Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Continuation of Flood Discussion
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 61 of 1304 (731319)
05-01-2014 1:35 AM


Re: Rox's post on related things
The issue is the top layer of the dunes, a large wave shape on land with minor wind ripples on the surface..
Faith's hypothesis is that it would remain intact as the sea transgresses over them, when it is much more likely that the peaks are washed into the valleys by the waves.
No, I was giving the possible scenario of DRY deposition on top of the sand first and THEN wet deposition, neither of which would flatten the dunes down to that straight-edge flatness we see at the top and bottom of the Coconino, dry deposition not at all, and wet depends on how wet.
Of course if the SEA TRANSGRESSES OVER THE DUNES then there will be that washing into the valleys and there will also be the saturation of the dunes which would lose that angle of repose that shows they were formed AERIALLY. So which is it, they were formed aerially or soaked in sea water? The angle of repose is different according to whether the sand was dry or wet.
Sand is shown as the transition deposition between terrestrial and marine, and thus would have to undergo wave action as the sea rises, leaving a predominantly flattened surface with minor wave ripples.
The only way you could get that straight tight contact between the Coconino and the formations both above and below it is if it had been actually DEPOSITED BY WATER as one layer in a series, not just flattened by transgressing sea water. Besides the problem of losing your aerial angle of repose, it would never be flattened to that degree of perfection seen in the photos (which of course is absurdly denied, Emperor's new clothes and all that, just open your eyes but oh well...). And besides you are forgetting that edge said the sand dunes were formed over a swampy lowland which is a fairly dippy lumpy foundation, yet there is just as tight and straight a contact line between that lithified lowland and the lithified sand as between the lithified sand and the lithified sediments of whatever the Toroweap is composed of above.
Then as the sea transgresses further -- the process takes years -- the flattened sands would be covered by muds and then calcites.
Such a random process couldn't possibly form the very straight tight contact lines we see in the photos of the Coconino. You guys are just going out of your way to confuse something that is really very simple.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 62 of 1304 (731320)
05-01-2014 6:47 AM


Re: Rox's post on related things
Of course if the SEA TRANSGRESSES OVER THE DUNES then there will be that washing into the valleys ...
Good
... and there will also be the saturation of the dunes which would lose that angle of repose that shows they were formed AERIALLY. ...
Nope. We've been over this before, Faith.
... The angle of repose is different according to whether the sand was dry or wet..
During formation. Once formed they stay in that orientation pattern inside the dunes. Only surfaces are affected by the wave erosion.
Such a random process couldn't possibly form the very straight tight contact lines we see in the photos of the Coconino. You guys are just going out of your way to confuse something that is really very simple.
Those ones that have lots of little variations in their surfaces? The ones where you have to get a mile away from to see them as straight?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

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


Message 63 of 1304 (731321)
05-01-2014 6:50 AM


Re: Rox's post on related things
The pictures are close enough to see that the contact lines are very straight and tight. JUST LOOK.
And I don't know if you are saying the sand was not saturated or even if it was saturated the grains would maintain the same angle of repose. But they would not according to everything I've read. If you stack them in water they have an angle of repose for being stacked in water that is different from being stacked dry. And if you are saying the sand was not saturated by a rise in the sea level that's impossible.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 64 of 1304 (731322)
05-01-2014 8:15 AM


Re: Rox's post on related things
Faith: you have a handy-dandy angle-of-repose kit in your possession. I have the delivery receipt from FedEx. There is everything you need in that kit, except for water, to do angles of repose until you are exhausted.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO READ ABOUT IT.
YOU CAN DO THE FREAKING EXPERIMENT YOURSELF.
Please, just for sweet, gentle Coragyps, do the experiment yourself, or just shut up about angles of repose.
If you need sea water instead of tap, give me the analysis of sea water from The Flood, and I will send you a mix of salts to prepare some. Well, unless it contains dissolved Gopher Wood.

"The Christian church, in its attitude toward science, shows the mind of a more or less enlightened man of the Thirteenth Century. It no longer believes that the earth is flat, but it is still convinced that prayer can cure after medicine fails." H L Mencken

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 65 of 1304 (731323)
05-01-2014 9:17 AM


Question
Weekdays have been busy lately, no time for real participation, but I've been following along and I'm unable to figure out what Faith is saying about angles of repose, so I thought I'd ask.
Say there's a desert that meets the coast. Deeply buried beneath the surface of this desert and covered by many feet of sand is an ancient sand dune with an angle of repose that could only occur on land. The sea transgresses across the desert. Does Faith believe that this deeply buried sand dune will now take on a different angle of repose?
--Percy

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 66 of 1304 (731324)
05-01-2014 10:16 AM


Re: Rox's post on related things
Seems to me that to turn sand dunes into a flat rock, and it IS flat and straight to the naked eye, couldn't happen by new sediments covering them over -- they would simply fall over the dunes into the valleys. Even wet sediment would do that although it might have some flattening effect, just not the VERY flattening effect that had to happen to produce the straight contact lines that are visible to the naked eye. Of course if you submerge the dunes they might flatten out some too, but then you wouldn't have that angle of repose that determines aerial deposition any more -- OR the actual flatness that exists. And you need pressure from above. You need a flattening of the sand and pressure from above. If the sand deposited in swamps how is any resultant sandstone going to be flat on the bottom? If another sediment deposits on the dry sand how is it going to be flat on the top? Seems pretty straightforward to me, but of course you're the Geologist and you just know it had to happen the way you say it happened whether it makes sense or not.
I can find the video if necessary, creationist video, that says the Redwall extends across the continent and even into the UK.
No need.
This picture from your own link, shows cross bedding in the Coconino being cut and planed off by the Toroweap contact.
http://www.earthmagazine.org/...creationist-geologist-battle

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 67 of 1304 (731325)
05-01-2014 10:51 AM


Re: Rox's post on related things
No, I was giving the possible scenario of DRY deposition on top of the sand first and THEN wet deposition, neither of which would flatten the dunes down to that straight-edge flatness we see at the top and bottom of the Coconino, dry deposition not at all, and wet depends on how wet.
I'm not sure what you are saying. The actual angle of repose has little to do with the erosion of the top layer of eolian dunes.
Of course if the SEA TRANSGRESSES OVER THE DUNES then there will be that washing into the valleys and there will also be the saturation of the dunes which would lose that angle of repose that shows they were formed AERIALLY.
Why is that? We are only talking about the uppermost visible layer. As a pile of sand dunes is cut by wave action, the tops are simply cut off.
So which is it, they were formed aerially or soaked in sea water? The angle of repose is different according to whether the sand was dry or wet.
Actually both. They formed subaerially and the were planed of in an erosional event at the base of the Toroweap.
The only way you could get that straight tight contact between the Coconino and the formations both above and below it is if it had been actually DEPOSITED BY WATER as one layer in a series, not just flattened by transgressing sea water.
Why do you say this? Do you have some documentation?
Everytime the upper part of a crossbed is truncated, that is an erosional event.
Besides the problem of losing your aerial angle of repose, ...
Why would we lose the angle of repose? Does the layering of a cake change when you cut it?
... it would never be flattened to that degree of perfection seen in the photos (which of course is absurdly denied, Emperor's new clothes and all that, just open your eyes but oh well...).
Who is talking about flattening? I am saying it was cut.
And just how can you say things like this anyway?
And besides you are forgetting that edge said the sand dunes were formed over a swampy lowland which is a fairly dippy lumpy foundation, ...
Who said that?
... yet there is just as tight and straight a contact line between that lithified lowland and the lithified sand as between the lithified sand and the lithified sediments of whatever the Toroweap is composed of above.
I'm not sure what the problem is here. When we point out erosion (unconfomrities) between different units, you deny such features, and yet now, you claim they are all highly irregular contacts...
I have little doubt that there is some compaction of the different units and an apparent evening up of the contacts, but basically, there is not much original relief on most of these contacts.
Such a random process couldn't possibly form the very straight tight contact lines we see in the photos of the Coconino. You guys are just going out of your way to confuse something that is really very simple.
Your own reference belies this. See my previous post for a picture that you provided to us.
And, please, tell us why this process is random.

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 68 of 1304 (731326)
05-01-2014 11:09 AM


Re: Rox's post on related things
The pictures are close enough to see that the contact lines are very straight and tight. JUST LOOK.
And yet the surface is erosional.
And I don't know if you are saying the sand was not saturated or even if it was saturated the grains would maintain the same angle of repose. But they would not according to everything I've read. If you stack them in water they have an angle of repose for being stacked in water that is different from being stacked dry. And if you are saying the sand was not saturated by a rise in the sea level that's impossible.
You do realize that being deposited and being saturated are different, don't you?

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 69 of 1304 (731327)
05-01-2014 11:15 AM


Re: Question
Say there's a desert that meets the coast. Deeply buried beneath the surface of this desert and covered by many feet of sand is an ancient sand dune with an angle of repose that could only occur on land. The sea transgresses across the desert. Does Faith believe that this deeply buried sand dune will now take on a different angle of repose?
Evidently.
One thing to keep in mind is that all sand dunes are eroded at the top. You do not see an intact dune in any section of eolian sand deposits that I know of.

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


Message 70 of 1304 (731328)
05-01-2014 1:59 PM


Re: Question
All I know is that Coragyps for one and various sources I've read insist that the angle of repose depends on the latest condition of the sand, not what RAZD said, that it is retained from its original formation. I asked what about sand dunes being transported in water and was told that they would have the angle of repose that occurs in water. That is supposed to be evidence against the Flood.
Now you can all decide which is the truth, I couldn't care less.
And by the way Coragyps did send me a kit to judge this for myself but it lacks a protractor and I have a problem with the space to set it up anyway (don't ask) but if I ever get to it maybe it will answer these questions.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 71 of 1304 (731329)
05-01-2014 2:25 PM


Re: Question
The angle is altered on the surface, but not in the buried layers. The action of water on aeolian sand would flatten the top but leave the lower laminae at the same angle.

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 72 of 1304 (731330)
05-01-2014 5:40 PM


Re: Question
Accursed protractor-stealing FedEx employees! I may have to sue!

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 73 of 1304 (731331)
05-02-2014 7:49 AM


Re: Question
truly amazing fail

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 74 of 1304 (731332)
05-03-2014 7:53 AM


Re: So just HOW does this model apply to the GC?
Hi Faith,
Sorry for the week between each reply, it's been another busy week.
Faith writes:
That didn't work either, so the search for your light bulb's on-button continues.
I wish you success in your worthy endeavor.
It takes both someone trying to explain and someone trying to understand for a light bulb to go on. All your effort seems exerted toward misunderstanding almost everything that's explained to you.
Take the buried sand dunes. You apparently believe that when a desert sinks beneath the waves that it not only affects the angle of repose of dunes on the surface but also of any buried dunes. Why you think so impossible a thing no one knows, we can only marvel.
You *could* try a simple experiment. Buy some colored sand and create something like this in a large glass jar:
Slowly add water until the sand is saturated. Did the angle of repose of the buried layers change?
By the way, you say you couldn't use Coragyps angle-of-repose kit because it lacked a protracter, so here you go (click to enlarge):
Right click on the image and select "Print...". Once the protractor is printed, glue it to a piece of cardboard and cut it out.
Or you could go to Walmart where they sell protractors at prices ranging from 40 cents to a few dollars.
Hey, everybody, let's have a contest to guess what obstacle will next prevent Faith from using the angle-of-repose kit. I'm going to guess smudged eyeglasses.
Why is it that you don't require a Genesis Flood kit for any of the nonsense you claim to be true about the Genesis Flood, but even after endless explanations, evidence and demonstrations you still reject even the most obvious of facts about the real world.
Although you seem to be laboring under the mistaken notion that I wouldn't like this idea, in fact I like it very much and hope I will be able to recognize it. So far I haven't seen the pattern.
Faith, 10-year olds could see the obvious pattern that has been presented to you. Here are the layers of the Grand Canyon:
And here is the image originally presented by RoxRKool:
Here's a table listing the corresponding layers in each diagram:
Grand Canyon DaigramRoxRKool Diagram
Mauv LimestoneCarbonate Sediments
Bright Angel ShaleSiliciclastic Muds
Tapeats SandstoneSandstone
Precambrian Basement/Great UnconformityEroding Land
The order of the types of layers in the RoxRKool diagram and the bottommost layers of the Grand Canyon are identical. This is because the same process we see taking place at coastlines all around the world today has been occurring along all coastlines of all the distant eras of the past.
Because seas can both advance and retreat, layers that are adjacent in the RoxRKool diagram can transition one to the other in any order. Sandstone can transition to shale and back to sandstone and then back to shale again, and that would be a pattern that we not only expect but that we find in coastal sediments all around the world.
What shouldn't happen is a transition between layers that are not adjacent in the RoxRKool diagram. We should not see a transition from a sandstone layer to a limestone layer unless there is an unconformity, and this is again precisely what we observe in the layers of the Grand Canyon. For example, the Redwall Limestone is overlain by the sandstone of the lower Supai Group. Limestone and sandstone are not adjacent layers in the RoxRKool diagram, but the boundary between the upper Redwall Limestone and the lower Supai Group is a distinct disconformity. The Redwall Limestone was exposed and eroded on land before sinking beneath the waves where layers of sand could be deposited along new coastlines.
We know this because the sedimentary layers of the geologic column are identical in character to sedimentary layers we see being deposited today, except that those of the geologic column have been subjected to great pressure and so have turned to rock.
I'm sorry but I'm completely unable to understand this paragraph. Identical how, and what does turning to rock have to do with it?
The sedimentary layers of sandstone, shale, limestone and mid-ocean pelagic material that we see being deposited today are identical in character to their more ancient lithified cousins in the geologic column. By identical in character I mean that their composition is the same. The sand being deposited in layers along coastlines today has the same composition as sandstone layers of the Grand Canyon. Clay and mud being deposited in layers along coastlines today has the same composition as shale layers of the Grand Canyon. Calciferous deposits forming in warm shallow seas today has the same composition as limestone layers of the Grand Canyon.
The layers of the Grand Canyon differ from these layers being deposited today in that they were all once deeply buried and subjected to great pressure, which lithified them and turned them to rock. But any layers forming today will also turn to rock if they at some point become deeply buried, and in fact when we drill deep enough we find that the layers deep beneath the sea floor have become rock because of the weight of all the overlying layers.
While you think about this it should help you a great deal if you could incorporate into your thinking that your supposedly natural scenarios have to obey the laws of nature. When you claim scenarios that require flood water to sort by isotopic concentration (which you must acknowledge they do whether you accept the dating conclusions or not), or to deposit denser material above less dense material, or to sort fossils by difference from modern forms, or to transport burrows and worm tracks and footprints and egg clutches undamaged, then you're invoking processes that violate the physical laws of the universe.
Well, somehow all of that was accomplished due to the Flood, the question only remains how.
Yes, Faith, how? Specifically, how did processes that violate known physical laws ever happen naturally? The things you claim happen don't just border on the miraculous, they step boldly over into the miraculous. Why do you feel the need to claim such incredible things happened naturally?
I've given some reasonable ideas whether you like it or not...
If you've demonstrated anything extremely clearly it's that you're not qualified to judge, not even close. The quality of ideas is measured not by how determinedly one holds them but how persuasive they are to others.
There's a lot of your message left but I've replied to enough.
--Percy

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 75 of 1304 (731333)
05-04-2014 10:33 AM


Re: So just HOW does this model apply to the GC?
Yes, Faith, how? Specifically, how did processes that violate known physical laws ever happen naturally?
What is more, why do the products of such processes look exactly like the products of processes occurring today?

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024