Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
109 online now:
Tangle (1 member, 108 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,275 Year: 6,387/6,534 Month: 580/650 Week: 118/232 Day: 3/54 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
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 466 of 1939 (754313)
03-25-2015 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 462 by Faith
03-25-2015 6:45 PM


But that doesn't change the fact that none of the pictures show a surface as level and straight as those of the G.U. in the pictures I posted.

The surface in the picture in the post that you replied to is as level and straight as those of the G.U. in the pictures you posted.

Why are you saying that that they are different? Is it because the slope, i.e. the increase in height over the increase in width, is different in the images?

Is it possible that you are comparing different scales of height/distance, and that is causing you to misapprehend how "level" these surfaces are?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 462 by Faith, posted 03-25-2015 6:45 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1026 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 467 of 1939 (754314)
03-25-2015 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 456 by Faith
03-25-2015 5:21 PM


Your picture doesn't look anything like the Siccar Point picture, what is it you want me to see there?

I want you to see something different. I want you to explain the photographe. I want an alternative to erossion as the origin of the unconformity surface.

No luck so far.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 456 by Faith, posted 03-25-2015 5:21 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 477 by Faith, posted 03-25-2015 11:10 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1026 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 468 of 1939 (754315)
03-25-2015 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 457 by Faith
03-25-2015 5:43 PM


Yes, that's what it looks like to me.

Even though it doesn't look like that to anyone else...

But other evidence is the straightness of the upper strata too, showing no signs of having had to conform to irregularities in the lower section, as I already mentioned.

Yes, sometimes that happens So what?

You have been given explanations, which you summarily ignored. You heave also been give examples of flat unconformities. So, what is your point?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 457 by Faith, posted 03-25-2015 5:43 PM Faith has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 469 of 1939 (754316)
03-25-2015 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Faith
03-13-2015 10:30 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

I honestly don't know. So out of curiosity, from this spacestation image:

Where do you put the end of what you have called the GU? Can you download that image and put a mark on it where the end is? (I realize that's a lot of work to ask of you, but I think it'll help clear up the communication)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 03-13-2015 10:30 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1026 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 470 of 1939 (754317)
03-25-2015 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 458 by Faith
03-25-2015 5:53 PM


I started out this discussion with some pictures noting what look to me to be amazingly level (horizontal) straight (flat but nothing's perfect) contact lines at various locations of the Great Unconformity. (except the third picture does seem to be a rogue that got in there by mistake: I think it is an unconformity, however, but from some place in South America).

A lot of things seem to be amazing to you...

So I start with that impression from those pictures in Message 213 and Message 313. Some dispute that they are as straight and level as I claim but the lines are there to show it so the objections make no sense.

So, some unconformities are 'straight and level', while some are not. What's the problem? You have been given examples of both.

Do you have a point?

Anyway, the challenge was to show that erosion alone could produce such remarkably level and flat surfaces on top of distorted strata or lumpy hard rocks like schist.

And that has been done...

Many NEAR- level surfaces were shown, but none as level and flat as those in my pictures IMHO. Nobody's succeeded at that, and Dr. A's doesn't either, IMHO.

There is nothing humble about your opinions. On the other hand, you have not addressed the instances of flat and level erosional surfaces.

I wouldn't say that layers NEVER deposit unevenly, I'm only saying that's not the case in my pictures, and the ones of very uneven examples of the G.U. had to have been disturbed after deposition IMHO, could not have been deposited that way.

Sure, you have cherry-picked selected cases and said that they are the rule and exceptions have been altered.

I hope this is clearer.

What is clear is not what you think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 458 by Faith, posted 03-25-2015 5:53 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1026 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 471 of 1939 (754319)
03-25-2015 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 460 by Faith
03-25-2015 6:21 PM


I thought that's what Percy wanted me to indicate: to explain the unevenness of the lower section as the result of erosion after the deposition of the above section. I'm sure you are still free to offer a different interpretation.

I have offered a different interpretation. The lines represent a modern unconformity.

The only debris I see is in what I called the eroded zone above the lower section, which I outlined in blue; is that what you are referring to? In the lower section I yellow-lined evidence of recent erosion since exposure.

No. However, it doesn't matter, the material is still derived from the lower section.

But I HAVE answered this. They ARE tremendously weathered, judging by their being mere splinters, mere "shadows of their former selves" as I put it.

Pure nonsense. The bedding planes in view are intact. And yet the 'level' plane that you surmise is completely eradicated. You have not explained.

The upright strata below offer exposed upper ends to the weather, explaining their unevenness, and unevenness seen at many levels too, as I marked in yellow; but straight flat strata would remain straight, just be reduced to such skeletal remains as seen. This is how I've interpreted the difference more than once already.

But, you said that the unconformity surface has changed...

Please explain...

This does not answer my question if the unconformity surface has changed so dramatically since Hutton described the location, why is the uppermost bedding plane intact and unchanged? I can see a clear, long bedding plane in the photograph. I outlined it on a previous schematic. Do you deny this?

Please answer this question.

The amazing thing is that there are so many examples of remarkable levelness and straightness of the G.U.

And?

There are also many examples of irregular unconformity surfaces. You have been shown some of them.

There must be others, with monadnocks for instance, where they were originally irregular, and YET EVEN THERE THE OVERALL IMPRESSION IS OF A REMARKABLE LEVELNESS AND STRAIGHTNESS MERELY INTERRUPTED HERE AND THERE BY SUCH IRREGULARITIES.

So, you are saying that, since some unconformity surfaces are planar and level, that they must have all been so at one time?

Just,... wow ...

Another example of YEC all-or-nothing -ness. You are clearly delusional.

I don't see anything I've said or shown on the picture that contradicts that description. The surface of the unconformity is now shown only in the uneven upper broken ends of the strata of the lower section.

Yes, and there is no reason to believe that they have never been anything else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 460 by Faith, posted 03-25-2015 6:21 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 474 by Faith, posted 03-25-2015 10:28 PM edge has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 764 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 472 of 1939 (754320)
03-25-2015 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 465 by Admin
03-25-2015 8:52 PM


I quoted amply for him to get the context.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 465 by Admin, posted 03-25-2015 8:52 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 486 by Admin, posted 03-26-2015 7:12 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 764 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 473 of 1939 (754321)
03-25-2015 10:25 PM


.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 764 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 474 of 1939 (754322)
03-25-2015 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 471 by edge
03-25-2015 10:20 PM


This does not answer my question if the unconformity surface has changed so dramatically since Hutton described the location, why is the uppermost bedding plane intact and unchanged? I can see a clear, long bedding plane in the photograph. I outlined it on a previous schematic. Do you deny this?

BECAUSE IT IS HORIZONTAL. As I said already.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 471 by edge, posted 03-25-2015 10:20 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 475 by edge, posted 03-25-2015 10:32 PM Faith has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1026 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 475 of 1939 (754323)
03-25-2015 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 474 by Faith
03-25-2015 10:28 PM


BECAUSE IT IS HORIZONTAL. As I said already.

But that plane is almost exactly parallel to the unconformity. Why would it weather differently from the unconformity? In fact, it should weather more severely since it is more exposed.

Please explain.

And, actually, I don't see anything that is horizontal. Why would that make a difference?

Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 474 by Faith, posted 03-25-2015 10:28 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 476 by Faith, posted 03-25-2015 10:47 PM edge has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 764 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 476 of 1939 (754325)
03-25-2015 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 475 by edge
03-25-2015 10:32 PM


But that plane is almost exactly parallel to the unconformity. Why would it weather differently from the unconformity? In fact, it should weather more severely since it is more exposed.

Because the surface of the unconformity is vertical strata and that upper surface is horizontal. The vertical ends of the strata would be more vulnerable to severe weather, being easily broken when thinned down. That's why there are so many stumps of the upright lower strata. The upper strata are severely weathered nevertheless as I noted, but being horizontal the weather batters against it but doesn't break it as easily. There must be a simple principle of physics that explains this:

The horizontal gives less resistance to the weather than the vertical?

The vertical has more exposed surfaces?

Would you be more or less stable standing up or lying down in a gale?

No it isn't horizontal any more, it's on a slant, but it still presents more of a flat surface to the weather than the upright strata do.

Would a picket fence do better in a gale or a flat deck?

Is there a reason airplanes have horizontal flat wings or would they do OK if they were vertical?

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 475 by edge, posted 03-25-2015 10:32 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 478 by edge, posted 03-25-2015 11:49 PM Faith has replied
 Message 489 by herebedragons, posted 03-26-2015 8:28 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 764 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 477 of 1939 (754327)
03-25-2015 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 467 by edge
03-25-2015 9:52 PM


I want you to see something different. I want you to explain the photographe. I want an alternative to erossion as the origin of the unconformity surface.

Abrasion between upper and lower sections as already explained somewhere back there.

ABE: Message 416 about 2/3 of the way down.

ABE: And here I should add that I'm not answering parts of your posts because I don't get what you are saying.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 467 by edge, posted 03-25-2015 9:52 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 479 by edge, posted 03-25-2015 11:51 PM Faith has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1026 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 478 of 1939 (754335)
03-25-2015 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 476 by Faith
03-25-2015 10:47 PM


Because the surface of the unconformity is vertical strata and that upper surface is horizontal.

Hunh?

The unconformity is horizontal... at least in my universe.

The vertical ends of the strata would be more vulnerable to severe weather, being easily broken when thinned down.

But they are not exposed. They are covered by the upper strata...

That's why there are so many stumps of the upright lower strata.

That was when they were exposed to weathering during Cambrian time.

The upper strata are severely weathered nevertheless as I noted, but being horizontal the weather batters against it but doesn't break it as easily. There must be a simple principle of physics that explains this:

The horizontal gives less resistance to the weather than the vertical?

The vertical has more exposed surfaces?

Would you be more or less stable standing up or lying down in a gale?

No it isn't horizontal any more, it's on a slant, but it still presents more of a flat surface to the weather than the upright strata do.

Would a picket fence do better in a gale or a flat deck?

Is there a reason airplanes have horizontal flat wings or would they do OK if they were vertical?


Stop the insanity.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 476 by Faith, posted 03-25-2015 10:47 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 480 by Faith, posted 03-25-2015 11:53 PM edge has replied
 Message 487 by Admin, posted 03-26-2015 7:53 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1026 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 479 of 1939 (754337)
03-25-2015 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 477 by Faith
03-25-2015 11:10 PM


Abrasion between upper and lower sections as already explained somewhere back there.

Except that there should be evidence of abrasion. Why is there evidence of cross-bedding?

ABE: Message 416 about 2/3 of the way down.

ABE: And here I should add that I'm not answering parts of your posts because I don't get what you are saying.


You are not kidding...

Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 477 by Faith, posted 03-25-2015 11:10 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 481 by Faith, posted 03-25-2015 11:54 PM edge has replied
 Message 488 by Admin, posted 03-26-2015 7:59 AM edge has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 764 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 480 of 1939 (754338)
03-25-2015 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 478 by edge
03-25-2015 11:49 PM


But they ARE exposed, as Percy just got me to clarify.

But hey, so much for civil discourse.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 478 by edge, posted 03-25-2015 11:49 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 482 by edge, posted 03-25-2015 11:55 PM 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