Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Depositional Models of Sea Transgressions/Regressions - Walther's Law
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 338 of 533 (727247)
05-16-2014 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 320 by Faith
05-16-2014 10:11 AM


Re: the great unconformity
Faith writes:
All I said was that it is commonly understood by establishment GEOLOGY that there is a band of erosion between the different levels of an angular unconformity. That remains true.
As others have already told you, this is what everyone's been saying. I agree with Edge that you must be "massively confused" to interpret our explanations as their opposite.
The reason none of the missing supergroup material is still around is because it was carried away by erosion. If we were wrong about that then the material should still be there, but it isn't, and there would be evidence of some other process, but there isn't.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by Faith, posted 05-16-2014 10:11 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 347 of 533 (727287)
05-17-2014 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 346 by Faith
05-17-2014 3:04 AM


Re: Musing or rant, not sure which
Faith writes:
Yeah I despise the Old Earth theory, absolutely despise it, I think it is stupid. I suppose that's offensive but that's what I think and maybe it could eventually stop being so offensive and start to look like a reasonable assessment if I repeat it enough.
This will never happen if the only weapon in your arsenal is ignorance. Your ideas are unsupported by any evidence and many of them violate known physical laws. It's crazy to expect people to be convinced by ideas that make no sense.
People come up with crazy ideas all the time. No one thinks any the worse of them because they drop these ideas when the reason they're crazy is explained. You lack the ability to drop any idea you've become enamored of, no matter how crazy or impossible.
The bottom diagram in this image shows a buried fault in Kansas:
The fault crosses layers from the Precambrian to the Mississippian (corresponding to the supergroup, Tonto Group and Redwall Limestone at the Grand Canyon), but stops at the Pennsylvanian (the Supai Group at the Grand Canyon).
Buried faults are hard to find unless cut through by erosion activity like a river. Because they're buried, unless erosion reveals them and brings them to our attention, or if it's an active fault unless an earthquake brings it to our attention, or unless some surface feature makes us suspect a buried fault, it's easy for them to go undetected.
Getting back to what you think is the absence of tectonic activity during the deposition of the layers of the Grand Staircase, it's been explained that the diagrams greatly exaggerate the degree of tilt of the layers between the Vermilion Cliffs and the Grand Canyon, that the tilt of the Tapeats is only slightly less, and that it must have been exposed to tectonic forces that tilted it slightly before the Bright Angel Shale was deposited above it.
It's also been explained that buried layers like the supergroup cannot be tilted without leaving massive evidence behind, and that there is no such evidence.
It's also been explained that a flood cannot sort radiometric material, cannot sort fossils by difference from modern forms, and cannot deposit lighter material before heavier material.
You have almost no natural physical laws left to violate. From friction to strength of materials to density to radiometric decay to the law of conservation of matter to 2LOT, you've violated a whole bunch. There can't be many left.
Until your ideas begin obeying the known laws of the universe you haven't a prayer of convincing anyone within science.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by Faith, posted 05-17-2014 3:04 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 348 by JonF, posted 05-17-2014 8:47 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 358 of 533 (727421)
05-18-2014 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 350 by edge
05-17-2014 10:47 AM


Re: Musing or rant, not sure which
Hi Edge,
I don't understand this diagram:
What is the irregular bricked layer between the Pennsylvanian and Mississippian? Or is the top layer the one labeled "Carbonates" and the word Pennsylvanian actually refers to the layer below it.
Why are the shale, sand and salt, and conglomerate layers on the right side narrow and vertical?
Let me try a guess. The Uncompahgre Uplift on the right was the coastline of an ancient sea. The basin wasn't always this deep. The bottom of the deposits of gypsum, salt, shale, sand, silt and conglomerate used to be much higher, but as deposits formed the weight caused the basin to slouched deeper and deeper into the landscape. The conglomerate nearest this coastline is runoff from the uplift. The sand and silt is normal coastline deposits. The shale is normal off-coastline deposits. The salt formed from repeated evaporations of an irregularly regressing sea.
The anhydrite gypsum, is that a type of sand? If so then it must represent the opposite coast, but then shouldn't there also be adjacent shale and silt layers?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by edge, posted 05-17-2014 10:47 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 360 by Faith, posted 05-18-2014 8:24 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 366 by edge, posted 05-18-2014 10:52 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 367 by Faith, posted 05-18-2014 10:57 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 361 of 533 (727424)
05-18-2014 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 359 by Faith
05-18-2014 8:13 AM


Re: salt basin
Faith writes:
It shows two layers, Pennsylvanian and Mississippian, both limestone, the Pennsylvanian exposed at the surface although that horizontal line I asked about apparently isn't surface, just "datum" so that isn't clear either.
Edge can confirm, but about the layers above the Pensylvanian carbonates, I believe the top layer of the diagram is the actual top layer, and I don't believe Edge was saying that there are layers above that layer today that are not shown on the diagram. I think he was saying that he doesn't know what happened to the layers above, but the undetailed answer is that it was erosion.
I'm not sure what Edge meant about "datum".
Again, Edge can confirm, but I think he presented the diagram to call your attention to the buried fault on the right hand side. This is a fault that occurred during a period when the layers in this region were still being deposited. The Uncompahgre Uplift was tectonic uplift that took place at the same time that the corresponding layers of the Grand Canyon region were being deposited.
As has been described to you over and over again, the world is not tectonically active everywhere at the same time. The last significant earthquake in Los Angeles was in March of this year just a couple months ago, and another could occur at any time. Los Angeles lies near the boundary between two plates and is in a very tectonically active region.
But the last significant earthquake in Missouri was in 1812, and no one's expecting another one anytime soon. Being in the middle of a plate it isn't particularly tectonically active. The Grand Canyon region is also in the middle of a plate. We shouldn't expect to find evidence of a great deal of tectonic activity there, and we don't.
But we do not find a complete absence of tectonic activity either. I've described how the Tapeats was subjected to tectonic movement nearly as great as the uplift experience by the Grand Canyon region. Edge has shown you a buried fault created while the Grand Canyon layers were being deposited. If you look at sedimentary layers nearer plate boundaries instead of in the middle of plates you should find a great number of buried faults. Given that you believe all sedimentary layers were laid down by the flood, the mere fact that buried faults exist falsifies your claim that there was no tectonic activity while they were being deposited.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 359 by Faith, posted 05-18-2014 8:13 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 362 by Faith, posted 05-18-2014 9:23 AM Percy has replied
 Message 363 by PaulK, posted 05-18-2014 9:30 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 364 of 533 (727429)
05-18-2014 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 363 by PaulK
05-18-2014 9:30 AM


Re: salt basin
PaulK writes:
I think that Edge was only saying that it was unclear what was there today. The datum line represents a past surface, and the diagram isn't meant to show any overlying rock.
The term "datum line" was clear from context. It's just that there's nothing in that diagram indicating that the top line is a datum line, that it's just a line of reference and not an actual surface.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by PaulK, posted 05-18-2014 9:30 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 365 by PaulK, posted 05-18-2014 9:52 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 368 by edge, posted 05-18-2014 11:01 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 375 of 533 (727578)
05-19-2014 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 362 by Faith
05-18-2014 9:23 AM


Re: salt basin
Faith writes:
I do tend to ignore your posts too, Percy...
That might help you feel better, but it's destructive to discussion. You've responded to less than half the posts to you in this thread, and of the rest you've ignored most of what was explained. This is how you've maintained the ignorance necessary to avoid realizing that your ill-conceived ideas violate many known physical laws, are unsupported by any evidence, and don't even follow the Bible.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by Faith, posted 05-18-2014 9:23 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by herebedragons, posted 05-19-2014 9:12 AM Percy has replied
 Message 381 by Faith, posted 05-19-2014 9:35 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 384 of 533 (727594)
05-19-2014 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 381 by Faith
05-19-2014 9:35 AM


Re: salt basin
Faith writes:
My ideas violate no physical laws, but many of yours have over the last year or so...
Well, now you're just making stuff up again.
I have been arguing for standard geological views and theories. If they violate known physical laws then you've failed to describe how.
There is no point in having a discussion with somebody whose straw man arguments aren't even remotely rational.
What you call straw man arguments are actually just implications of your ideas that you've failed to consider.
And you lecture me in a particularly offensive way.
Is there anyone who hasn't managed to offend you?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by Faith, posted 05-19-2014 9:35 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 402 of 533 (727648)
05-19-2014 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 398 by Faith
05-19-2014 1:02 PM


Re: salt basin
Faith writes:
"Sorting fossils in water" is a strange misrepresentation of the idea of water carrying sediments along with dead and dying creatures, in currents and levels of the water and so on, to some point on land where they get deposited just the way water does carry things and deposit them, as that model of Walther's Law suggests.
Why do you think Walther's Law suggests this?
Could I suggest that you look up Walther's Law of Facies to confirm for yourself that it isn't what you think it is.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 398 by Faith, posted 05-19-2014 1:02 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 403 of 533 (727651)
05-19-2014 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 398 by Faith
05-19-2014 1:02 PM


Walther's Law Video
Not sure if this will help, but give it a try:
Or this one:
Here's the link if it doesn't display: Walther's Law by Doug Haywick
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 398 by Faith, posted 05-19-2014 1:02 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 404 by Percy, posted 05-19-2014 3:29 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 404 of 533 (727658)
05-19-2014 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 403 by Percy
05-19-2014 2:55 PM


Re: Walther's Law Video
Wonderful quote from Doug Haywick in the Sedimentary Petrology video starting at 12:50:
"All I can tell you is that in order to interpret these things [stratigraphy diagram], to be good enough to interpret them, you have to be a geophysicist. Most geologists who do this don't even get their degrees in geology. They get their degree in geophysics. We don't do that here. But we can give you enough information to make it so that you at least sound like you know what you're doing when you go for that interview with an oil company. And if they like you enough, don't worry, they will send you to school. Because, frankly, they don't trust us for teaching geology, anyway.
"We hear this from the oil companies all the time. Give them as much field experience as possible because people coming out of universities now don't see the rocks. You don't see the rocks, you can't interpret them. This is why you have four field excursions in this class, a bunch in David's class, you've got the field school thing. We're not changing that in any way because the more field experience you have the better you are.
"And if you're good enough and are at least able to interpret things then they'll send you to school and they'll teach you everything you want to know about this, and then one day you may be a geophysicist and never see a rock again in your life."
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 403 by Percy, posted 05-19-2014 2:55 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 405 by Percy, posted 05-19-2014 3:56 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 405 of 533 (727663)
05-19-2014 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 404 by Percy
05-19-2014 3:29 PM


Re: Walther's Law Video
Would appreciate someone explaining the video from 20:00 on, in particular how the counts in the matrix at 26:34 are obtained, and then how to interpret the diagram at 29:37.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 404 by Percy, posted 05-19-2014 3:29 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 407 by edge, posted 05-19-2014 6:03 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 409 of 533 (727701)
05-20-2014 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 379 by herebedragons
05-19-2014 9:12 AM


Re: Interesting resource
Thanks for this. I gave it a brief look, things are often busy during the week, and will look at it more carefully when I have more time.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by herebedragons, posted 05-19-2014 9:12 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 465 of 533 (730454)
06-28-2014 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 448 by Faith
06-28-2014 12:57 AM


Re: All that erosion that sculpted around the strata
Faith writes:
Looks to me like a massive amount of water washed around those formations and washed away all the strata that had to have been there at one time, leaving those monuments, buttes, bumps, hills, whatever they are. Just as it looks like a massive amount of water washed away the strata above the Kaibab rim of the Grand Canyon and formed the cliffs of the Grand Staircase.
You have to blow up this image of West Mitten at Monument Valley to full size to see it clearly, but scree is all around it, far more scree than could have been eroded in the few thousand years since your imagined flood:
Massive flows of water do not erode rock quickly. For example, Niagara falls cut back about 5 feet a year before the diversion of water for hydroelectric power generation. I know you think rock in this western region was softer then and only hardened later, but rock doesn't form this way, plus if the rock had been soft then how would a massive flood have left behind totem structures like this instead of breaking them off:
I don't care if you want to put your varves and your tree rings and your radiometric dating on your side of the evidence ledger for now. But this fact has to go on the Flood side of the evidence ledger.
Fact? What fact? All you've done is described what you've imagined in your own mind. In the real world water doesn't erode rock very quickly, and rock doesn't dry and harden.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Add clarification about Niagara Falls cutback rate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 448 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 12:57 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 480 of 533 (730490)
06-28-2014 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 467 by Faith
06-28-2014 11:44 AM


Faith writes:
So the erosion of the monument is too much for 4300 years? That's pretty funny. It's certainly way too little for a couple billion years. The whole monument should have been dissolved into dust by now.
The oldest layers of the buttes in Monument Valley are maybe 300 million years old, and they have only been exposed to erosive forces for tens of millions of years, but they're aren't tens of millions of years of accumulation of scree because scree, too, is subject to erosive forces. Particles erode off each piece of scree, the piece becomes smaller and smaller, and finally there is nothing left. But of course more scree is continually added to the pile as long as the buttes continue to exist.
The sandstone/siltstone sides of the buttes in monument valley erode at a maximum rate of about a half foot per thousand years, and the scree at the base of the buttes is the material that eroded off their sandstone/siltstone faces. It we look at the image of West Mitten Butte again, which towers a thousand feet above the valley floor, we can see that the scree is in piles that are many, many feet deep:
Since the scree is in piles at least a hundred feet thick, then at a rate of a half foot per thousand years it must have been accumulating for at least a hundred thousand years.
You also haven't explained how narrow towers survived floods so forceful they eroded rock at a rate many, many times faster than even Niagara Falls, and you're still operating under the misimpression that rock forms by drying.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 467 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 11:44 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 487 by Faith, posted 06-29-2014 9:16 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 481 of 533 (730491)
06-28-2014 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 472 by Faith
06-28-2014 12:28 PM


The hoodoos of Bryce Canyon are limestone, which is much softer than sandstone or siltstone. The White Cliffs of Dover also erode at a rate of roughly 1 cm/year (which is same as 2 feet per hundred years).
The sandstone and siltstone in the buttes of Monument Valley erode at a far slower rate of around 15 cm per thousand years for sandstone, and maybe 5 cm per thousand years for siltstone.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 472 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 12:28 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 488 by Faith, posted 06-29-2014 10:03 AM Percy has seen this message but 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