faith has replied
 Message 54 by edge, posted 03-14-2015 1:41 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 45 of 1939 (752903)
03-14-2015 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Percy
03-14-2015 12:29 PM


I recalculated the rise of the mounded area. It's a rise of 160 feet in one mile. Pretty shallow but still I don't see how layers are going to follow its contour.

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

As all diagrams clearly show, the top of the tilted G.U. was eroded fairly flat before more layers were deposited atop it.

I always find that idea as absurd as the idea that the strata would conform to the slope of a hill. Normal erosion doesn't reduce sharply tilted rock to a flat plain in my experience. But the relatively flat upper part of the G.U. is more reasonably explained on my scienario, as its upthrusting corners being sheared off in collision with the strata above under tectonic pressure from below, the same force that raised the entire stack and formed the uplift.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Percy, posted 03-14-2015 12:29 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Tangle, posted 03-14-2015 1:57 PM Faith has replied
 Message 58 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-14-2015 2:16 PM Faith has replied
 Message 62 by edge, posted 03-14-2015 4:27 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 88 by Percy, posted 03-15-2015 9:17 AM Faith 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