Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 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:   Evidence that the Great Unconformity did not Form Before the Strata above it
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1711 of 1939 (757495)
05-09-2015 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1704 by Faith
05-09-2015 1:17 PM


Re: Sedimentation Video
The first few layers did somewhat drape so that was interesting,...
Okay, 'somewhat'...
I'll take that as a 'yes'.
... but they also filled in the low places.
Just as we have been saying all along. The thicknesses are variable, thinning toward the high points.
After it was all covered up to a level point then they deposited horizontally, no tilting there.
As shown in the photographs and in the McKee diagrams...
Although you want me to see the result as like the McKee drawing the only similarity I see is the initial draping. There is no filling of the low places in the drawing, or in any of the other drawings either; ...
Actually, I see thickening of the layers in the direction of the deeper parts of the basins. Not sure what you are talking about here.
... and there is nothing in the experiment like the drape-upon-drape in the drawing. That drape-upon-drape effect is more apparent in one of the other drawings as I recall but I couldn't find that illustration.
Again, I don't understand what you are talking about here. I see drapes consecutively overlapping the older drapes as we go up the slope on the basement rocks. If you are talking about how they pinch out, yes, I would expect that when the basement high points extend out of the water as shorelines and islands.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1704 by Faith, posted 05-09-2015 1:17 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 1712 of 1939 (757496)
05-09-2015 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1709 by JonF
05-09-2015 5:47 PM


Re: sedimentation on slope
An overthrust does not violate the principle of superposition, which is really the Principle of ORIGINAL superposition just as the principle of horizontality is the Pirnciple of ORIGINAL horizontality. The overthrust is understood to have been originally the lower layer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1709 by JonF, posted 05-09-2015 5:47 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1716 by edge, posted 05-09-2015 6:16 PM Faith has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 1713 of 1939 (757497)
05-09-2015 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1707 by Faith
05-09-2015 4:47 PM


Re: sedimentation on slope
Faith writes:
Well, even that experiment in the video shows the sediment settling more deeply in the lower areas while only lightly coating the slopes and peaks.
The video you're referring to was for a different context. Some of the first words you quoted from me in your message were "Concerning horizontality" and "the layers in those road cuts", so presumably you knew that I was talking about sedimentation onto flat submerged terrain, yet now you're presenting as counter-evidence a video of sedimentation falling out of moving water onto a decidedly non-horizontal terrain. Of course sediment is going to collect the most at the lowest point on rolling terrain as sediment bearing water flows across, but long flat (and possibly tilted) terrains in quiet water don't really have low points and don't have a way for sediment to be carried across them.
Let me repeat the question. For the most part sediment doesn't slide down a slope to the lowest point (unless it's too steep) because of normal everyday friction. What makes you think it could?
What makes you think sediments can only deposit horizontally? What is the process you thought through to arrive at this conclusion?
Well, honestly, the main thing is that I consider Steno's principle to be sensible and realistic,...
Citing the notable but incomplete views of a scientist from 350 years ago is not a "process you thought through."
So all this insistence on forming actual layers of the sort seen in the Grand Canyon or the two road cuts at issue at the moment, does hit me as some kind of trickery, even a violation of nature.
How so? What is the process you thought through to arrive at the conclusion that it's some kind of trickery? What details of how the real world actually behaves are you applying? How do sediments fall out of suspension in a way that tells you non-horizontal deposition is impossible?
So if that's what you are aiming to prove, fine, let the experiments begin, because I WILL need to see experiments for something that feels to me like a violation of Nature.
Please explain how it is a violation of nature. If you find yourself starting to write, "Steno's principles say..." then please back up and try again.
You've made your point. Nevertheless the sediments in the video experiment DID pool in the lower places as I would expect.
As everyone expects. The point of that video had nothing to do with horizontality. It was intended to address your unsupported contention that the Archean layers were intrusions.
I'm thinking only about the formation of Strata and while at some angles sediments probably wouldn't fall down the slope and pool at the bottom,... and even where they don't I don't expect to see anything resembling Strata.
Then what do you expect to see when the sediments do not "fall down the slope and pool at the bottom?" Where do the sediments go? If they stay where they fall, and if the sedimentation rate is equal across the tilted surface, how could anything else result but a flat layer?
--Percy
Edited by Admin, : Change author.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1707 by Faith, posted 05-09-2015 4:47 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 1714 of 1939 (757499)
05-09-2015 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1710 by Faith
05-09-2015 5:50 PM


Re: sedimentation on slope
But what I've had in mind is EVENNESS of deposition, evenness of thickness, such as we see in the Grand Canyon strata and also in these road cut pictures.
But that's not what we see at the base of the Tapeats near the monadnocks. We see thinning in the upslope direction
That is what I doubt and would expect an experiment to aim to show. The video experiment does not show that, it shows sediment pooling in the low places and lightly covering the slopes, not at all anything like an even thickness, but then its design wouldn't work for that anyway.
Again that is not what we see in the McKee diagrams. If you are talking about up in the Redwall or the Coconino, fine, but those are way up in the section where the video shows that the layers would be even.
What is needed to show if evenly distributed layering is possible on a slope is an experiment in which the base is a continuously angled surface like those in the road cut pictures.
That would be a non-current flow situation. But it doesn't matter because in the upper parts of the demonstration, the layers are flat and even regardless of what the base was like.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1710 by Faith, posted 05-09-2015 5:50 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 1715 of 1939 (757501)
05-09-2015 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1707 by Faith
05-09-2015 4:47 PM


Re: sedimentation on slope
I never claimed anything along these lines. I'm thinking only about the formation of Strata and while at some angles sediments probably wouldn't fall down the slope and pool at the bottom, at other angles they would, and perhaps the more so in water, and even where they don't I don't expect to see anything resembling Strata.
Why do you capitalize the word 'strata'?
It makes me think you are talking about something different from the rest of us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1707 by Faith, posted 05-09-2015 4:47 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1717 by Faith, posted 05-09-2015 6:35 PM edge has not replied

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


Message 1716 of 1939 (757502)
05-09-2015 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1712 by Faith
05-09-2015 5:52 PM


Re: sedimentation on slope
An overthrust does not violate the principle of superposition, which is really the Principle of ORIGINAL superposition just as the principle of horizontality is the Pirnciple of ORIGINAL horizontality. The overthrust is understood to have been originally the lower layer.
This is true and it is one reason that I have never seen a violation of superposition, regardless of the convolutions YECs generate to refute it. The relevance to this discussion, however, is that things like the Lewis Thrust show evidence of their existence. What is your evidence that tectonism is responsible for the sedimentary drapes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1712 by Faith, posted 05-09-2015 5:52 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1718 by Faith, posted 05-09-2015 6:36 PM edge has not replied

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


Message 1717 of 1939 (757505)
05-09-2015 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1715 by edge
05-09-2015 6:03 PM


Re: sedimentation on slope
Sorry, wanting to emphasize it I suppose, but I'll refrain from capitalizing since it's confusing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1715 by edge, posted 05-09-2015 6:03 PM edge has not replied

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


Message 1718 of 1939 (757506)
05-09-2015 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1716 by edge
05-09-2015 6:16 PM


Re: sedimentation on slope
I've never seen a creationist violate the principle of superposition and don't see why we would. You've wrongly accused me of it a few times though.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1716 by edge, posted 05-09-2015 6:16 PM edge has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 1719 of 1939 (757510)
05-09-2015 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1710 by Faith
05-09-2015 5:50 PM


Re: sedimentation on slope
Faith writes:
But what I've had in mind is EVENNESS of deposition, evenness of thickness, such as we see in the Grand Canyon strata and also in these road cut pictures.
In Message 1714 Edge already pointed out that the base of the Tapeats is not even near the monadnocks, and I can add that none of the layers of the Grand Canyon are even or consistent in thickness. The Tapeats varies from 0-400 feet thick. The Bright Angel Shale is 350-500 feet thick. The Muav varies from 350-600 feet thick. And so it goes. All layers of the Grand Canyon vary in thickness.
What leads you to think there is any such thing as evenness of deposition everywhere? What are you imagining prevents local conditions from causing great variations in sedimentation rates from one place to another? Aren't the varying thicknesses of the layers of the Grand Canyon precisely what one would expect from variable deposition, not even deposition?
What is needed to show if evenly distributed layering is possible on a slope is an experiment in which the base is a continuously angled surface like those in the road cut pictures.
With consistent sedimentation rates across the slope, what are you imagining could prevent layers being deposited evenly?

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1710 by Faith, posted 05-09-2015 5:50 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1723 by Faith, posted 05-09-2015 11:28 PM Admin has replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 1720 of 1939 (757511)
05-09-2015 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1700 by ThinAirDesigns
05-09-2015 10:56 AM


Fairly minor infraction, but you get your warning anyway
edge writes:
This should overcome some of Faith's doubts regarding what sedimentation can do.
Are you kidding? Have you not learned anything? Everything on those videos confirms her assertions and fits far better with the YEC and flood scenarios than the OE theory.
JB
Non-topic snark is not a good thing. I certainly think that your message can be found to be in violation of one or more of the forum rules. Such things are not good for the topic, and tend to lead to more messages not good for the topic.
Or as a wiser and better writer put it:
Alternatively, you might consider how you are presenting your views, because you really managed to come off as condescending, sarcastic, faux-innocent and potentially other fun stuff in a relatively short space of time.
Any responses to the moderation message should go to General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List').
Adminnemooseus

Or something like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1700 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 05-09-2015 10:56 AM ThinAirDesigns has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 1721 of 1939 (757513)
05-09-2015 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1705 by Faith
05-09-2015 1:30 PM


Re: Sedimentation Video
Well, what I think of it? I don't think the experiment matches the McKee drawings very well at all. You get some drape but you don't have the drape upon drape effect of the drawings
I don't see why it doesn't match well enough.
After 5 or 6 layers there is still a high spot under the arrow where the sediment is draping over the peak. That is drape on drape.
7 layers above the peak of this hill, there is still a bit of a dip in the layer, it is still being affected by the draping effect. Drape on drape, no?
and the drawings don't show the sand filling in the low places as the "fine sediment" does in the experiment.
The particles used in this experiment are much finer than what we should expect sandstone to be formed from, but it still shows the basic effect.
Also when sediment is referred to as "fluid" this is what is meant. Note how the sediment influx "flows" over obstacles. But as it settles, it "sticks" to the slopes and "drapes" over high spots. More sediment filled the low spots in this demonstration because the sediment could "flow" more easily into those low spots.
Although I am not particularly surprised that you don't find this demonstration convincing, I simply can't understand why...
I think there's plenty of room for more experiments. Go for it if you'd like.
You will need to give me some clue as to what you would find convincing. I get the impression that nothing will. I would be willing to do an experiment or demonstration, but not for you to just say "Nope, that doesn't do it."
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1705 by Faith, posted 05-09-2015 1:30 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1722 by Faith, posted 05-09-2015 11:16 PM herebedragons has not replied

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


Message 1722 of 1939 (757515)
05-09-2015 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1721 by herebedragons
05-09-2015 10:14 PM


Re: Sedimentation Video
do an experiment or demonstration, but not for you to just say "Nope, that doesn't do it."
In other words it's got to prove your argument or it's not worth it?
ABE: I'll grant that there is more drape effect in the experiment than I would have expected, but unlike the McKee drawings it's so evenly distributed it just comes off as thinly coating the slopes on the way down to pooling in the depressions, rather than forming draped layers as in the drawings. I know this seems picky but that's how it hits me. Maybe you need to get something more asymmetric to make your case. /ABE
As for the draped sandstone I'm not sure how it should be set up. I DON'T see the same draped effect in the video experiment; I DON'T see sediment pooling in the depressions on the drawings, just draped layers. "Drape upon drape" means to me something more like layers of equal thickness that start thin at the top but drape down into the depressions with equal thickness like actual layers except they're draped, if that conveys anything. That's what I see in the McKee drawings. Maybe steeper "monadnocks" are needed for the experiment.
The experiment I'm realizing needs most to be done from my point of view is deposition of layers on a slope like those in both road cut pictures. Can layers that look like the layers in those pictures really form that way? If not then that adds weight to my argument.
But I do reserve the right to say, "Nope, that doesn't do it" so maybe it would be best to leave it until I can do it myself.
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 1721 by herebedragons, posted 05-09-2015 10:14 PM herebedragons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1731 by edge, posted 05-10-2015 1:01 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 1735 by Admin, posted 05-10-2015 8:23 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 1723 of 1939 (757517)
05-09-2015 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1719 by Admin
05-09-2015 8:28 PM


Re: sedimentation on slope
I can add that none of the layers of the Grand Canyon are even or consistent in thickness. The Tapeats varies from 0-400 feet thick. The Bright Angel Shale is 350-500 feet thick. The Muav varies from 350-600 feet thick. And so it goes. All layers of the Grand Canyon vary in thickness.
I'm aware of the variations in thickness across huge distances. Nevertheless the impression of the strata over pretty huge distances, such as seen for instance from a distance in the Grand Canyon, is of a remarkable evenness of thickness. Visible variations of thickness within a few hundred or even perhaps thousands of feet would suggest something other than normal deposition patterns to me.
With consistent sedimentation rates across the slope, what are you imagining could prevent layers being deposited evenly?
I'd rather not get into an argument about this now, I'd rather see what happens in an experiment if you don't mind.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1719 by Admin, posted 05-09-2015 8:28 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1724 by Coyote, posted 05-09-2015 11:38 PM Faith has replied
 Message 1729 by edge, posted 05-10-2015 12:49 AM Faith has replied
 Message 1734 by Admin, posted 05-10-2015 7:48 AM Faith has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 1724 of 1939 (757519)
05-09-2015 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1723 by Faith
05-09-2015 11:28 PM


Re: sedimentation on slope
I'd rather not get into an argument about this now, I'd rather see what happens in an experiment if you don't mind.
So do the experiment.
Then maybe you'll only be 200-300 years behind what science has already discovered.
Its a start--if you can accept the results of your own experiments.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1723 by Faith, posted 05-09-2015 11:28 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1725 by Faith, posted 05-09-2015 11:46 PM Coyote has replied

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


Message 1725 of 1939 (757520)
05-09-2015 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1724 by Coyote
05-09-2015 11:38 PM


Re: sedimentation on slope
I could do a dry angle-of-repose experiment now, getting back to Coragyps' challenge, but the others I really can't set up properly and want to wait until family get here toward the end of June. They can also get some of the material I need that would be hard for me to get.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1724 by Coyote, posted 05-09-2015 11:38 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1726 by Coyote, posted 05-09-2015 11:48 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 1743 by Admin, posted 06-23-2015 8:43 AM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024