Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Motley Flood Thread (formerly Historical Science Mystification of Public)
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 421 of 877 (834493)
06-06-2018 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 368 by edge
06-04-2018 9:30 PM


Re: Video on the formation of the Grand Canyon
That was a lot to absorb. Peneplain was a new concept. Looking it up led me to wonder if my belief that plains are a result of erosion is correct, not because it doesn't still feel correct to me, but because Wikipedia says there is some controversy in the definition. Some geologists include base level in the definition, others don't and think peneplains have to be near sea level. Those who think they must be near sea level must have some other mechanism besides erosion in mind for plains that form at altitude, such as the Great Plains. So now I don't know what to think.
I understand the idea of the race between uplift and erosion, and that erosion is exploiting faults and fractures and degree of relief, so a region that is just generally uplifted could turn into a mountain range through erosion. But in that case why didn't the uplift of the Colorado Plateau turn that region into a mountain range? Why did the strata above the Kaibab erode away so evenly leaving just the Kaibab instead of a mountain range? Was it lack of faults and fractures? The evenness of the uplift? Something else?
Wikipedia says the Canadian Rockies formed by folding, but it doesn't mention uplift. Does that mean only folding was involved? Wikipedia says thrust faulting and folding were responsible for the Himalayas.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by edge, posted 06-04-2018 9:30 PM edge has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 422 of 877 (834495)
06-06-2018 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 369 by edge
06-04-2018 9:38 PM


Re: Video on the formation of the Grand Canyon
edge writes:
Well, it's fairly simple. Since the GC rocks are not (in the upper levels) composed of strong rocks they have to attain an angle of repose above the river level. So, the deeper the canyon the wider the canyon.
I think I get this. If the rocks were more competent then we'd have a more vertical and more narrow canyon, but they're not. As the Kaibab Plateau was uplifted the Colorado (or maybe the ancestral Colorado) downcut. Any insufficiently competent rock would erode away and initiate a collapse of the canyon walls that propagated upward from river level.
Why do softer strata form slopes? I thought I understood why a slope would form when a softer stratum is gradually exposed by a downcutting river, but it doesn't seem like the same mechanism would apply to softer strata higher up on the canyon walls, so now I'm thinking maybe I don't understand.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by edge, posted 06-04-2018 9:38 PM edge has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 423 of 877 (834496)
06-06-2018 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 372 by Faith
06-05-2018 12:38 PM


Re: Garnets and burial depth
Faith writes:
There's something peculiarly attractive about the idea that you can measure the weight of a mountain by the chemical content of a garnet embedded in schist, but of course I have to wonder about how reliable it can be. That's one tiny little rock and six miles is one huge vague number to have been determined by that tiny little rock.
The density of granite, sandstone, limestone and shale only differ by only about 10%, we know the average proportions of the major rock types, and likely the remnants of those ancient mountains in the form of sediments carried elsewhere reveal their composition.
I hope many garnets were used for the test and that they all contained precisely the exact same percentage of calcium, which is what shows the weight or pressure it took to form it, but is that the case? Measuring the percentage of calcium in a small gem can't be terribly precise, can it, and again that six miles height of mountain is far from precise.
Presumably the research was peer-reviewed and published in a respected journal. Electron microprobes and mass spectrometers are incredibly accurate in measuring the composition of minerals like garnets.
But your interest in research and precision and testing claims is refreshing. Can you tell us again about all the research behind your Flood ideas?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 372 by Faith, posted 06-05-2018 12:38 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 424 of 877 (834497)
06-06-2018 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 373 by Faith
06-05-2018 12:49 PM


Re: Geo Column, Depositional Environments, etc
Faith writes:
The depositional environments we observe around the world today distribute sediments very evenly on lake and sea floors, which we know have large expanses of flatness that can be seen and measured. It would be much more likely in your chaotic Flood of waves and tides to get uneven deposition.
That strata are as flat as they are says they formed from the same kind of depositional environments we see today.
For "depositional environments" to be the basis of the strata requires that you ignore all the far more common environments that AREN'T flat and choose only those that are.
Given that 71% of the Earth's surface is ocean and that much of it is abyssal plains, it cannot possible be true that non-flat surfaces are far more common on Earth than flat.
You're not specific about what non-flat surfaces you're referring to, so I'll just note that hills and mountains are not flat, but neither are they depositional environments.
The surface of depositional environments, even where the original surface was very uneven, eventually become flat because the lower portions will accumulate sediments at a slightly higher rate.
For the marine strata of course you have water which does level sediments, only, really, truly, NOT as flat as those in that particular picture.
I showed three images (not one) of uneven strata, and marine sediments are flatter than any of them.
But those in that picture are Triassic...
Again, three images, not one. Which one are you talking about?
...so we're talking land environment with dinosaurs, and those are definitely not naturally flat.
Again, I chose those images because they show non-flat strata.
So if you have hills and dunes and so on you have to get them flat first, right?
I can only guess that you're referring to the Chinle formation. As explained before, it preserves a region networked with streams and lakes and swamps that gradually filled in as sediments continued to accumulate.
Bring in a sea transgression, that would do it. That would also kill all the land life. Kinda counterproductive.
If you're going to wax sarcastic you might want to avoid a display of ignorance by not explaining a terrestrial formation with a sea transgression.
And piling on a great depth of loose sediment for the necessary weight doesn't really suggest a flattening effect, hardening yes but flattening no;...
Sandstone has 60% of the volume of sand, so obviously there is a flattening effect for sandstone, and the figures are probably similar for the other types of strata.
...besides which then you have to figure out what to do with that extra depth of sediment unless it just happens miraculously to be exactly what the geo column is made up of.
What extra depth of sediment?
If it isn't, you have to find a way to clean it off the flat slab of rock you think it formed.
There you go with the pronouns again. What are you imagining needs to be cleaned off during lithification?
Besides which, the strata in the geo column are clearly separate from one another.
You mean stratigraphic columns, not the geologic column. Contacts between strata vary, from sharp to graduated to crossbedded to interbedded.
How does your piled up sediment manage just to be a hardening agent without becoming part of the rock it's supposed to be hardening?
I have no idea what you're talking about, but maybe you should ask yourself how the piled up sediments of your flood managed to be a hardening agent without becoming part of the rock it's supposed to be hardening?
And how are you getting the very different kinds of sediments that clearly distinguish one layer of rock in the geo column from another?
Different depositional environments.
Besides which the enormous extent of such strata as Tapeats sandstone and many others cannot be contained in any lake bed, and why aren't there any edges to them that look like lake beds either?
Forgotten how the Tapeats formed again, huh? Does a slowly transgressing sea sound familiar?
The whole "depositional environment" idea is untenable.
In what sort of environment do you imagine the Flood sediments depositing if not a depositional one?
In any case the flatness shown in that Painted Desert hill is so much flatter than any salt sea or field or beach that you keep trying to palm off as the basis for it.
Here's a high resolution photo from the Painted Desert. Blow it up and scroll around and you'll see that those strata aren't as flat as you thought - there's even interbedding.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typos.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by Faith, posted 06-05-2018 12:49 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 427 by Faith, posted 06-07-2018 12:51 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 440 of 877 (834517)
06-07-2018 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 379 by Faith
06-05-2018 7:30 PM


Re: Video on the formation of the Grand Canyon
Faith writes:
So reading your above words we can see that you were claiming that fractures in strata two miles above the canyon deepened and eventually became the Grand Canyon. But nothing about the sinuous shape of canyon suggests following fractures in the rock, which tend to be straight.
That's maybe true enough in short lengths. But you can't always break anything straight across just by pulling it apart, you get it breaking in all kinds of directions you'd prefer it didn't and in more than one place. I'm thinking of a ball of dough or of clay.
How do you get fractures in dough or clay? How would strains created by uplift create a meandering fracture pattern, which is never observed anyway, instead of the relatively straight and parallel fracture patterns that we do observe. For example, note how the Hurricane Fault and the Toroweap fault are relatively straight and parallel, appearing on opposite sides of the Kaibab uplift. Other faults follow the contour of the uplift and don't meander randomly:
Why would you think I'm claiming the cracks created the whole river anyway?
Why would you think I'm talking about the whole river anyway? Read my words above, words that you actually bothered to quote this time and have in front of you. I was talking about the Grand Canyon, and there are two issues that render your explanation impossible. Fractures don't meander, and wet and malleable rock (of which there's no such thing) do not fracture. Plus your current position, if you haven't changed your mind again, is that the top layers were still loose sediment.
By the way, if rocks form by drying, why are the rocks beneath the Colorado River just as hard as all the other rocks?
I think the strain caused by the uplift cracked the strata over the uplift, that's all I've claimed. Perhaps it cracked in many places too and then one or a collection of cracks became the canyon.
But you have no evidence. It's just stuff you're making up. Fractures tend to be linear and perpendicular to the direction of strain. You can say stuff like, "Maybe the strata cracked in ways never observed and that don't make sense," but its meaningless.
The river dips south around the uplift to a level lower than the highest part but not the lowest. If it formed from ground level according to your view, wouldn't you expect it to go completely around the uplift rather than through it at any height?
You've asked this question many times and it's been answered many times. The Colorado or its ancestor had already crossed the Colorado Plateau when the uplift of the Kaibab began. The river downcut into the rising Kaibab Plateau.
From ground level the uplift remains a barrier it's hard for you to explain.
I just explained it, for the nth time. Are you only capable of repeating the same questions? For you it seems to be a case of, "I didn't believe the answer last time, even though I had no response, so I think I shall ask it again."
But starting from above it all it's got some issues but it isn't impossible.
Much about your scenario is impossible, and none of it has any evidence.
Probably the whole uplift had cracks in it and water running down the south side opened up the nearest one on the incline or something like that. I mean we're all speculating here, so why not?
More accurately, we're reconstructing the geologic history of the Grand Canyon history based upon evidence while you make stuff up out of whole cloth.
But no fractures. And let's not forget that wet and malleable rock is your made-up idea anyway.
Why did you say "no fractures?" Where did that come from.
From your Message 346:
Faith in Message 346 writes:
Why would these wet and malleable (your words) upper strata develop fractures?
The uplift would have stretched them and put a lot of strain on them.
Back to your current message:
As for "making up" wet and malleable rock, what else would it be after being deposited by the Flood?
Keeping in mind that we're talking about sedimentary rock like sandstone, siltstone, limestone, etc., have you ever seen wet and malleable rock? The answer is no, right? Has anyone ever reported seeing wet and malleable rock? The answer is no, right? Given that once sediments are buried deeply enough for lithification to begin most of the water has been forced out leaving you with dry and crumbly loosely consolidated rock, is describing this rock as wet and malleable accurate? The answer is no, right?
So why do you think there is any such thing as this figment you invented called wet and malleable rock?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by Faith, posted 06-05-2018 7:30 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 442 by Faith, posted 06-07-2018 5:41 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 445 of 877 (834527)
06-07-2018 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 381 by Faith
06-05-2018 7:42 PM


Re: Video on the formation of the Grand Canyon
Faith writes:
But directly addressing your argument, why would these fractures occur only where the canyon is and nowhere else on the uplift?
I think they probably did, lots of them,...
Then where are these fractures in the Kaibab Plateau? The amount of bending in the Kaibab statum caused by the Kaibab Uplift would have been the same as the layers two miles above, and the Kaibab was harder (more consolidated or lithified) and more brittle than the above wet and malleable layers, so where are the fractures in the Kaibab?
The reason the Hurricane and Toroweap faults are on the perimeter of the Kaibab Plateau is because that's where the bending is. The Kaibab Plateau itself didn't experience any bending. It's level. That's why it's called a plateau. Why would there be any fracturing where there is no bending and therefore no strain?
...but the water found a lower point to major in as it were. Not the lowest, just lower.
Rain, once it hits the ground, seeks the lowest point, forming puddles or running into rivers and streams. Rivers and streams seek the lowest point, flowing into ponds, lakes and seas. Ponds, lakes and seas do not seek the lowest point because they are already the lowest point.
In your scenario the Kaibab Plateau is submerged beneath a body a water. It isn't possible for this water to seek a lower point. I think what you're imagining is a crack that opens, then the water fills the crack, but the water will not flow along this crack because there is already water everywhere in a submerged environment. There can be water currents in submerged environments, but water does not flow downhill on a lake or sea bottom.
In addition, not only is there no downhill current possible in your crack, and not only is a flow resulting from a drop of 1.5 inches/minute insufficient to erode much of anything, but when the water level finally did fall far enough to begin to expose the Kaibab Plateau then the water would flow off the plateau in all directions, cutting channels on all sides. And the channels are there (check the Kaibab Plateau in Google Maps in Satellite mode). So if the water flowed off the plateau in all directions then where did that extra volume of water necessary to carve the canyon deep into the Kaibab Plateau come from?
Since you imagine that the Grand Canyon was originally created in layers high above the Kaibab and then was carved downward as the waters receded and the water level dropped, this same question must be asked about the layers that overlay the Kaibab. Let's look at the highest strata 2 miles above the Kaibab. A thin sheet of 4 inch deep water is running off the plateau in all directions. Where is the extra water to carve the canyon coming from?
And the water then kept opening it further at lower points, which look like happen to be along the western side flowing north at that point.
There you go with the pronouns again. What does "it" refer to? Do even you know?
The lowest is what your scenario would seek, but that didn't happen.
Yes, it did happen.
What is the explanation from your model how the river got over the uplift?
Explaining yet again, the river was already there when the Kaibab Uplift began, and the river downcut as the plateau rose.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Improve section on water flowing off the Kaibab Plateau.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by Faith, posted 06-05-2018 7:42 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 448 of 877 (834534)
06-07-2018 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 383 by Faith
06-05-2018 8:33 PM


Re: draining Flood
Faith writes:
Thin sheets of water running across a plateau do not create meanders,
Your method of slogging through the posts from far back in the thread...
You mean from two days ago? Do you think it possible that someone who replies to all points of all replies and researches their answers could post at the same rate as someone who replies to less than half the messages posted to her, frequently only replies to small portions of long messages, and does no research but just makes things up? Just asking.
...has the disadvantage of repeating things a million times that have long since been answered though you won't discover that for days.
I think your errors deserve to be corrected as often as you make them.
You repeated I don't know how many times that the Painted Desert hill is not a "mountain" days after I'd stopped calling it a mountain.
If you don't like your mistakes corrected then try verifying what you say is true before you say it.
You even went to lengths to prove it which you could have spared yourself.
I appreciate your concern, but disproving simple errors like that takes little time.
Now you are perseverating on this sheet of water after I've said many times that no, a sheet doesn't form a meander, streams form meanders,...
I'm glad to hear you've taken this one tentative step closer to reality.
...and I always said that anyway.
The reality is that you said the opposite. Here are your words from your Message 346 saying that thin sheets of water cause meanders:
Faith in Message 346 writes:
The thin sheet of water running across the plateau that I picture being the cause of the meander...
You're going to have to raise your level of dishonesty by going back and editing your old posts if you're going to make false claims that you didn't say something.
...and water levels dropping at only 1.5 inches/minute are not going to create a significant flow of water anyway.
Um, we're talking water as far as the eye can see.
The extent of the water isn't a factor. It's the rate of dropping water level that matters. Physics. It doesn't matter whether the water level is dropping at 1.5 inches/minute in a kiddie pool or an Olympic pool or a planet sized ocean.
It's dropping at the rate of 90 inches or 7.5 feet an hour.
And at 1250 miles/century. Wow!
Transforming the rate into different units doesn't change anything. It's a minuscule rate, and your thin sheet of water of a few inches deep is only going to flow for 3 or 4 minutes before there's nothing left of the sheet, because the water level is dropping at 1.5 inches/minute. 3 or 4 minutes of a slow flow isn't going to erode anything, not even wet and malleable rock.
That's a HUGE amount of water draining away.
You're talking about a thin sheet of water a few inches deep. This isn't really much water, less than .1 cubic miles spread across an area of 1152 square miles, which is the area of the Kaibab Plateau.
At first it may be quiet enough, just steadily dropping. But it's going to pick up speed in places when it starts draining off land.
As the amount of exposed land increases the rate of flow resulting from a dropping water level of 1.5 inches/minute will also increase. But the average land elevation on Earth is only 2750 feet, while the height of the Kaibab Plateau is around 8000 feet. In your scenario very little land is exposed at this point, and so the flow rate is still very slow.
Just as a tub drains the lower water first...
No. Water at the drain drains from the bottom. The further you get from the drain the more the water just generally flows toward the drain.
...that must be what's happening here too,...
No. Since your premise is false your conclusion is also false. It also isn't an appropriate model for your scenario, where water would drain toward all seas, not toward one single drain.
...if the ocean floor has dropped.
The ocean floor has not dropped. Surveys of the ocean floor after WWII in order to aid submarine navigation revealed a great deal of information about mid-oceanic ridges and sea floor striping and so on, but not an ounce of evidence for dropping sea floors.
It's all going to drain from the bottom,...
Again, no.
...so at first it would just be a matter of the level dropping steadily. Then when earth is exposed, or the stack of sediments that has just been laid down, it gets more complicated.
Inexplicable, even.
Give it a few days to be seriously washing away sediments, a couple weeks to be washing away sediments that offer some resistance because they're harder.
As described earlier, your flow rate will not increase at elevations like the Colorado Plateau.
In the canyon area we're talking probably a few thousand square miles it washes over.
The words "washes over" don't really describe receding waters.
When the level gets low enough to be running across a plateau it's still a lot of water at first, a LOT.
You said this before. Your water is only a few inches deep. It isn't a lot of water. Four inches deep on a square foot is 2.5 gallons. It doesn't matter how many square feet of land are involved because that few inches of water that can't be replenished will be gone in only a few minutes.
And it isn't all going to run in the same direction when there are obstacles in its path as there will be when the level gets lower and lower and the sediments are harder and harder, it's going to run faster in some places than others.
And yet today these obstacles are nowhere to be found. Where'd they go?
Also, this contradicts your other claim above that fractures in the strata two miles above is what created the channel for the Grand Canyon.
What contradicts what? The strata were laid down flat so even if they were soft at the top they would fracture when stretched over the uplift.
According to you they weren't just soft at the top, they were unconsolidated sediments, which can't fracture. And how, exactly, does your imaginary wet and malleable rock fracture instead of the stretching and bending.
Break up rapidly of course,...
Again, you describe unconsolidated sediments and wet and malleable rock. How, exactly, do you break them? You figure out how to break up sand and Play-Doh and then you'll have an answer.
...but the lower you go the more solid the rock. There's still strain on lower levels too where the rock is more solid because all the strata were bent up and over the Kaibab uplift.
Does this rock break up, too? Into fragments small enough to be carried away by water four inches deep?
...and that washing away would have had stages too,...
Could you describe these stages?
Places it runs faster or slower, places it makes whirlpools, places it pours over a harder layer into a crevasse formed by strata already washed away, places it gets dammed up etc.
And the evidence that these events left behind?
It's going to pool in some areas eventually, forming the big lakes like Missoula and Lahontan.
The Missoula floods occurred over 10,000 years ago, and Lake Lahontan had mostly disappeared by around 9,000 years ago.
...depending on how steep the exits were that opened up as the water level decreased. Some damming probably occurred in places and then broke and so on.
Exits? Now you're imagining some kinds of natural dams were in place that needed breaking through? What is your evidence?
See above. It's perfectly logical that all this would occur in the process of draining a huge amount of water full of sediments of different kinds in different stages of hardness, changing directions, getting faster here and slower there and so on and so forth.
And your evidence?
Your story continues to be contradictory, contrary to the way water, sediments and rock behave, and completely lacking in evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by Faith, posted 06-05-2018 8:33 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 480 by Faith, posted 06-09-2018 8:33 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 454 of 877 (834580)
06-08-2018 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 385 by Faith
06-06-2018 8:44 AM


Re: Video on the formation of the Grand Canyon
Faith writes:
Article challenging the lake theory of how the canyon was formed, as shown in the video. I was particularly interested in what its author says about the Kaibab uplift:
Dickinson hopes at least to lay to rest one hypothesis: That an ancient lake carved the canyon through a cascading series of waterfalls...
Plus, there's the problem of the Kaibab uplift, a pinch in the Colorado Plateau where the rocks swell up due to underground folding. Sitting near the head of the Grand Canyon, the Kaibab uplift is a 650-foot (250-meter) barrier that any prehistoric lake or river must have carved through before dropping down into the future gorge. The preserved lake beds show water levels were never high enough to cross the uplift, Dickinson said.
Here's a link to the article you quoted above: Grand Canyon Carved by Flood? Geologist Says No
So now you once again ask:
The next question must be, how did the river cross it?
The explanation for how the Colorado River passed through the Kaibab Plateau is the same explanation we've repeated to you literally dozens of times. It hasn't changed. The ancestral Colorado already flowed through the region before the Colorado Plateau was uplifted or the Kaibab Uplift occurred. It downcut into the region as the landscape was uplifted.
The Flood could cross it, however.
Yes, we know, it is the great and powerful Flood, capable of all things.
But what particularly interested me was his calling it "a pinch in the Colorado Plateau where the rocks swell up due to underground folding."
Since some Supergroup exposures lie outside the Kaibab uplift, we know the Supergroup didn't cause it. For example, Nanoweap and Unkar group strata are exposed well to the west of the Kaibab Uplift, see Figure 5.1 on page 77 of GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE OF THE GRAND CANYON - one of the authors is Dr. Karl Karlstrom from Mod's video.
The concept of rocks "swelling up" is something to contemplate, but I imagine it's just a poetic way of saying they got pushed up,
The phrase "swell up" is the reporter's, not Dickinson's. If you look at Dickinson's paper (Rejection of the lake spillover model for initial incision of the Grand Canyon, and discussion of alternatives) you won't find the word "swell", let alone the phrase "swell up."
...but it's the "due to underground folding" that intrigues me since of course I interpret the uplift as the result of the tilting of the Supergroup at the Great Unconformity.
There's no folding in the Supergroup. The article is not referring to the Supergroup. Your ideas about the Supergroup tilting only after the Paleozoic layers were in place while not affecting them are impossible. Here's a link to a page that has an animation of the tilting and eroding of the Supergroup that should help you visualize geology's views: Tilting, Faulting and Eroding of the Grand Canyon Supergroup. Just click anywhere on the diagram, or click on the little "Play" button beneath the diagram. It's a very short video, maybe only 10 seconds.
He doesn't name the Supergroup but on the cross section that's what is directly beneath the uplift and it's a species of folded rocks, caused by tectonic pressure.
He doesn't name the Supergroup because it is not responsible for the Kaibab Plateau, and tilted layers are not a "species of folded rocks". If you look at your favorite diagram you'll see that the Supergroup was uplifted along with everything else. The forces of uplift came from deeper within the Earth:
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by Faith, posted 06-06-2018 8:44 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 455 by Faith, posted 06-08-2018 3:31 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 464 of 877 (834605)
06-08-2018 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 392 by Faith
06-06-2018 11:12 AM


Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done with
Faith writes:
this earlier, and it still isn't clear. You define "block" ambiguously. What does "eroded as blocks" mean? What does "deformed as blocks" mean, particularly if you define just a part of a stratigraphic column as a block? It's easy to tell apart strata units at different angles, but if you're dividing stratigraphic columns into blocks, what is your criteria for the division between blocks? Why can't you just use standard geology terminology
I don't divide anything, I find them deformed in blocks,...
But you defined "block" as a "unit of neatly demarcated strata". I don't know what that is, and I don't think you do either.
...meaning whole segments of strata deformed or eroded together as a unit, not as separate strata.
This is not a good definition. Let me describe just one problem with it. According to this definition the strata in the walls of the Grand Canyon would be a "block" because they've eroded together. But the strata exposed to erosion in the canyon vary according to where you are in the canyon. In some places the Tapeats is exposed to erosion, so then it's a part of the block, but in other places it's not exposed, so then it's not part of the block. So which is it? Is the Tapeats part of the block or not? Because ambiguity is inherent in your definition, it is not useful.
The whole Grand Staircase was eroded into its cliffs all at one time,...
No, it wasn't. Why do you think so?
...all the strata being there as a unit.
Are you using unit as a synonym for block?
Anyway, are all strata that are exposed to erosion anywhere in the Grand Staircase part of the block? If so, then would it be correct to say the strata from the Tapeats up to the Claron is a block? But if we're only considering the Grand Canyon region then would it be correct to say that the strata from the Tapeats only up to the Kaibab is a block?
Why not just use the term stratigraphic column? Then you can talk about the units that make up the stratigraphic column, such as supergroups (a sequence of groups), groups (a sequence of formations), and formations (a sequence of strata). In other words, what is wrong with standard geological terminology?
It is difficult to talk to you because you don't understand the simplest things...
I can understand it can be difficult when asked to define terms that you're making up. Probably not even you have a clear idea what they mean.
...and you always blame me for the problem.
Well, yes, since you're the one making up terminology, who else would one blame?
I don't think you're safe in assuming that just because I tend to be the one questioning what you mean that everyone else understands what you're saying. If you recall, one of your frequent complaints is that people don't make enough effort to understand what you mean. Obviously even you're aware that people frequently don't get your meaning.
I'm sure there are ways I could say it clearer if I knew what they were, but what you find unclear isn't all that unclear, it's just that you somehow manage to misread it.
I think describing reality would be much more clear than a fantasy world where anything is possible. What you mean is often unclear because there is no connection to reality.
And I can't deal with your very long posts.
Each paragraph that I post addresses one of your incorrect claims. The length of my posts is a function of how many incorrect claims you make.
I can only touch on parts of this one but maybe because it's about a lot of important issues and full of your bizarre misreadings and absurd accusations, I'll come back to it later.
Oh, I am so blessed.
For now I'll skip down to Smith's cross section. Smith observed the land in order to make his cross section and what he left out is not important to the point.
Since you're claiming that Smith's diagram represents a stratigraphic column that completely represents the geologic timescale from the Cambrian to the present, I'd say that "what he left out" is pretty important to your claim. If he left anything out then your claim is automatically false.
He obviously saw all the strata he drew and saw them all tilted as he drew them. That's the only point that matters. It shows that all the time periods were represented,...
That's impossible, just look at the diagram and count the number of Paleozoic strata:
He shows only five Paleozoic strata and there are six time periods, so all the time periods couldn't possibly be represented. Asking again, why do you think all the time periods were represented? The diagram isn't clear enough that you would have been able to make much out, so you just made it up, right?
...all laid down originally horizontally and then tilted AS A BLOCK, meaning all together, not one here and one there, not one before another was laid on top of it, but ALL TOGETHER.
Not sure why you felt the need to say this. I again urge you to quote what I say that you're replying to so you don't run off the rails like this. Anyway, what you say is true, which is why no one, including me, ever said anything different.
And that IS evidence even though you are linguistically challenged about such things.
Mostly you just make bald declarations, but when you do mention evidence it's rarely anything that has any relationship to your claims.
And yes you are right I can't see your chart. I can barely see Smith's,...
They're all Smith diagrams.
...but I remember it from before. I strained my eyes to make out the word "granite" at the far left to show that it does represent some Precambrian rocks,...
Why are you assuming the granite is Precambrian?
...and I had to search to find a copy of it that has the eras on it, Paleozoic, Mesozoic and Cenozoic, because that confirms that all the time periods are represented.
Paleozoic, Mesozoic and Cenozoic are not time periods, they're eras.
I really do have to stop posting at this point, but I really do want to come back to this.
You never follow through.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by Faith, posted 06-06-2018 11:12 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 465 of 877 (834607)
06-08-2018 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 394 by edge
06-06-2018 11:20 AM


Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done with
edge writes:
As you allege, the rocks above and below the GU deformed separately even though they are in the same block at the same time.
There's two parts of this I don't understand. First, I don't know what Faith is referring to when she says "block," so I'm surprised that you do. The reason for my uncertainty is what she's said over the past few messages using the word "block", like this:
Faith writes:
The Grand Canyon area and the Smith cross section of England but lots of other cross sections where what strata are present are present in blocks and eroded as blocks and deformed as blocks.
For me when she says strata are "eroded as blocks" it makes her use of the word "block" very ambiguous. Does "eroded as blocks" have some clear meaning? Also, somewhere else she says different tilting defines a distinct block.
Second, Faith does not consider the Supergroup to be part of the same block as the block from the Tapeats to the Kaibab, and it isn't clear whether her definition of "block" would place the Vishnu Schist as part of either block, but let's call them three separate blocks in Faith-land. What were the separate deformations these three blocks experienced? Are you considering the tilting of the Supergroup to be a deformation, because that would surprise me since it isn't how a couple sites I checked define it - bends, folds and faults seem to be considered types of deformation, but not tilting. And Isn't the uplift of the Colorado Plateau a deformation experienced by all three blocks together rather than separately?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 394 by edge, posted 06-06-2018 11:20 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 468 by Faith, posted 06-08-2018 9:41 PM Percy has replied
 Message 492 by edge, posted 06-09-2018 11:33 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 466 of 877 (834609)
06-08-2018 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 403 by edge
06-06-2018 4:23 PM


Re: Video on the formation of the Grand Canyon
edge writes:
All I know is what Percy posted about Dickensen's work. He's a geologist I believe.
Dickinson is a well-known geologist. He would not speak so carelessly.
Percy wouldn't have expressed himself so carelessly, either. Percy was very clear in Message 200 that he was quoting from an article at Live Science, and he provided a link.
And the quoted text was obviously not Dickinson, since Dickinson wouldn't begin a sentence, "Dickinson hopes..."
All I know is what Dickensen said, which happens to be very similar to my own explanation based on what I see in the GS cross section.
Seriously? Please explain. Do you think that he calls the Great Unconformity a fault? Or that there was no deformation or volcanism prior to the topmost layers of sedimentary rocks? That's plain crazy.
Faith doesn't seem to care whether there's any truth in what she says, or whether it makes any sense.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 403 by edge, posted 06-06-2018 4:23 PM edge has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 467 of 877 (834610)
06-08-2018 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 404 by Faith
06-06-2018 4:25 PM


Re: The Smith cross-section
Faith writes:
Of course diagrams can be untrustworthy but this point is so very simple and the diagram also so very simple it really doesn't matter how many other things got left out. Really.
It makes a very big difference. You claimed that the Smith diagram shows a stratigraphic column that completely represents the geologic timescale from the Cambrian to the present, and that if he left anything out it would still be a complete representation. That's impossible. Could you stop cluttering up the thread with inane claims?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 404 by Faith, posted 06-06-2018 4:25 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 469 by Faith, posted 06-08-2018 9:48 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 470 of 877 (834615)
06-08-2018 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 406 by Faith
06-06-2018 4:32 PM


Faith writes:
I've spent a lot of time looking at pictures and diagrams and know what I'm talking about even if it's hard to convey.
You can't see pictures and diagrams let alone understand them. What's the point?
Nothing to do with the geo column.
Well that's true, but only because you screwed up and said "geo column" when you meant "stratigraphic columns." Sedimentation atop stratigraphic columns did not come to a halt during the breakup of Pangaea.
I never said the earth stopped moving and erupting but it has nothing to do with the geo column. I'll try to get it said more clearly if I can.
What you have to do to say it more clearly and correctly next time is say that sedimentation would have gone on as before during the breakup of Pangaea. Naturally as new seas opened up the details and locations of sedimentation would gradually change, but sedimentation wouldn't stop. It would be impossible for it to stop because erosion would still have been acting on the continents, producing sediments for streams, rivers, land run off, lakes and seas. These sediments get deposited atop stratigraphic columns around the world.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 406 by Faith, posted 06-06-2018 4:32 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 471 by Faith, posted 06-08-2018 11:27 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 489 of 877 (834644)
06-09-2018 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 413 by Faith
06-06-2018 4:49 PM


Re: The Smith cross-section
I don't know why Edge didn't answer this one, so I'll give it a try.
Faith writes:
Neverthelss, the contacts are not straight and flat, nor is the GU; even if you took out the deformation.
Are you talking about the diagram of England? The contacts have nothing to do with this point. The tilting IS deformation and I don't expect contacts to survive it.
If you trace back the discussion then yes, Edge is talking about the diagram of England, this one:
Tilting is not deformation. Deformation is bending, folding, stretching, compression or faulting. Both tilting and deformation can be present (as seems to be the case in the diagram but that you probably can't see), but they are not synonyms. Maybe Edge or Moose can be more definitive.
You've said that strata tilt as a block, so it makes no sense for you to say the contacts would not survive the tilting. Of course they survived the tilting. The geologists could see the contacts and place them on the diagram, so obviously they survived the tilting (and deformation). Perhaps what you mean is that the flatness of the strata would not survive, and of course the contacts would follow the contours of the deformed strata.
Sidenote: It is very easy to include an image in a post, there is no overhead to the website, once downloaded for the first time it remains in the cache and doesn't have to be downloaded again, it is very useful in discussion, so I recommend that everyone include the image under discussion in every post. The URL for any image can be obtained simply by placing the cursor on the image, right clicking to bring up the context menu, then selecting "Copy Image Address" (Chrome and Safari), "Copy Image Location" (Firefox), "Copy Link" (Microsoft Edge) and "Copy Shortcut" (Internet Explorer).
Faith writes:
... it's only about the inclusion of all the strata in one block.
In that case, the block was getting bigger (thicker) with time. There are at least three major unconformities shown in the section.
Missing rocks do not affect the point I'm making, as I've said all along here; sorry you missed it. The point is only to show that the whole RANGE of the time periods is included without any VISIBLE signs of erosion or deformation at any given layer.
If strata are missing, how could the "whole RANGE of the time periods be included"?
The obvious unconformities are very visible signs of erosion, and the deformation of the layers is just as obvious. Clearly you cannot discern even the grossest details in the diagram and are just making things up in your head.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 413 by Faith, posted 06-06-2018 4:49 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 504 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-09-2018 9:10 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 491 of 877 (834646)
06-09-2018 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 414 by Faith
06-06-2018 4:55 PM


Faith writes:
The point is that all of the geological processes in the record are still going on today. So, why would sedimentation stop?
Sedimentation didn't stop, the column stopped, the "time scale" stopped.
I have to agree with Capt Stormfield's assessment that you're batshit crazy, though the words I would use would be irrational, illogical and ignorant.
I have already explained how the Quaternary (current geologic period) extends on into the future, so obviously the timescale has not stopped and will never stop. We may at some point millions of years from now decide we've entered a new geologic period after the Quaternary, but the timescale will never stop. Saying that the timescale has stopped is an incredibly ignorant thing to say, right up there with, "The Earth is flat," or "The sun orbits the Earth."
Sedimentation that is going on today has nothing to do with that.
Current sedimentation is occurring in the Quarternary, so of course it is related to the geologic timescale.
Sedimentation on top of the rocks in the Smith cross section would not continue the strata as laid down there,...
How could sedimentation atop a stratigraphic column not be adding to the strata of that column?
...sedimentation on top of the Claron would not add to the Grand Staircase.
The Claron is exposed in elevated regions that are highly likely to be regions of net erosion, not deposition. There is not likely any net deposition occurring atop the Claron. But were there to be any deposition atop the Claron then it would definitely add to those stratigraphic columns.
This is definitional, Faith. Get a clue.
Sedimentation on top of a twisted formerly horizontal block of strata would not contribute to that block of strata.
Your definition of a "block of strata" remains unclear to me. Can a block of strata include an unconformity? Anyway, I'll use standard geological terminology. Sedimentation atop a stratigraphic column, twisted or otherwise, would be adding to it.
But I understand I'm making a point that's hard to prove given the standard assumptions.
I think you're underestimating the difficulty of your task. Ideas that are dead wrong are impossible to prove.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 414 by Faith, posted 06-06-2018 4:55 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