Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,813 Year: 3,070/9,624 Month: 915/1,588 Week: 98/223 Day: 9/17 Hour: 5/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Motley Flood Thread (formerly Historical Science Mystification of Public)
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 646 of 877 (834955)
06-15-2018 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 642 by Faith
06-15-2018 3:40 PM


Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done with
quote:
The point I'vfe been making for days now is that erosion occurs to stacks or blocks or units of strata and not between layers; also that deformation occurs to stacks or blocks or units of strata and not between layers.
I am going to assume that when you say deformation between layers you mean deformation occurring in the time between layers being deposited.
And in that case both assertions have been decisively refuted.
quote:
The point of those photos I posted is to demonstrate that the strata were all in place before the erosion or the deformation occurred.
Even if it is true in those diagrams - for the strata shown - that can’t refute the definite evidence to the contrary we have seen. So those really add very little to the discussion.
quote:
Sometimes as in the Smith diagram the whole range of time periods is present and eroded or deformed as a complete block
As has been shown that is a misleading impression given by the Smith cross-section. The more complete diagram from 1910 shows clear and definite evidence of both deformation and erosion occurring before all the strata were deposited.
quote:
This demonstrates something really very very simple: that the strata are not time periods.
Nobody confuses rocks with time except for you.
However, since the evidence does point to long periods of time - to account for the massive erosion between layers as well as the multiple deformation events that occurred during the time the strata were deposited it doesn’t seem you have much of a point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 642 by Faith, posted 06-15-2018 3:40 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 647 of 877 (834957)
06-15-2018 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 645 by Percy
06-15-2018 4:08 PM


Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done with
Edited by Admin, : Fix the embedding of the YouTube video.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 645 by Percy, posted 06-15-2018 4:08 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 655 by Percy, posted 06-16-2018 9:19 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 648 of 877 (834961)
06-15-2018 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 637 by Faith
06-15-2018 3:14 PM


Re: Smith diagram showing underground strata
You quote nothing Edge said. I have to guess what part you're replying to.
Faith writes:
I'm not talking about an unconformity. I thought the erosion referred to the cutting off of the strata to the right.
You seem to have forgotten the definition of an angular unconformity. The cut off strata that you just mentioned and that you've been discussing represent an angular unconformity:
The buried dark layer with the circles in it and the lighter colored strata below it tilt upward to the left. Where they truncate at overlying strata is called an angular unconformity. And there are at least 5 other angular unconformities in that diagram, see my Message 617.
This happened when those tilted strata were exposed at the surface and were subject to erosion. That the surface of the angular unconformity of the lighter strata tilts downward to the left indicates these strata were once tilted at a greater angle. Later deformation reduced the tilt of all these strata, which is when the darker stratum was eroded and explains whey it wasn't eroded at the same angle as the underlying strata.
If it refers to an unconformity that is invisible then I'm sure you're right.
The angular unconformity is obviously not invisible.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 637 by Faith, posted 06-15-2018 3:14 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 649 of 877 (834963)
06-15-2018 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 638 by Faith
06-15-2018 3:19 PM


Re: Video on the formation of the Grand Canyon
Faith writes:
You are going to drive me to an early grave. Not that I'd mind, I'm ready to go.
I *am* surprised you're still here at EvC. The pointlessness of endlessly repeating, in effect, "2+2=5" with no evidence or reasoning and tons of contrary evidence and reasoning should have been obvious to you years ago. Just like in this thread, you somehow convince yourself that you're getting by through a combination of inciting chaos, ignorance, ignoring discussion points, and repeating your position endlessly instead of responding to what people say.
...but the deeper the rock the drier it will be by compaction,...
Undoubtedly true, but sedimentation doesn't have to be very deep before weight forces out almost all water.
...the higher it is in the stack the more wet and malleable.
There is no evidence that anything like wet and malleable rock exists. Any "rock" that is still wet is insufficiently compacted to be rock. If it's still wet then it could be a very viscous sand or silt or ooze, but not rock.
I don't think it would be COMPLETELY dry if under water, however, no matter how much weight was on it.
Even in submerged strata water is forced out of the pores and interstices of compacted rock and floats upward in the stratigraphic column because it is both mobile and less dense than the rock.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 638 by Faith, posted 06-15-2018 3:19 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 650 of 877 (834964)
06-15-2018 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 640 by Faith
06-15-2018 3:23 PM


Re: Smith diagram showing underground strata
Faith writes:
I haven't been talking about angular unconformities at any point in this discussion and I didn't know anyone else was either.
I find it very surprising that you can't recognize obvious angular unconformities when you see them. How often have you stared at diagrams of the Supergroup angular unconformity at the Grand Canyon?
This thread became one of those familiar EvC nightmares of miscommunication and weird interpretations some time back that I just want out of, period.
Why do you continually insist on making up your own terms, like "strata eroded as a block" and "disturbances"? Oftentimes people have to just guess what you mean, and I don't think it's that uncommon for you and someone else to think you're talking about the same thing when you're not. I think if you would adopt standard geological terminology that it would help reduce confusion a great deal.
But you ignored all my points. My images showed you all the angular conformities I could see in the diagram. Each one is something you can't explain, a considerable number of hiccups. If you can explain these angular unconformities without invoking underground erosion (impossible) or magically disappearing rock (also impossible) then please explain away.
As I said, PaulK's and my points are related and equally relevant. PaulK is making the point that only tilting deformation followed by erosion could have cut off the strata and created the surface for what later became an angular unconformity when deposition atop it occurred. I'm making the point that your claim that deformation cut off the strata would require cubic miles and miles of rock to disappear into thin air. You need to find explanations that are not both geologically and physically (as in laws of physics) impossible.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 640 by Faith, posted 06-15-2018 3:23 PM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 651 of 877 (834965)
06-15-2018 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 642 by Faith
06-15-2018 3:40 PM


Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done with
Faith writes:
The point I'vfe been making for days now is that erosion occurs to stacks or blocks or units of strata and not between layers;...
Saying that "erosion occurs to stacks or blocks or units of strata" is meaningless. No buried strata in a stratigraphic column (which is a block of strata in anyone's book) can be eroded. What you should really say is that exposed strata are subject to erosion.
...also that deformation occurs to stacks or blocks or units of strata and not between layers.
But you don't think the Supergroup/Paleozoic stack of strata deformed as a unit. Contradictory much? I've probably mentioned this contradiction in your thinking about ten times now, and you haven't responded yet. Inability to answer challenges to your ideas is a key indicator that your ideas are false, or at least that they have serious issues.
Sometimes I forget to say the whole thing which seems to leave it open for you all to think I'm saying something entirely different, which is weird and frustrating but not unexpected.
This is because your claims frequently invoke the impossible or magical.
If only I was always able to expect it before I post it but unfortunately I tend to assume a continuity that obviously doesn't exist.
I can't believe the queen of discontinuity is raising continuity as an issue. You've responded to less than 41% of the posts to you in this thread, and when you have responded you frequently ignored most of what was said, often instead reexplaining your own position from scratch.
The point of those photos I posted is to demonstrate that the strata were all in place before the erosion or the deformation occurred.
Since it has been said at least a dozen times now that it is self-evident and physically required that strata be "in place" (I'm assuming this means they must exist) before they can be eroded or deformed, why are you repeating this yet again? It's bloody obvious that whatever it is you're actually trying to say is not getting across. Find another way to say it. Could I suggest using standard geologic terminology?
Sometimes as in the Smith diagram the whole range of time periods is present and eroded or deformed as a complete block;...
The whole range of time periods is not present in the Smith diagram. Did you forget that you switched the claim to be about eras back in your Message 469, and that you don't actually mean "whole range of time periods" because, as you have already conceded, there are missing spans of time. Find a way to say this that actually says what you mean. Stop misstating your own ideas.
...but usually it's a partial stack where the rest of it is no longer present...
Well now you're contradicting what you just said about it being "the whole range of time periods". And no, it is not true that "usually it's a partial stack." It is always a partial stack.
...and what is present is eroded or deformed as a unit or block by itself.
Again, "eroded as a block" is meaningless.
"Deformed as a block," assuming we're talking about a stratigraphic column, is bloody obvious, except for your self-contradictory belief that the column of Supergroup and Paleozoic layers were not deformed as a block.
This demonstrates something really very very simple: that the strata are not time periods.
I'm sure there is no one here but you who can follow your logic. And given that your premise is variously meaningless, bloody obvious, or contradicted by yourself, the conclusion could not possibly be valid.
ABE (I'm aware that that last sentence is likely to lead to another flurry of weird ideas, but in this case I think I'll just leave it and try to be entertained by the weirdness).
You should base your ideas on evidence and rational thinking and real world considerations (like physics), and you should express them clearly using standard terminology instead of inventing your own.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Fix grammar for clarity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 642 by Faith, posted 06-15-2018 3:40 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 653 by Faith, posted 06-16-2018 4:41 AM Percy has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 652 of 877 (834974)
06-15-2018 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 610 by Percy
06-14-2018 1:48 PM


Re: Smith diagram showing underground strata
In the center you can see a stratum that bends upward and suddenly terminates at an overlying stratum that has many little circles inside it (I'm not sure what the little circles indicate, but presumably they indicate something about the type of rock that stratum is made of).
The little circles are traditional symbology for a conglomerate. The fact that they are round shapes refers to the rounded nature of conglomeratic fragments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 610 by Percy, posted 06-14-2018 1:48 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 653 of 877 (834986)
06-16-2018 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 651 by Percy
06-15-2018 6:26 PM


Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done with
Percy, you'll just say I'm complaining again etc etc etc, but I really can't cope with your voluminous posts which come days after my own and others' on that subject in many cases, after the thread has moved on to other things, and then you really do make some very strange misinterpretations of what I was saying, even keep insisting on them after I've answered them, which makes it all the harder to try to answer you. Here and there you raise some interesting points but I feel like if I answer them I'd be asking for another thankless round of miscommunication and I'm not up to it,
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 651 by Percy, posted 06-15-2018 6:26 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 656 by Percy, posted 06-16-2018 10:23 AM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 654 of 877 (835004)
06-16-2018 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 644 by Faith
06-15-2018 3:56 PM


Re: Video on the formation of the Grand Canyon
Faith writes:
Oy
You just replied to a 265 word message with a single two-letter word. Congratulations, a new record for you.
Ignoring issues and problems with your ideas does not make them go away. It's a strong indicator that you cannot defend them, and all it does is force us to repeat the descriptions of the issues.
You say that strata tilt as a block, and in your Flood scenario the Supergroup strata and the Paleozoic strata were originally one block of strata. Why do you claim the Supergroup tilted separately from the Paleozoic strata, instead of the whole block tilting as a unit?
As PaulK notes in the context of your Flood scenario, where the Supergroup unit on the right should have exerted the greatest upward pressure (its rightmost portion) the Kaibab lining the North Rim is actually lower in elevation than further north (further left). If the tilting Supergroup were actually responsible for the uplift then the North Rim would be higher in elevation than further north, but it isn't. Here's the diagram for reference:
Also, 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. If, as you claim, the tilting of the Supergroup strata was responsible for the Kaibab Uplift, how do you explain the Supergroup strata outside the Kaibab that caused no uplift
And do you have any comments on this very short (10 seconds) animation of the tilting and eroding of the Supergroup. Just click on the diagram: Tilting, Faulting and Eroding of the Grand Canyon Supergroup
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 644 by Faith, posted 06-15-2018 3:56 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 655 of 877 (835006)
06-16-2018 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 647 by Faith
06-15-2018 4:25 PM


Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done with
Faith writes:
Congratulations again, you've replied to a 238 word message with virtually nothing.
Please explain why you think none of the contacts between strata at the Grand Canyon contain evidence of erosion and/or missing spans of time?
Why do claim that strata deform as a unit but contradict yourself and claim that the stack of Supergroup and Paleozoic strata did not deform as unit, with only the Supergroup layers tilting but none of the layers above.
Is this message short enough for you?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 647 by Faith, posted 06-15-2018 4:25 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 658 by Faith, posted 06-16-2018 11:12 AM Percy has replied

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


(1)
Message 656 of 877 (835007)
06-16-2018 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 653 by Faith
06-16-2018 4:41 AM


Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done with
Faith writes:
Percy, you'll just say I'm complaining again etc etc etc,...
But you are complaining again. For the umpteenth time instead of addressing the issues raised about your ideas you're complaining about what other people are doing wrong that is making it impossible for you to actually address the issues.
You're not fooling anybody. No one believes you have answers that you'd readily provide if it weren't for the nefarious other participants making things impossible for you. You're just doing what you always do, ignoring posts, ignoring most of posts that you do reply to, changing your positions, and making up your own terminology.
This last is a particularly significant source of confusion. No one likes diverting discussion into definition of terms, so when you say something like "strata erode as a block" most people just think, "Well, all I can tell is that she's talking about erosion, so I'll reply based on that." This sets the stage for you to later complain that no one is making an effort to understand what you mean.
So I *have* been making a significant effort to understand precisely what you mean, and you have been ignoring me tooth and nail. It's probably at least a couple hundred posts since you started saying that strata erode as a block, I've been asking what this means all during this period, and you still haven't answered. It's just another bit of terminology you've made up that has no meaning but that for you causes the "makes sense" light to go on in your head when it actually makes no sense at all.
Now maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it makes perfect sense. If so then would you or anybody please explain what "strata erode as a block" means and why it supports your claims of continuous uninterrupted deposition.
My guess is that for you "strata erode as a block" is just a shorthand way of saying that strata cannot be eroded until all the strata of a stratigraphic column have been deposited (are "in place" in your lingo). If that's correct then this has already been falsified many times. Evidence of erosion at strata contacts is ubiquitous.
...but I really can't cope with your voluminous posts...
I address every point or claim in your posts that is incorrect, and I repeat points that you've ignored. As you repeat your errors and I (and others) try to introduce more and more evidence, and as you ignore more and more points that I'm forced to repeat, naturally my posts get longer. Respond to the points in meaningful ways using terminology people understand and don't violate well established geological principles or known physical laws and the responses will become much shorter, turn to agreement even.
Because it doesn't often happen I also try to note where you've said something true, but the common case is that practically every sentence in every one of your posts is wrong is some way, so of course anyone trying to be thorough, instead of just picking out the most egregious or most on-topic issues, is going to end up responding at length.
...which come days after my own and others' on that subject in many cases,...
I regret not being able to keep up with the pace of your threads, but I try to evidence and fact check and conform to geology in everything I say. I encourage you to do the same.
Also, sometimes I have insufficient time to keep up but feel an obligation to address every reply to me. When someone takes the time and trouble to convey information to me I feel it is incumbent upon me to show respect for that effort by making my own effort to understand what they say, to research what they said that I don't understand or (in your case) don't believe is true, and then respond meaningfully.
I realize I'm doing a lot of patting my own back here, but those are my goals. How well I achieve them is for others to decide.
...after the thread has moved on to other things,...
At least in this thread, it doesn't seem to have moved on to other things at all. All the issues from a few days ago were still in play.
...and then you really do make some very strange misinterpretations of what I was saying,...
This is one of your constant complaints, that people don't understand what you say. And it's true, they don't, but that's your fault. You invent your own terminology, you eschew standard terminology, you use pronouns and words like "things" and "stuff" all over the place, and most of your ideas violate geological principles and known physical laws. In other words, you're rarely able to give a coherent and comprehensible account of events that is actually possible. This results in a variety of interpretations depending upon how people interpret your ambiguities and impossible claims.
...even keep insisting on them after I've answered them,...
Someone who responds to only 52% of messages posted to her, and who ignored most of the points made in messages she does respond to, has little credibility claiming issues have been answered. Naturally you *have* attempted to address some issues, but never successfully. In fact, your responses usually just generate more questions because you often introduce additional impossible claims.
...which makes it all the harder to try to answer you.
Since the only acceptable answers have to be intelligible and follow established geologic principles and known physical laws, and since none of your answers fulfill those criteria, it will always be very hard for you to answer your critics. Making things up off the top of your head simply because of ignorance and a willingness to ignore well established knowledge is not going to fly.
Here and there you raise some interesting points but I feel like if I answer them I'd be asking for another thankless round of miscommunication and I'm not up to it.
Quite obviously you're not up to it. Despite all the feedback you've received over the years your ability to support your claims in any scientific, rational or logical way has not improved one whit. That's because you subordinate evidence from the real world to your eclectic interpretation of an ancient myth. This makes it impossible for you to fulfill your goal of developing naturalistic explanations for a supernatural event. You can't be scientific if you ignore every piece of science that contradicts your interpretation of your book.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 653 by Faith, posted 06-16-2018 4:41 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 657 by edge, posted 06-16-2018 11:10 AM Percy has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 657 of 877 (835012)
06-16-2018 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 656 by Percy
06-16-2018 10:23 AM


Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done with
I'm sure that most of us find Faith's casual dismissals and misplaced air of superiority to be offensive. However, I think that we need not worry. Such distortions of reality are self-defeating. No one is going to be convinced by such anti-science denial that we see here, and if Faith wishes to cling to a distorted reality, we have the satisfaction of knowing that she represents but one person. An oddity, not a great hindrance to knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 656 by Percy, posted 06-16-2018 10:23 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 670 by Percy, posted 06-17-2018 9:02 AM edge has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 658 of 877 (835013)
06-16-2018 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 655 by Percy
06-16-2018 9:19 AM


Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done with
Please explain why you think none of the contacts between strata at the Grand Canyon contain evidence of erosion and/or missing spans of time?
I believe I've not said NONE of the contacts, but VERY FEW, VERY VERY VERY FEW, and I believe they can be explained as having occurred after the strata were deposited. As for missing "time," no, missing layers that often occur at a location but didn't in a particular case, yes.
Why do claim that strata deform as a unit but contradict yourself and claim that the stack of Supergroup and Paleozoic strata did not deform as unit, with only the Supergroup layers tilting but none of the layers above.
Again the point is that deformation or erosion as a unit is just one of the many ways it can be shown that the Time Scale is false, and yes of course it's another way of saying all disturbances occur after all the strata were in place and no you have not proved anything to the contrary, what a silly thought, it's obvious in a million places.
Actually the Paleozoic strata deformed as a unit in that they all rise over the uplift. The Supergroup deformed in two blocks of strata. Since I think all these things occurred at the same time in a sense the whole thing deformed as a unit.
--->>>>But if you might remember, I also said that angular unconformities are the single exception to this rule of deformation as a unit which would resolve your "contradiction." .
"
Is this message short enough for you?
A very big improvement, thank you very much.
I hope you enjoyed the Twilight Zone theme, it so fits the circumstances.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 655 by Percy, posted 06-16-2018 9:19 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 659 by PaulK, posted 06-16-2018 11:34 AM Faith has replied
 Message 660 by edge, posted 06-16-2018 11:35 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 677 by Percy, posted 06-17-2018 5:13 PM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 659 of 877 (835019)
06-16-2018 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 658 by Faith
06-16-2018 11:12 AM


Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done with
quote:
I believe I've not said NONE of the contacts, but VERY FEW, VERY VERY VERY FEW, and I believe they can be explained as having occurred after the strata were deposited. As for missing "time," no, missing layers that often occur at a location but didn't in a particular case, yes.
As we have seen there are quite a few showing significant erosion. None of which can reasonably be explained as having occurred later.
quote:
Again the point is that deformation or erosion as a unit is just one of the many ways it can be shown that the Time Scale is false, and yes of course it's another way of saying all disturbances occur after all the strata were in place and no you have not proved anything to the contrary, what a silly thought, it's obvious in a million places.
You have never explained the idea of erosion as a unit. However deformation as a unit can certainly occur if the geological timescale is true - and we have sufficient examples of deformation occurring before all the strata were deposited to say that your ideas are certainly false,
You don’t have a million examples. So far we haven’t seen any real examples from you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 658 by Faith, posted 06-16-2018 11:12 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 661 by Faith, posted 06-16-2018 11:51 AM PaulK has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 660 of 877 (835020)
06-16-2018 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 658 by Faith
06-16-2018 11:12 AM


Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done with
I believe I've not said NONE of the contacts, but VERY FEW, VERY VERY VERY FEW, ...
And why should be believe you over our own observations and those of geologists who have made thousands of observations previously?
By the way, how many exceptions would it take for you to abandon your take on erosion?
... and I believe they can be explained as having occurred after the strata were deposited.
No, you have not explained it, you have only asserted it.
As for missing "time," no, missing layers that often occur at a location but didn't in a particular case, yes.
Most of us would say that there is a missing record, but not missing time.
Again the point is that deformation or erosion as a unit is just one of the many ways it can be shown that the Time Scale is false, ...
Again, this is just an assertion. You do not show an understanding of the time scale in the first place.
... and yes of course it's another way of saying all disturbances occur after all the strata were in place and no you have not proved anything to the contrary, what a silly thought, it's obvious in a million places.
Again, an assertion. You do not explain angular unconformities nor why deeper strata are more deformed that shallow strata.
Actually the Paleozoic strata deformed as a unit in that they all rise over the uplift.
And yet the older rocks are more disturbed. How is that to occur within your 'block of sedimentary rocks"?
The Supergroup deformed in two blocks of strata. Since I think all these things occurred at the same time in a sense the whole thing deformed as a unit.
Another assertion. Why are the Supergroup rocks more disturbed than the Paleozoic sequence and less disturbed than the Vishnu series?
--->>>>But if you might remember, I also said that angular unconformities are the single exception to this rule of deformation as a unit which would resolve your "contradiction." .
So, how many such exceptions do you want before your notion collapses?
And just how may blocks do you have? Please define a single block for us so that we can get some idea of your neighborhood.
I hope you enjoyed the Twilight Zone theme, it so fits the circumstances.
I get that Twilight Zone feeling every time I read one of your posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 658 by Faith, posted 06-16-2018 11:12 AM 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