Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   Growing the Geologic Column
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 646 of 740 (734997)
08-04-2014 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 523 by Faith
08-02-2014 3:41 AM


Re: cross section shows all layers were in place except top one
Sure, if you really believe the faults had to go to the top of whatever layer was the topmost at the supposed time they occurred. I can't prove otherwise of course, but there's no necessary reason to believe that. For this example, though, it looks that way. I just wouldn't be dogmatic about it if I were you.
A fault cannot fail to go to the top of a stack of layers, because the rocks making up the strata are heavy in the extreme. No space can ever open up in a stack of layers for more than an instant before the layer above would fall into it. Your advice to not be dogmatic about this is good scientific advice in general, but one mustn't take it too far. In this case what you're actually saying is to not be too dogmatic about gravity.
Look at it this way. We have these layers that I've labeled A through H:
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Now a fault occurs that extends from layer H all the way up through layer D, but no higher. Let's say the amount of slip is a kilometer or two, in other words, nothing trivial like a meter a two. Here's what that would look like:
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD|         Empty
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE|            Space
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF|DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG|EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH|FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
------------------------|GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
-------Basement Rock----|HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
See all that empty space of a kilometer or two between layer C and layer D on the right half of the diagram? A gap that large is impossible. If the thought of simple gravity acting on rock isn't persuasive to you then I offer validation in the fact that no gap of this size in sedimentary layers has ever been observed. As further validation I offer the frequent collapse of caves and mines (which are never anywhere close to a kilometer or two in height) when insufficient support is provided.
Therefore faults must extend all the way up to the surface, and that stack would instead look like this:
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA|
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB|
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC|AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD|BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE|CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF|DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG|EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH|FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
------------------------|GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
-------Basement Rock----|HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
And there are faults to the right of that one that go all the way from the bottom to the top, that is to the Base Tertiary, which shows that all the layers were in place when those faults occurred, and there's nothing there to show that the one you mention was earlier except its shortness, which probably doesn't mean that.
What you're referring to as the shorter fault must have extended up to the surface that existed at the time of the fault. Nothing else is possible.
The fault just to the left of that section of strata that lies beneath the Late Jurassic Shelf Edge, occurred with the pushing up of that whole section, leaving the very same strata on the left lower in the stack. That's all that happened there. All the strata were already in place at that time. Probably also the Base tertiary but of course that can't be proved based on the fault lines.
Here's the diagram again:
The part up until the last sentence is written in a way that indicates you think you disagree with me on that point, but either I don't disagree with you or I misunderstood the point you were trying to make.
But about the last sentence about the Base tertiary, it could not have been present when the fault occurred, else there would be a discontinuity at the Base tertiary boundary and the fault would be represented on the diagram as extending into the Base tertiary.
Well you're good at the OE fairy tale, I'll give you that. Of course there were no millions of years, no eroded layers of an imaginary unconformity, just all the strata laid down in sequence and faulted and deformed according to whatever forces acted upon various parts of it.
These are just bare assertions with no accompanying evidence or argument. I'll ignore them.
A NOTE ON INTERPRETIVE VERSUS PRACTICAL GEOLOGY
Now, all this is a perfect example of what I'd been calling "historical Geology" that is all nothing but unprovable untestable interpretations. I'm calling it Old Earthism now because that other term apparently includes more than I want to include. But the principle is quite clear. You've got the whole OE interpretive system going there without any way to verify it. Using the very same data I just answer with my own interpretive system which I think is a lot more plausible. For the purposes of Practical Geology none of this should matter, just the positions of the rocks relative to each other. If the Base tertiary was laid down before the faulting or after doesn't matter, all that matters for practical purposes is where the rocks are now.
This, too, is just bare assertion, so I'll ignore this, too.
Feel free to repeat these arguments when you've got something to support them with.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 523 by Faith, posted 08-02-2014 3:41 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 647 of 740 (734998)
08-04-2014 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 524 by Faith
08-02-2014 3:43 AM


Re: Order of events as shown on cross sections
Faith writes:
This is all interpretive stuff. You have no more support than I do for your interpretation.
When you have more evidence than the "aliens did it" advocates, please let us know.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 524 by Faith, posted 08-02-2014 3:43 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 648 of 740 (735000)
08-04-2014 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 569 by Faith
08-02-2014 10:02 PM


Re: Order of events as shown on cross sections
Faith writes:
That diagram shows the usual time periods of the Geo Time Scale, indicating that those layers have been there some time, so where are the new accumulating sediments you are talking about?
Here's the diagram again:
The topmost layer is the Plio-Pleistocene, which extends from about 5 million years ago through the present. The cross section in the diagram runs right across a big section of the Mississippi River Delta, which we know receives a great deal of sediment every year, as does much of the Gulf of Mexico, though of course less than at the mouth of the largest river in North America. So this diagram represents an example of sedimentary layers adding to the geologic column.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 569 by Faith, posted 08-02-2014 10:02 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 664 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 8:52 AM Percy has replied

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


Message 649 of 740 (735001)
08-04-2014 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 585 by Faith
08-03-2014 9:28 AM


Re: New depositions strangely different from old strata
Faith writes:
Yes, your diagram shows the geologic column.
More completely you could have said, "Yes, your diagram shows the geologic column, and since this is at the mouth of the Mississippi sediments must be accumulating atop it."
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 585 by Faith, posted 08-03-2014 9:28 AM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 650 of 740 (735002)
08-04-2014 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 587 by Faith
08-03-2014 9:54 AM


Re: An important admission
Faith writes:
It's obvious, take it or leave it.
When people suspect you have no evidence then better to remain quiet than to speak and remove all doubt.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 587 by Faith, posted 08-03-2014 9:54 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 651 of 740 (735003)
08-04-2014 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 609 by Faith
08-03-2014 4:50 PM


Re: New depositions strangely different from old strata
Faith writes:
Let's see. If that "Triassic" salt has supposedly been rising for millions of years but if the reality is it's been rising for only a few thousand I wonder when we might expect those domes to surface in real time rather than OE fantasy time. Anybody calculated their rate of rise?
Excellent question. Yes, someone has calculated their rate of rise. This is from the paper Geology and Hydrogeology, Barbers Hill Salt Dome, Texas:
6. Stratigraphic and structural data indicate that dome growth has slowed since the Eocene, but is still continuing today at a rate of about 40 t060 ft (12 to 18 m) of uplift per million years. This low rate of diapirism would not be a significant factor affecting longterm stability of a toxic waste repository.
That's just the first one I happened to find. It shouldn't be any trouble finding many more if you think that would help.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 609 by Faith, posted 08-03-2014 4:50 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 652 of 740 (735004)
08-04-2014 12:12 PM


Why are New depositions strangely different from old strata
That's a great question with a pretty simple answer; newer deposits are much newer, millions, sometimes billions of years newer than older deposits. That should seem obvious but perhaps it is not.
Newer deposits often come from eroding and weathering older deposits. The result when combined with living materials is what we call soil. It can also be sand or gravel and transported by gravity or wind or water.
It is a process though and continuing. We usually live on the topmost layer but digging a trench in soil will often yield evidence of when others lived on what was then the top most layer. We can with very high confidence examine evidence from the last 20-30,000 years and remain in the layer we call "soil".
The pattern, process, method though is pretty simple. High spots get worn down while low spots get filled up.
Fortunately though there are other forces going on all the time. Parts of the surface get pushed up, parts get sucked down, sometimes the molten core breaks through and adds a new island or mountain or lava bed. As pieces parts that are now "soil" get buried deeper and deeper the pressure and temperature will increase and the soil will take on new characteristics becoming rock instead of "soil". Even then change can continue with the very nature of the material changing yet again. A great example is the granite found in Yosemite which is among the hardest granite found anywhere.
But so far no one has ever presented a model, process or method for what is seen that does not require long, long, long periods of time.
Faith has never presented a model, method or process where the flood she claims happened (I'm not sure which of the mutually exclusive Biblical Floods she considers to be the right one) could do anything that is seen. The best she has presented has been that the flud picked up what is seen somewhere else and then moved it to where it is found now yet never explains how her flud could do such a thing or how the object could be created in the first place so it could be moved.
That the geologic column is growing and changing is more than adequately evidenced; I have to wash my car, when it rains I can see part of my yard being washed into the street.
So the answer to why the New depositions are strangely different from old strata is just "Time".

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

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


Message 653 of 740 (735006)
08-04-2014 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 613 by Faith
08-03-2014 5:41 PM


Hi Faith,
You say "I've argued" and "I would argue" and so forth, but all you've really done is state your position. You've never offered any evidence for how faults could occur that do not extend to the surface. Please read my Message 642, the part with the diagrams of layers experiencing a fault. It shows how when layers fault downward that all the layers above must go downward with them. And of course when layers are pushed upward then all layers above must be pushed upward, too. It's not possible for there to be significant gaps of empty space between strata, nor for strata to simply disappear or be compressed to invisibility.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 613 by Faith, posted 08-03-2014 5:41 PM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 654 of 740 (735007)
08-04-2014 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 618 by Faith
08-03-2014 6:04 PM


Re: New depositions strangely different from old strata
Faith writes:
If you're going to say the uppermost layer is as good as horizontal based on the vertical exaggeration, and I agree it is great, then you might as well say that entire formation is horizontal from bottom to top, and in any case the Plio-Pleistocene layer follows the contour of those beneath it though it should have a clearly horizontal surface even at that scale if it's really new deposition.
Here's the diagram again:
What Coragyps is saying is that layers are, for all practical purposes, as horizontal as the lines on this page. They appear non-horizontal on the diagram because of the scale. There's no horizontal scale on your diagram, so I'll have to assume it's a normal amount of vertical exaggeration for a geological diagram. If you stretch the diagram, say, 50 times in the horizontal direction then even lines that look like this:
\
 \
  \
   \
    \
     \
Will look like this after being stretched 50x:
----------------------
This carries implications for the actual attitudes of the faults, too. Faults that lie at what looks to be a 45 degree angle in the diagram are actually almost horizontal. Here's a slightly compressed version of the diagram to give you an idea of how quickly things can become horizontal when you begin approaching the proper scale:
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 618 by Faith, posted 08-03-2014 6:04 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 655 of 740 (735009)
08-04-2014 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 635 by Faith
08-03-2014 9:13 PM


I already took into account that it wouldn't maintain horizontality but it should at first since it would just lie over whatever was already there, distorted or not, just not after being distorted itself.
Let me see if this is right.
You claim that if there was a recent global flood, then the layers should be horizontal. Now you are saying that non-horizontal layers are also consistent with a recent global flood.
It begs the question . . . what wouldn't be consistent with a recent global flood?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 635 by Faith, posted 08-03-2014 9:13 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 658 by JonF, posted 08-04-2014 2:06 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 666 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 8:56 AM Taq has replied

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


(1)
Message 656 of 740 (735010)
08-04-2014 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 638 by Faith
08-03-2014 9:56 PM


Re: Flood debunkery revisited
Faith writes:
You have a certain genius for getting everything I say so wrong I usually see little point in trying to answer you.
I think you're just saying this to provoke a response, instigate a crisis.
Faith writes:
I never said waves scour the landscape, I've said the forty days and nights of rain which would bring about something on the order of millions of local scale floods all at once.
Well, then I guess I misinterpreted this from your Message 455:
Faith in Message 455 writes:
Huge waves would have to have occurred somewhere in this process, though, because tides didn't stop and waves don't stop coming up over the land when there is still land for them to come up over. When the water was so heavy with sediments from the scouring, such a wave could have contributed quite a bit of deposition.
So I guess the scouring you mention here isn't from the waves but from the rain. But you say the rain caused "millions of local scale floods", and local scale floods do not scour landscapes. How do you see the landscape being scoured down a depth of miles?
But there you are with your local flood again as if it holds any clues to what a Flood a bazillion times its size would do.
But it was you who described the great Flood as many local floods growing and combining. I agree that that makes a lot of sense in a scenario where it begins raining and just never stops, but it isn't going to scour a landscape down by miles, or even feet in most places. When a low lying region is already filled with water how are there going to be any scouring flows? How could water be flowing violently into a region already filled with water?
Also, the antediluvian landscape would not have been covered by sediments. Land, for the most part, is most often a region of net erosion, not deposition, and even if this were not true, from creation to 4300 years ago is simply too short a time for any significant amount of sediments to have accumulated.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Fix last sentence so it refers to the correct time period.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 638 by Faith, posted 08-03-2014 9:56 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 657 by edge, posted 08-04-2014 1:15 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 661 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 8:40 AM Percy has replied

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


Message 657 of 740 (735012)
08-04-2014 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 656 by Percy
08-04-2014 1:05 PM


Re: Flood debunkery revisited
Heh, heh...
Such are the effects of uncontrolled ad hocism.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 656 by Percy, posted 08-04-2014 1:05 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 658 of 740 (735014)
08-04-2014 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 655 by Taq
08-04-2014 1:05 PM


You claim that if there was a recent global flood, then the layers should be horizontal. Now you are saying that non-horizontal layers are also consistent with a recent global flood.
She thinks that the fludde laid down all the layers in the world, and only after the fludde tectonic and volcanic processes bent and faulted them. Not tectonics or vulcanism in the fluddie. That's why tuffs interleaved with sedimentary layers is such a problem for her. They are unquestionably igneous and unquestionably formed before the layer above and after the layer below. It's also why faults that obviously terminated before an overlying layer was laid down is a problem too.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 655 by Taq, posted 08-04-2014 1:05 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 659 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 8:03 AM JonF has replied

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


Message 659 of 740 (735033)
08-05-2014 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 658 by JonF
08-04-2014 2:06 PM


Yes that was my theory and I still haven't given it up completely, but there's no real problem if there were volcanoes during the Flood. I used to thinkj that until the Grand Canyon area seemed to show otherwise. So far the evidence is those two tuffs in the Muav from you and a Nevada formation from edge - oh I think that was pillow lava which forms underwater, it's been a few days since I looked it up and I haven't researched others on his list. Pillows and tuffs aren't really a problem. Or sills and dikes. Layers are, though, like the Cardenas.
The thing about faults is there's no way to tell for sure the timing of when they formed so I don't know how anybody can say they prove anything about when the layers were deposited.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 658 by JonF, posted 08-04-2014 2:06 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 660 by JonF, posted 08-05-2014 8:18 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 662 by Pressie, posted 08-05-2014 8:42 AM Faith has replied
 Message 667 by Percy, posted 08-05-2014 8:58 AM Faith has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 660 of 740 (735035)
08-05-2014 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 659 by Faith
08-05-2014 8:03 AM


but there's no real problem if there were volcanoes during the Flood
It's a huge problem. there are tuffs and non-intrusive lava all over the place. Don't forget the 22-ish tuffs in the Lake Turkana area. And there's no problem coming up with many, many more.
When those deposits formed the area was not covered by water. That's not a global fludde. That's a gigantic problem for you.
The thing about faults is there's no way to tell for sure the timing of when they formed
Percy has explained at length why this is false. But you just can't bring yourself to face reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 659 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 8:03 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