Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Depositional Models of Sea Transgressions/Regressions - Walther's Law
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 211 of 533 (726796)
05-12-2014 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Faith
05-12-2014 3:14 PM


You just declared it off-limits without discussing it. Unless claiming Fluddidit is considered a "discussion" nowadays.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Faith, posted 05-12-2014 3:14 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by edge, posted 05-12-2014 4:06 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


Message 212 of 533 (726798)
05-12-2014 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Faith
05-12-2014 2:48 PM


Re: To edge: no tectonic activity in Grand Canyon Paleozoic
The insinuations are unwelcome.
The insinuations are caused.
I have no reluctance to discuss it. I'm trying to get Percy to stop changing the subject, which is all he's doing. I'm discussing the contours of the whole area as seen on that cross section and I don't want to be derailed into pages of argument about the Great Unconformity which I've argued to death elsewhere.
Actually, Percy's discussion is directly applicable to all unconformities in the GC succession. The only thing he leaves out is the erosion of the underlying unit.
And your usage of the term 'contours' is vague. You are talking about an on-lap relationship sequence which is covered in Geology 101. Believe it or not, people have thought about this.
I see it as having occurred after all the strata were laid down, along with all the other evidences of the great tectonic and volcanic upheavals that occurred at that time, which I just laid out in my previous post to you.
You can quibble about tectonism during the Paleozoic if you disregard everything else going around the edges of the Colorado Plateau, and if you disregard warping of the rocks during the Laramide Orogeny, and the commencement of the formation of the Great Basin. That's fine with me, but the problem is that this is irrelevant to your basic premise that all tectonism formed after the Claron in the late Cenozoic.
Most creationists accept the establishment view of the Great Unconformity and say the Flood occurred afterward. I don't, I think the Flood laid down all the strata, to at least three miles deep judging by the Gs-GC area, and THEN all that upheaval occurred which caused the uplifting of the land seen in that diagram, and caused ALL the erosion, ALL the magma effects, ALL the faultings, and cut ALL the canyons and cliffs and monuments of the entire area, AND also caused the Great Unconformity. There must be at least half a dozen threads where I've argued this to death with somebody or other.
This is where you are stark-raving wrong. You force data into a time frame that is completely ridiculous and defies the most basic geological principles. You have just set geology back a millenium.
But there is no violation of horizontal deposition in that happenstance, ...
Why not (assuming for the moment that your statement makes sense)?
and it was lifted along with all the other strata in parallel over the contours of the land just like all the rest of them.
Not relevant. You could say the same thing about a pebble that I put on that surface.
There is nothing to indicate that the Muav was following an uplift up against which the Temple Butte was deposited, ...
I didn't say there was. I said that the formation is not continuous, so how could it be completely parallel?
... there is just some way the different calcareous sediments interacted during the laying down. This isn't at all related to what I'm pointing out about the contours of the whole region that the strata follow as a block.
You are not reading my posts. I said that they are not parallel because the units are discontinuous. But, in fact, I'm pretty sure that they are not completely parallel anyway, because the units thicken and thin, like due to erosion. Remember, I also pointed out that the Coconino/Hermit contact is irregular. We provided a reference to this effect.
So, how are they parallel?
A lot of the supposed erosion is hypothetical, required by the theory but not actually observed.
Well, I'm sure you would know. But can you provide a supporting reference other than your vast experience in the GC?
Erosion that is observable is generally minimal considering the idea that it was supposedly caused by long periods at the surface of the earth, OR it's erosion that is better explained by friction between layers such as the tilting of the Great Unconformity up against the Tapeats during the great upheaval I believe occurred after al the strata were laid down.
Umm, ... that would not be erosion, and it doesn't look like erosion. We know what we actually find there. I have been over this with you before. Please find supporting evidence. So far you have produced no evidence to support your story.
There are other explanations possible for all of it AFTER the big picture is taken into account.
Well, you're not doing very well to this point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Faith, posted 05-12-2014 2:48 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 213 of 533 (726799)
05-12-2014 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Dr Adequate
05-12-2014 3:25 PM


You just declared it off-limits without discussing it. Unless claiming Fluddidit is considered a "discussion" nowadays.
Apparently, an assertion passes as a discussion in YEC terminology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-12-2014 3:25 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Faith, posted 05-13-2014 1:12 AM edge has not replied

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


Message 214 of 533 (726807)
05-13-2014 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by edge
05-12-2014 4:06 PM


The "assertion" is a description of another model altogether, that's the point. The model with all its parts is coherent and explanatory. I haven't laid out all its parts in this thread, only some of it, trying to get just enough of it described to explain my interest in the topic of the thread, the sea transgression/regression model for how the depositions were laid down.
But we never got to that and probably won't thanks to the usual **consternation** over a creationist's objections to the great god **Science**. Right now I couldn't care less what anybody thinks, you won't consider what I'm saying, you're all committed to your usual stuff which I'm trying to show can be thought of in a different way, and I'm SO *bad* for daring to contradict a -- *gasp* -- ***Scientist*** -- *gasp* -- without having paid my dues, that I'd love to see you all take a flying leap off the GC north rim (it's higher). Of course I have to ask the Lord to forgive me and take away such violent impulses.
But that's just right now. After some food and sleep I may be back to verbally torture you all some more.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by edge, posted 05-12-2014 4:06 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Percy, posted 05-13-2014 5:58 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 217 by JonF, posted 05-13-2014 7:28 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 218 by NoNukes, posted 05-13-2014 8:01 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 215 of 533 (726808)
05-13-2014 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by Faith
05-12-2014 10:13 AM


Re: To edge: no tectonic activity in Grand Canyon Paleozoic
Faith writes:
There is no evidence for this tilting you are talking about EXCEPT the Great Unconformity,...
Here's a version of the old familiar Grand Staircase diagram where I've called attention to a couple things. I've circled some obvious tilting in red that we all agree is due to tectonic forces, and I've circled a little bit of the Temple Butte layer in blue so that it's easy to pick out:
We know this diagram is only illustrative. It's a composite of features showing as a continuous straight region what is actually a curvy path from Cedar Breaks south east to the Grand Canyon. Note that all along its course the Temple Butte is shown as having a uniform thickness and as being completely parallel to all the other layers, but we know this isn't true. We know that in the eastern Grand Canyon the Temple Butte is thin to non-existent, and that by the time you get to Nevada (to the west (left) of Cedar Breaks) that it is a couple thousand feet thick.
You've been arguing how neatly parallel all the layers are, but that's a false impression you've garnered from the nice neat diagrams. The Temple Butte can't be parallel to other layers if in its southeastern section its only a hundred feet thick while as it runs northwest it becomes a couple thousand feet thick. In the Grand Canyon region the Coconino varies in thickness by a couple hundred feet, the Muav Limestone varies from 150 to 800 feet thick, the Bright Angle shale from 200 to 450 feet, and the Tapeats Sandstone from 100 to 300 feet thick. Instead of the neatly parallel layers you see in diagrams, what you really have is this (this is illustrative and isn't meant to represent any real layers):
The causes of the unevenness will vary. Some of it will be due to tectonism, some to different amounts of erosion at unconformity boundaries, some to the effects of sea transgressions/regressions, some to isostatic rebound, and some to a combination of factors.
Many, many different things can happen geologically, and the layers of the geologic column are a record of what has happened. There's no hint of a global flood in the geologic column, just mountains of evidence of slow sedimentary deposition and familiar geologic processes over millions and millions of years.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Faith, posted 05-12-2014 10:13 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Faith, posted 05-13-2014 10:06 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 216 of 533 (726809)
05-13-2014 5:58 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by Faith
05-13-2014 1:12 AM


Faith writes:
But we never got to that and probably won't thanks to the usual **consternation** over a creationist's objections to the great god **Science**. Right now I couldn't care less what anybody thinks, you won't consider what I'm saying, you're all committed to your usual stuff which I'm trying to show can be thought of in a different way, and I'm SO *bad* for daring to contradict a -- *gasp* -- ***Scientist*** -- *gasp* -- without having paid my dues, that I'd love to see you all take a flying leap off the GC north rim (it's higher).
...
But that's just right now. After some food and sleep I may be back to verbally torture you all some more.
You've gone off the deep end again. I'm sure it's a puzzle to all of us why you're trying so hard to appear scientific when you hate science so much. I hope that when you return you dedicate yourself to working out scenarios that are physically possible and supported by evidence. Which is what science is all about.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Faith, posted 05-13-2014 1:12 AM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 217 of 533 (726810)
05-13-2014 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by Faith
05-13-2014 1:12 AM


The "assertion" is a description of another model altogether, that's the point. The model with all its parts is coherent and explanatory. I haven't laid out all its parts in this thread, only some of it, trying to get just enough of it described to explain my interest in the topic of the thread, the sea transgression/regression model for how the depositions were laid down.
I.e. an assertion with no support.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Faith, posted 05-13-2014 1:12 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by edge, posted 05-13-2014 9:20 AM JonF has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 218 of 533 (726811)
05-13-2014 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by Faith
05-13-2014 1:12 AM


I haven't laid out all its parts in this thread
You cannot do that because you don't have a model. What you have is a conclusion which all facts must be fit into. Small wonder that you object to people asking about facts that you are not willing to consider. Small wonder that you pretend that relevant issues are a paradigm shift.
Right now I couldn't care less what anybody thinks, you won't consider what I'm saying
Once again you feel you need to tell us how you've suffered by not being believed. It is not about you. You are free to believe what you want and to type what you want. But you cannot post that weak stuff here and not get a rebuttal.
And your own rebuttal response is the perfect opportunity to show me where I've done wrong in my critique. Somehow you always take it as the time to whine. If you want a forum to publish stuff without critique, there is always your blog.
I'm trying to show can be thought of in a different way
Apparently, your 'way' involves quite a bit of selective viewing of the evidence and ignoring of the facts. That is not the least bit convincing. Nobody is going to change away from a scientific method of looking at the evidence until you've shown you have something better.
Let's be specific. When you say that seismic activity should have caused effect X and that effect Y is not enough, why should we believe your unsupported statement? You have zero credentials and no background. From that view point, every answer can be rejected and none accepted. Not surprising that you yourself cannot find anything wrong with your own proposals.
that I'd love to see you all take a flying leap off the GC north rim (it's higher).
I hope your day is blessed. Mine will be.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Faith, posted 05-13-2014 1:12 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 219 of 533 (726815)
05-13-2014 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by JonF
05-13-2014 7:28 AM


I.e. an assertion with no support.
Correct, thank you.
There is nothing wrong with an assertion per se, but when one makes an outlandish assertion and then blunders forward, as though it needs no support, red flags go up. One may do that in church, but in science it doesn't fly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by JonF, posted 05-13-2014 7:28 AM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Faith, posted 05-13-2014 9:57 AM edge has replied

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


Message 220 of 533 (726821)
05-13-2014 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by edge
05-13-2014 9:20 AM


I've supported it many times elsewhere, here I was just trying to state it as part of the whole scenario I have in mind.
But I have to say also that when it comes to support a lot of what Geology says really doesn't have support beyond the persuasion of many that it's true. When you interpret a layer of rock as an "environment" say a lacustrine environment, based on certain things you find in the rock, you have no way of proving that, all you can do is assert it and point to the elements that convince you. When you interpret anything it's just an interpretation, you can't prove your interpretation is correct, all you can do is try to be persuasive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by edge, posted 05-13-2014 9:20 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by edge, posted 05-13-2014 10:13 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 224 by Faith, posted 05-13-2014 10:16 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 227 by JonF, posted 05-13-2014 10:33 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 221 of 533 (726822)
05-13-2014 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Percy
05-13-2014 5:47 AM


Re: To edge: no tectonic activity in Grand Canyon Paleozoic
You are as usual missing the point. And so is edge, who is making an issue out of definitions rather than simply looking at the diagram and recognizing that "a block of strata in parallel that follow the contours of the land" is very clear there.
It doesn't matter if a particular layer thickens or thins, I keep trying to say that, the point is that they ALL FOLLOW THAT CURVY PATH SHOWN ON THE DIAGRAM as a blocki.
And I'm not going to waste my breath saying more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Percy, posted 05-13-2014 5:47 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-13-2014 10:14 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 225 by edge, posted 05-13-2014 10:18 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 228 by Percy, posted 05-13-2014 10:34 AM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 222 of 533 (726823)
05-13-2014 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by Faith
05-13-2014 9:57 AM


I've supported it many times elsewhere, here I was just trying to state it as part of the whole scenario I have in mind.
Then I haven't seen it. So far all I've seen is an assertion that the Great Unconformity is a tectonic discontinuity.
The facts are completely against this.
But I have to say also that when it comes to support a lot of what Geology says really doesn't have support beyond the persuasion of many that it's true.
So, you are saying that such things as earthquake first movelment solutions and GPS measurements do not support plate tectonics, for instance?
When you interpret a layer of rock as an "environment" say a lacustrine environment, based on certain things you find in the rock, ... you have no way of proving that, all you can do is assert it and point to the elements that convince you.
First of all we do not 'prove' anything. We point to the evidence and use principles to interpret them.
When you interpret anything it's just an interpretation, you can't prove your interpretation is correct, all you can do is try to be persuasive.
I'm not sure what's wrong with interpretations that are supported by evidence. Please elaborate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Faith, posted 05-13-2014 9:57 AM Faith has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 223 of 533 (726824)
05-13-2014 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by Faith
05-13-2014 10:06 AM


Re: To edge: no tectonic activity in Grand Canyon Paleozoic
It doesn't matter if a particular layer thickens or thins, I keep trying to say that, the point is that they ALL FOLLOW THAT CURVY PATH SHOWN ON THE DIAGRAM as a blocki.
What did you expect?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Faith, posted 05-13-2014 10:06 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 224 of 533 (726825)
05-13-2014 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by Faith
05-13-2014 9:57 AM


the great unconformity
Here's a better one: When you interpret the Great Unconformity as the root of a former mountain range that eroded down nearly flat before the strata now above it started being laid down, you have absolutely nothing to prove this, it's ALL persuasion, it's ALL interpretation. So really you have no REAL basis for objecting to my alternative view that it was created by tectonic forces that tilted a segment of strata after all the upper layers were already in place. There's nothing illogical about it, it's an alternative interpretation and you have no actual evidence for yours over mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Faith, posted 05-13-2014 9:57 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by edge, posted 05-13-2014 10:27 AM Faith has replied
 Message 234 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-13-2014 3:54 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 235 by Percy, posted 05-13-2014 5:02 PM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 225 of 533 (726826)
05-13-2014 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by Faith
05-13-2014 10:06 AM


Re: To edge: no tectonic activity in Grand Canyon Paleozoic
You are as usual missing the point. And so is edge, who is making an issue out of definitions rather than simply looking at the diagram and recognizing that "a block of strata in parallel that follow the contours of the land" is very clear there.
No, what we are saying is that, in detail, the layers are not parallel.
I have asked you repeatedly how a formation that is discontinuous can be parallel to the layers above and below. You have failed to answer this question other than express denial based on your experience at working in the Grand Canyon.
It doesn't matter if a particular layer thickens or thins, I keep trying to say that, the point is that they ALL FOLLOW THAT CURVY PATH SHOWN ON THE DIAGRAM as a blocki.
It does when the internal layering shows thickening. Please draw for us a diagram showing how a unit can thicken and thin while keeping its upper and lower contacts parallel.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Faith, posted 05-13-2014 10:06 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