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:   Continuation of Flood Discussion
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 181 of 1304 (731439)
05-11-2014 8:52 PM


Re: To edge: no tectonic activity in Grand Canyon Paleozoic
After spending years in forums such as this, I'm inclined to agree. It allows ignorance to become a fortress.
If we are honest, we will admit that religion is not unique in this regard. If you hang out for a while in the forums where religious belief is not the topic, you will see examples of other strongly held belief systems interfering with logical thought. And if you are very careful and objective, you will recognize those forces at work within yourself.
Everybody is a Creationist about some topic. Quite frankly, I'm not even sure religion is the most egregious belief in this respect. I think it is just the most notorious.
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

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


Message 182 of 1304 (731440)
05-12-2014 5:21 AM


Re: To edge: no tectonic activity in Grand Canyon Paleozoic
Your examples of the strata are right in principle but wrong in application. The example you gave at the bottom is not about anything I've been talking about, nor about the uplifts edge has been talking about either. As I already said, graduations in thickness are not what I'm talking about as such. The Tapeats on your diagram is interrupted by the Great Unconformity, not an uplift, and the Muav does not show anything like even your own diagram of the strata above.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 183 of 1304 (731441)
05-12-2014 5:43 AM


Re: To edge: no tectonic activity in Grand Canyon Paleozoic
...The Tapeats on your diagram is interrupted by the Great Unconformity...
That alone means no flood was involved.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

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


Message 184 of 1304 (731442)
05-12-2014 6:07 AM


Re: To edge: no tectonic activity in Grand Canyon Paleozoic
DURING THE LAYING DOWN OF THE STRATA, edge. There was plenty of tectonism after they were all laid down.
Not compared to what happened in the Precambrian...
That's another subject. The layers called Paleozoic from Cambrian to Permian, which form the walls of Grand Canyon, show no uplift until they were all in place, along with all the Grand Staircase strata too, up through the Claron. Then the tremendous erosion we see on the diagram above the Permian occurred, which looks to me like the Precambrian hardly compares, but I'm talking about the layers in between where no disturbance is depicted.
And, in fact, most of the younger activity was still confined to uplift of the Colorado Plateau and formation of the Kaibab Uplift.
If what you are talking about is the whole Colorado Plateau in a series of uplifts of the strata that remained like a stack of pancakes being moved from one table to another, then you are not talking about what I'm referring to in that diagram, which is the distortion of the land in what look like local uplifts.
[abe] See cross section I've included for reference at the bottom of this post. [/abe]
Going from left to right, starting with the far left you can see that the whole stack of the Grand Staircase pushes upward to the south of the Hurricane Fault while the part of the stack to the north has fallen at an angle, all the same layers with the Claron remaining horizontal on top of them, which is evidence that all the layers were there when that fault occurred.
Next is the magma dike which penetrates straight up through ALL the layers from the Tapeats through the Claron, which is evidence that all those layers were there when that occurred too.
Then farther south you can see all the evidence of tectonic activity in the massive erosion which formed the cliffs and canyons of the Grand Staircase, and then the Sevier Fault that splits the whole stack there too, as far as the stack continues at that point though it must have also split it up to the Claron when that layer was still present. there is no indication of any kind of displacement at a particular layer which would be expected if it occurred to one of the layers during its formation and before those above it were laid down.
For this whole distance the land as a block is also shown rising toward the Grand Canyon area, where the rise increases into the mound into which that canyon is cut, suggesting an uplift centered in that area, in fact at the Grand Canyon itself where we see the Great Unconformity beneath it along with evidence of magma dikes and shorter fault lines, and that fault line that looks like it is continuous with the south wall of the Grand Canyon although you identify it with the north wall. All those events beneath the canyon are not my focus, however, just the uplift itself which seems to be part of the tectonic activity that formed the Grand Staircase as I just described.
Meanwhile all the strata from the Tapeats to the Kaibab remain parallel, which looks to me like evidence that the disturbances just described did not occur during their laying down but afterward, same as with all the other tectonism in the Grand Staircase area.
IF you are talking about the entire region's being lifted as a unit in each of those uplift events at various times during the Paleozoic -- is that what you are claiming?
Well, they weren't exactly mountain building events with
But the diagram shows it was lifted in specific locations, all of which had to occur after all the strata were ni place.
In the Phanerozoic, sure. As I have said several times, there was some minor block-faulting such as that along the Bright Angel Fault.
I have no idea what this refers to or what you think it explains. The Phanerozoic covers the entire depth of the strata above the Great Unconformity which I've just been discussing. If the fault line you are talking about is the one through the Grand Canyon then it had to have been part of the same tectonic upheaval as formed the phenomena I've just described.
And you really haven't accounted for how the entire block of layers would have followed the contour of those visible uplifts if any of that occurred during the laying down of the strata.
Actually, I have.
Several times.
Actually you have not, and you still don't even know what I'm talking about. Please consider the phenomena described above.
No, the effects of this would not be all that refined. It's not a matter of scale at all. If the draftsman could represent faults and how they displaced the strata relative to each other on each side of them he/she could certainly have represented the very obvious effects of sediments being laid down after the contours of the land had changed.
Sure. I'm certain that you know better than people who have actually studied the Grand Canyon and the Colorado Plateau.
.
Well, as a matter of fact since you are ignoring everything I'm pointing out on this diagram I really don't think you have a clue about it and all your rank-pulling and attempts to humiliate me are irrelevant.
If we distill your convoluted argument down to its essential point that there are not enough unconformities in the Grand Canyon section, then you are clearly wrong, because we can see them in a more detailed stratigraphic analysis.
This has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
[abe] Here is that cross section again for reference:
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : To add cross section at bottom and reference to it above

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


Message 185 of 1304 (731443)
05-12-2014 6:27 AM


Re: To edge: no tectonic activity in Grand Canyon Paleozoic
In the Paleozoic, the region acted as a rigid block. There is no evidence of significant deformation, but relative uplift and slight tilting. This gives the impression of continuous sedimentation,
But you are claiming that some of the layers were affected by tectonic activity during their own time period and my point is that if that had been the case then the sediments would NOT give the impression of continuous sedimentation at all on that diagram. [abe] Subsequent layers would [/abe] deposit horizontally rather than following the contours of that relative uplift and slight tilting AS THEY OBVIOUSLY DO, and there is no reason whatever that a draftsman would not have reflected that reality IF IT WAS THE REALITY.
but it is clear that the Temple Butte, for instance, does exactly what Faith says does not happen. It occurs in channels and low spots in the unconformity. In fact, it is so discontinuous that it often doesn't even show up on many diagrams, and yet, that surface is irregular in detail.
That local event has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
I think it is self-serving of Faith to assert that scale has nothing to do with observation of geological features.
I DID NOT MAKE SUCH A GENERAL STATEMENT. Of course scale would affect SOME geological features, all I said was that it wouldn't affect the ones I'm talking about. Misquoting me of course makes a garbled mess of what I'm saying just as your studied ignoring of what I'm pointing out on the diagram does. You aren't even trying to get it and that must be because you're so sure of your geological expertise that you don't need to bother thinking about anything I have to say.
It boggles the mind that someone with no eductation would have the nerve to make such a statement.
And your prejudiced assessment of my ability to understand what I'm seeing on a diagram is obviously the reason you aren't bothering to follow one thing I'm saying.
Your attitude in this discussion shames your vaunted education.
I assure her that if you observe with a microscope, you will see different features than you would with satellite imagery.
Golly gee, imagine that. Unfortunately for you what I'm describing would not be aided by either perspective, it's right there for you to see if you could get those blinders off for half a minute.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 186 of 1304 (731444)
05-12-2014 8:58 AM


Re: To edge: no tectonic activity in Grand Canyon Paleozoic
Faith writes:
As I already said, graduations in thickness are not what I'm talking about as such.
You're not thinking this through. You objected that if there had been tectonism while the layers of the Grand Canyon were being deposited then we shouldn't see neatly parallel layers, and you're right. Tectonism is unlikely to result in equal uplift or subsidence across a very large region, and so some parts of the region should have slopes. And they do.
And this is what my image of slightly sloped layers having additional layers deposited upon them shows. The pink layer was deposited upon a slightly sloped layer, and so on the left side of the diagram it is very thick, and on the right side of the diagram it has diminished to the point where it no longer exists:
So you actually *are* talking about gradations in thickness when you're talking about tectonism producing non-parallel layers, because gradually increasing or decreasing thickness is an indication that the topmost layer wasn't level when another layer was deposited upon it.
The Grand Canyon diagrams we've been using are not pictures. They tend to be illustrative and general. That's why I showed you this other diagram where the Temple Butte Limestone has petered out completely and is no longer present:
This diagram must be of the extreme eastern canyon, and as you travel west the Temple Butte layer becomes thicker and thicker, maybe as much as a thousand feet thick. If you could follow the Temple Butte layer north into Nevada you'd find that it eventually becomes over 2000 feet thick.
The gradually changing thickness of the Temple Butte is because the layer upon which it was deposited was not level. That lower layer sloped downward as you travel southeast to northwest. I should add that tectonism is not the only possible contributor to the slope, since repeated sea transgressions/regressions can also affect sloping.
--Percy

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 187 of 1304 (731445)
05-12-2014 9:45 AM


Re: To edge: no tectonic activity in Grand Canyon Paleozoic
Faith writes:
Golly gee, imagine that. Unfortunately for you what I'm describing would not be aided by either perspective, it's right there for you to see if you could get those blinders off for half a minute.
Typical, and fraudulent Faith blather. "I'm right, and you'd see it if you just think."
You must be about the worst lecturer in the history of science. Or perhaps there is another explanation.
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

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


Message 188 of 1304 (731446)
05-12-2014 9:52 AM


Re: To edge: no tectonic activity in Grand Canyon Paleozoic
So you actually *are* talking about gradations in thickness when you're talking about tectonism producing non-parallel layers, because gradually increasing or decreasing thickness is an indication that the topmost layer wasn't level when another layer was deposited upon it.
You are talking about the Great Unconformity, which I believe occurred after all the strata were in place TOO but that IS another subject in any case. You are NOT addressing the point I'm making about the fact that the strata remain parallel OVER THE UPLIFT into which the GC was cut OR that they were all laid down all the way up through the Claron (Tertiary) before the Grand Staircase was cut and maintain their parallel form there too. And I've already discussed this with you before, I'm trying to get edge to see the point I'm making.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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


Message 189 of 1304 (731447)
05-12-2014 9:59 AM


Re: To edge: no tectonic activity in Grand Canyon Paleozoic
I AM right about this and you WOULD see it if you would just think.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 190 of 1304 (731448)
05-12-2014 10:05 AM


Re: To edge: no tectonic activity in Grand Canyon Paleozoic
Faith writes:
You are talking about the Great Unconformity,...
No, the Great Unconformity is the last thing on my mind.
You pointed out that if tectonism was present as the layers of the Grand Canyon were being deposited then there should be evidence of it in the form of non-parallel layers. Right so far?
Edge has been trying to convince you that there *is* evidence of tectonism in the layers of the Grand Canyon, and I've been trying to convince you what one type of that evidence, namely stratigraphy, would look like. It would look like the pink layer in this diagram, the one deposited upon slightly tilted layers and that gets thinner and thinner as you follow it from left to right:
The pink layer in my diagram is analogous to the Temple Butte layer that gets thinner and thinner as you move from northwest to southeast until it finally peters out and disappears altogether. This is because it was deposited upon layers that were slightly tilted due to tectonism.
You are NOT addressing the point I'm making about the fact that the strata remain parallel OVER THE UPLIFT into which the GC was cut OR that they were all laid down all the way up through the Claron (Tertiary) before the Grand Staircase was cut and maintain their parallel form there too.
Actually I'm addressing precisely the point you're making. You're saying that if tectonism were present while the layers were being deposited that they shouldn't all be parallel, we agree with you, and we're providing evidence that they're not all parallel, not if you trace them for tens and hundreds of miles instead of just a mile or so.
--Percy

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 191 of 1304 (731449)
05-12-2014 10:07 AM


Re: To edge: no tectonic activity in Grand Canyon Paleozoic
You *are* wrong about this and you *would* see it if you would just think.
Okay, now what? Maybe discuss some evidence? That you understand, that is?
--Percy

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 192 of 1304 (731450)
05-12-2014 10:10 AM


Re: To edge: no tectonic activity in Grand Canyon Paleozoic
I AM right about this and you WOULD see it if you would just think.

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


Message 193 of 1304 (731451)
05-12-2014 10:13 AM


Re: To edge: no tectonic activity in Grand Canyon Paleozoic
The pink layer in my diagram is analogous to the Temple Butte layer that gets thinner and thinner as you move from northwest to southeast until it finally peters out and disappears altogether. This is because it was deposited upon layers that were slightly tilted due to tectonism.
There is no evidence for this tilting you are talking about EXCEPT the Great Unconformity, and if you aren't talking about that then all you are describing is the gradual thinning of a deposition because it ran out of stuff to deposit. That happens somewhere in all the depositions, that's why I said thickness and thinness are irrelevant. You are making up the tilt, it does not exist there. IF IT DID EXIST THE LIMESTONE WOULD NOT JUST PETER OUT, it would accumulate in the lower areas and maybe even cover the rise depending on how much was being deposited. It would NOT just peter out. That is a sign that there was no more sediment to deposit.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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


Message 194 of 1304 (731452)
05-12-2014 10:15 AM


Re: To edge: no tectonic activity in Grand Canyon Paleozoic
I don't believe you either. So what?

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 195 of 1304 (731453)
05-12-2014 10:42 AM


Re: To edge: no tectonic activity in Grand Canyon Paleozoic
When you're trying to convince someone of something, you show them the evidence for your assertion. You don't just tell them that you are right and that they would know it if they thought about it.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024