Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,630 Year: 4,887/9,624 Month: 235/427 Week: 45/103 Day: 3/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hello everyone
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1529 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 376 of 380 (713200)
12-10-2013 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 375 by Tanypteryx
12-10-2013 3:14 PM


Re: Looking at Carved Strata without blinders on
Yes, you DON'T know what I'm saying or asking here. And you have some weird idea about what I'm saying about surface erosion too. Too much to sort out. But go right ahead and keep posting your Jeers, that's really all you understand about any of this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-10-2013 3:14 PM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied

Stile
Member (Idle past 128 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 377 of 380 (713202)
12-10-2013 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 373 by Faith
12-10-2013 3:06 PM


Why can't they get cut after a long time?
Faith writes:
Sigh. During the Flood there would have been SHORT periods of exposure at the surface BETWEEN WAVES AND TIDES, during which ripples and minor erosion and footprints could have occurred to the wet sediments, but NOT the kind of erosion that occurs to land that is aerially exposed for years on end, which would be visible in the strata from across the whole canyon. You would not have those neat level horizontal strata ANYWHERE AT ALL had that ever occurred to ANY of the layers.
So... you're saying that you do accept there's differences across the Grand Canyon.
Some areas have neat, level, horizontal strata... and others show signs of erosion and exposure.
Your point has nothing to do with the parts that show signs of erosion and exposure...
Your point has to do with the actual areas that do have neat, level, horizontal strata from top to bottom where no significant signs of erosion and exposure exist.
Right?
You're saying that these areas show that all the layers of the Grand Canyon were created by whatever process, and then the canyon was cut through.
Any comments on those actual areas that do show signs of erosion and exposure have no impact on this point. And yet, that seems to be what everyone is focusing on.
And then, your point is that because of these neat, level, horizontal strata areas... they show that all the layers were there (at least at some points in the canyon) before the canyon was cut.
Therefore... the canyon could not possibly be old because it's impossible for the area to not-be-cut for such a long time?
My question is... why is that impossible? Why can't all those layers form over millions (and even up to a billion... as you say) years before getting cut out? Science that says the earth is old says that the earth is over 3 billion years old. Why can't these layers have been forming for hundreds of millions of years (even close to a billion) and then get cut after they all formed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by Faith, posted 12-10-2013 3:06 PM Faith has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 369 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 378 of 380 (713204)
12-10-2013 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 373 by Faith
12-10-2013 3:06 PM


Sigh. During the Flood there would have been SHORT periods of exposure at the surface BETWEEN WAVES AND TIDES, during which ripples and minor erosion and footprints could have occurred to the wet sediments, but NOT the kind of erosion that occurs to land that is aerially exposed for years on end, which would be visible in the strata from across the whole canyon.
Large paleovalleys carved into the underlying Redwall Limestone developed through dissolution i.e. karstification, and likely were enlarged by west-flowing streams. --- Timons and Karlstrom (eds.), Grand Canyon Geology, Geological Society of America, 2012.
Sink holes, caverns, and solution cracks common in upper parts of the Redwall limestone are in places partly or entirely filled with red mudstone accumulated during deposition of the overlying Supai formation. --- E. D. McKee, U.S. Geological Survey, "The Redwall Limestone", Ninth Field Conference of the New Mexico Geological Society
The top of the Mississippian Redwall limestone in the Grand Canyon area was subject to extensive karstification during a period of about 30 million years from the late Meramacian to early Morrowan time. This hiatus has recently been shown to be much shorter, possibly only 5 million years, in the western Grand Canyon where tidal and deltaic channels draining westward toward the retreating sea are eroded into the Redwall surface. These channels have average depths of about 107 m (350 ft). --- T. Troutman, University of Texas at Austin, "Genesis, Paleoenvironment, and Paleogeomorphology of the Mississippian Redwall Limestone Paleokarst, Hualapai Indian Reservation, Grand Canyon Area", Cave Research Foundation Newsletter vol. 29 no. 1, 2001.
You would not have those neat level horizontal strata ANYWHERE AT ALL had that ever occurred to ANY of the layers.
You posted this gibberish before but didn't attempt to justify it. Why would erosion of one layer affect the unaffected underlying layers?
If you think about it, even you must admit that the top of the Grand Canyon, the Kaibab Limestone, is currently undergoing subaerial erosion. Yet without affecting the surfaces of the strata beneath it, which, if flat, are remaining so.
That's why I specified that the stack above the basement rocks was to be the focus.
Ah, you don't know what "basement rocks" means, then? As to why you want to except such a glaring exception, I think we can guess.
However, I believe the Great Unconformity, as I have argued here before, was also created after ALL the strata were laid down, created by the forced tilting and sliding of a segment of the lowest strata by the volcanic activity beneath the Canyon, which had sufficient force to tilt that segment but not enough to disrupt the horizontality of the stack above it, although the entire region was lifted upward, stack and all.
You did indeed argue that. Oh, how we laughed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by Faith, posted 12-10-2013 3:06 PM Faith has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 369 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 379 of 380 (713206)
12-10-2013 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 374 by Faith
12-10-2013 3:08 PM


Re: Looking at Carved Strata without blinders on
They do not see it in the sections of the Canyon I specifically required to be considered in my experiment ...
I'm sorry, which bits of the Grand Canyon aren't we allowed to look at when considering your ideas? Up until now I've been looking at it "without blinders on" but apparently there are some facts about it that I should completely ignore. Pray tell us which, that we may become blind to the appropriate facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by Faith, posted 12-10-2013 3:08 PM Faith has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3977
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 380 of 380 (713207)
12-10-2013 4:27 PM


A "Hello" topic run amuck - Closing soon
There seems to be a lot of good discussion happening, that does not belong in a topic of this nature.
Going to close it down pretty soon. Find an old or propose a new topic for the happening non-Coffee House theme(s). Please include link(s) back to relevant messages in this topic.
Adminnemooseus

Or something like that.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024