Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence that the Great Unconformity did not Form Before the Strata above it
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 858 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 1231 of 1939 (756243)
04-16-2015 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1229 by Faith
04-16-2015 10:12 PM


I did originally. The flat bottom was just so it wouldn't roll around. The dimensions don't really matter, I figured kind of egg shaped. I think ThinAir suggested silt instead of sand. What would probably work well is just plain garden soil that has a mix of grain sizes. I don't know what your soil is like where you are at, but most soil has a mixture of sand, silt, clay and organic matter. Use enough to be about as deep as about 1/2 the height of the stone. Get it all suspended before pouring it in and let it settle naturally, you will see not only the "draping" effect but also how particles come out of suspension at different rates and will be separated on the bottom.
No, I have not done this as an "experiment", but I have seen happen before.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1229 by Faith, posted 04-16-2015 10:12 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1232 of 1939 (756244)
04-16-2015 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1230 by herebedragons
04-16-2015 10:23 PM


I HAVE thought about it, and you aren't doing a very good job of it.
This makes absolutely no sense. ALL the sediments were stripped off the land and suspended in the water before the water began rising?
No, not all probably until it had risen some, maybe not all until it was at or near its height. Why does that matter.
Think about it, you have to have all the sediment stripped off the land before you can begin deposition, but then deposition begins at the bottom before the water levels rise. Where would all this sediment go while it is waiting for the water level to rise.
There is something wrong with what you are imagining and it's beyond me to figure it out. I don't suppose I or anybody can guess exactly what happened so why are you being such a stickler? Rain would have eroded the land, sediments would have been suspended in the sea water. How much depositing exactly when shouldn't be a huge problem. All your imaginings of problems are just your imaginings and you weren't there either.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1230 by herebedragons, posted 04-16-2015 10:23 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1233 by herebedragons, posted 04-16-2015 11:01 PM Faith has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 858 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 1233 of 1939 (756245)
04-16-2015 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1232 by Faith
04-16-2015 10:36 PM


All your imaginings of problems are just your imaginings and you weren't there either.
This is your "go-to" response, but it really doesn't accomplish anything.
There is something wrong with what you are imagining and it's beyond me to figure it out.
I am trying to imagine what you are imagining.
No, not all probably until it had risen some, maybe not all until it was at or near its height. Why does that matter.
How could the rain be stripping the land of sediment while at the same time the rising water is depositing it? I am pretty sure you said that ALL sedimentary layers originated in the flood and there are deep sedimentary layers. The overburden needed to be removed before those could be laid down.
Rain would have eroded the land, sediments would have been suspended in the sea water.
But you have the Tapeats being deposited by a transgressing sea, erosion should have been mostly done by then. But sea levels are so low, that it can deposit the Tapeats. These are conflicting ideas.
How much depositing exactly when shouldn't be a huge problem.
Of course its a problem. I am not asking for a day by day replay, but the timing of these events makes no sense.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1232 by Faith, posted 04-16-2015 10:36 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1234 by Faith, posted 04-16-2015 11:05 PM herebedragons has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1234 of 1939 (756246)
04-16-2015 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1233 by herebedragons
04-16-2015 11:01 PM


I DIDN"T SAY IT WAS STILL RAINING WHILE IT WAS DEPOSITING.
YOU are making up the "conflicting" ideas.
Boy when a "Christian" decides to disagree with the Bible you go all out don't you? Doesn't it ever occur to you you're on the wrong bandwagon?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1233 by herebedragons, posted 04-16-2015 11:01 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1235 by herebedragons, posted 04-16-2015 11:16 PM Faith has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 858 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 1235 of 1939 (756247)
04-16-2015 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1234 by Faith
04-16-2015 11:05 PM


Boy when a "Christian" decides to disagree with the Bible you go all out don't you?
Knock it off. I am disagreeing with your flood scenario.
I DIDN"T SAY IT WAS STILL RAINING WHILE IT WAS DEPOSITING.
Ok, my bad. So all the land was stripped off during the 40 days of rain. But the water hadn't risen very high yet. After it stops raining, then the water starts rising and depositing sediment. Is that right?
YOU are making up the "conflicting" ideas.
Then no problem, just explain how it works out in a way that makes sense.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1234 by Faith, posted 04-16-2015 11:05 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1236 by Faith, posted 04-16-2015 11:48 PM herebedragons has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1236 of 1939 (756248)
04-16-2015 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1235 by herebedragons
04-16-2015 11:16 PM


HBD you are badgering me. I've given a reasonable enough general idea of how it could have happened many times. You do get it wrong a LOT, make up stuff I didn't say to object to and so on. All I did this time was say the Flood would have acted like a transgressing sea, a perfectly reasonable idea, and you are badgering me about details. Stop it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1235 by herebedragons, posted 04-16-2015 11:16 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1237 by Coyote, posted 04-17-2015 12:08 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 1238 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-17-2015 12:20 AM Faith has replied
 Message 1240 by herebedragons, posted 04-17-2015 8:58 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 1243 by Admin, posted 04-17-2015 9:36 AM Faith has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 1237 of 1939 (756251)
04-17-2015 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1236 by Faith
04-16-2015 11:48 PM


[ Some good points, but they're directed more at a specific participant rather than at the discussion's topic, so I'm hiding this. Click "peek" to see content. --Admin ]
Edited by Admin, : Hide content.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1236 by Faith, posted 04-16-2015 11:48 PM Faith has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 1238 of 1939 (756252)
04-17-2015 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1236 by Faith
04-16-2015 11:48 PM


Faith writes:
All I did this time was say the Flood would have acted like a transgressing sea, a perfectly reasonable idea, and you are badgering me about details.
When you say things happen a certain way then there are some obvious consequence that we can expect. Every time someone tries to get some clarification you get huffy.
Why are you posting on this topic if you don't want to discuss the details? What is the point? Here we are 1236 posts into this thread and no details allowed.
That's what we are all interested in, the details. That is what is interesting about geology, the details. When you stand on the rim of the Grand Canyon the only thing that explains it are the details. The details are the fun part.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1236 by Faith, posted 04-16-2015 11:48 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1250 by Faith, posted 04-18-2015 5:57 AM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
saab93f
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 265
From: Finland
Joined: 12-17-2009


(1)
Message 1239 of 1939 (756261)
04-17-2015 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1153 by Faith
04-15-2015 2:57 AM


Re: STENO'S PRINCIPLES OF STRATIGRAPHY: ORIGINAL HORIZONTALITY, ETC
Why is it Faith that you have such hostility towards geology? The geologists are not out there to prove or disprove any deity but to enhance our understanding of the lithosphere.
To me you sound like a person whod be willing to shout at the heart surgeons how bad a job theyre doing because youd watched a couple of episodes of "Dr House" and were familiar with words lupus or auto-immune.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1153 by Faith, posted 04-15-2015 2:57 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1245 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-17-2015 11:27 AM saab93f has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 858 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 1240 of 1939 (756263)
04-17-2015 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1236 by Faith
04-16-2015 11:48 PM


HBD you are badgering me.
Maybe your'e right. But this is a science thread and you should be able to back up your assertions.
My PI (i.e. boss) is very hard on her students when it comes to writing - very nit-picky. A couple weeks ago I was writing a journal article and knowing how hard she is, I spent way more time on it than I normally would have. I wanted to make sure that it was going to be good enough that she wouldn't tear it to shreds. But of course when I turned it in to her it was slash and burn. It was very discouraging - I almost cried... uh, no I didn't that was just a piece of dust in my eye The point is, I know what she is doing; she wants to make me a better writer, a better scientist. It is a hard, painful process but that's how it goes. * Anyone else who has been through graduate school want to testify??
Scientific ideas are ALWAYS subject to extreme scrutiny - that's what we do. We analyze arguments, we criticize conclusions, we ask for details.
So rather than thinking about it as me (and others) badgering you for details, think of it as a way to challenge yourself, to take a look at your hypothesis and refine it, improve it, develop it. It is these details that do that. The thing is... if you are right, these details should fall into place...
---------
I've given a reasonable enough general idea of how it could have happened many times.
I don't see it as reasonable at all.
You do get it wrong a LOT, make up stuff I didn't say to object to and so on.
Of course I have to make stuff up, you won't fill in the details. I think we are all having a hard time figuring out your scenario. I try to take what you say and draw some reasonable conclusions and then think about what the ramifications or consequences would be. And yea, I have to make them up... this whole flood scenario is made up. If it's not made up you should be able to provide details - the details I am asking for should not be off limits.
All I did this time was say the Flood would have acted like a transgressing sea, a perfectly reasonable idea,
It is NOT a "perfectly reasonable" idea. Again, it is like this image
(This is an analogy) You say that beam A is attached to beam B and and beam B is attached to beam C - "a perfectly reasonable idea." But then I ask, why does beam B attach to the back of beam A and to the front of beam C? And how does beam B go in front of beam D rather than behind it? To which you reply, beams can attach to the front and they can attach to the back - what's the problem? Why can't beam B go in front of beam D? Beams are in front of other beams all the time. Stop asking for details. It's all perfectly reasonable.
But it's NOT... and it's not reasonable because of the details!
Stop it.
Back up your assertions. I don't even expect you to produce significant evidence - just to make reasonable, logical sense. The details ARE important.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1236 by Faith, posted 04-16-2015 11:48 PM Faith has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 1241 of 1939 (756264)
04-17-2015 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1228 by Faith
04-16-2015 9:54 PM


Faith writes:
The Flood took five months to rise to its height. That's not thousands or millions of years but it's not "rushing" either. Behaved very much like a transgressing sea, which, really, is what it was.
You need to get a handle on the character of your flood. You're describing a flood that attacked the land everywhere with such energy and ferocity that it denuded the landscape down to bedrock and ground it up into into tiny particles. However long it took your flood to "rise to its height," in order to denude landscapes down to bedrock it would had to have had a great deal of energy, and energy requires speed.
Here's a video of the Japanese tsunami of 2011, I've set it to begin at an aerial view of the water moving over the land.
Starting at around the 1 minute point you can see cars driving on roads. The water seems to be moving at roughly the same speed as those cars, so the water is moving at least at 30 mph, and yet it did almost nothing to the land, as we can see in this aftermath image:
The man-made structures were all destroyed, but the land, including the roads, was largely unaffected. How fast do you imagine your flood would have to move in order to denude the landscape in this image down to bedrock? 100 mph? 200 mph? Whatever speed you choose it will have to be a large one, and at that speed it will take less than a day for your flood to completely cover the landscape. It was nothing like the very slow and very gradual erosion of land by a transgressing sea over millennia, and however long the flood subsequently took to rise to its full height is irrelevant.
Edited by Admin, : Typo.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1228 by Faith, posted 04-16-2015 9:54 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1252 by Faith, posted 04-18-2015 6:12 AM Admin has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 1242 of 1939 (756265)
04-17-2015 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 1229 by Faith
04-16-2015 10:12 PM


It was me who suggested a variation to the experiment that included a rock. Instead of a rock use a hard-boiled egg with the small end pointed up and the large end embedded in the sand so that the greatest perimeter is level with the top of the sand. Now slowly sprinkle sand evenly across the water's surface until the depth of sand has increased by a half inch or so. The sand will be deeper and non-horizontal next to the egg.
Edited by Admin, : Meant so say half inch.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1229 by Faith, posted 04-16-2015 10:12 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1244 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 04-17-2015 10:55 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 1243 of 1939 (756266)
04-17-2015 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1236 by Faith
04-16-2015 11:48 PM


Moderator Ruling
Hi Faith,
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to make a moderator ruling here about this:
Faith writes:
HBD you are badgering me. I've given a reasonable enough general idea of how it could have happened many times. You do get it wrong a LOT, make up stuff I didn't say to object to and so on. All I did this time was say the Flood would have acted like a transgressing sea, a perfectly reasonable idea, and you are badgering me about details. Stop it.
You've presented what appear in many people's eyes to be contradictory ideas. You've claimed it was rain that denuded landscapes, and you've claimed it was the flood in the form of a transgressing sea that denuded landscapes and produced the characteristic sedimentary patterns observed in the geologic record. Contradictions like this and others have to be resolved, not stonewalled.
It's important for people on both sides to present a clear picture of their ideas so they may be compared with the evidence. Obtaining that clear picture is one important thing that discussion is for.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1236 by Faith, posted 04-16-2015 11:48 PM Faith has not replied

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2374 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


(1)
Message 1244 of 1939 (756269)
04-17-2015 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1242 by Admin
04-17-2015 9:15 AM


Admin writes:
It was me who suggested a variation to the experiment that included a rock. Instead of a rock use a hard-boiled egg with the small end pointed up and the large end embedded in the sand so that the greatest perimeter is level with the top of the sand. Now slowly sprinkle sand evenly across the water's surface until the depth of sand has increased by a half inch or so. The sand will be deeper and non-horizontal next to the egg.
If I had ever been able to get Faith to address or even answer questions regarding the outcome of such tests, I would have done the experiment(and variations) and filmed them for her. I will get to it eventually as part of my earth science curriculum.
It's such an easy and clear experiment and can be done in a low energy environment (sitting perfectly still) or with medium energy input (say a fan making waves on the surface) or even high energy (a mixing system of some sort). I'm looking forward to working those details and and showing the series.
JB
Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1242 by Admin, posted 04-17-2015 9:15 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 1245 of 1939 (756272)
04-17-2015 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1239 by saab93f
04-17-2015 7:50 AM


Re: STENO'S PRINCIPLES OF STRATIGRAPHY: ORIGINAL HORIZONTALITY, ETC
Why is it Faith that you have such hostility towards geology? The geologists are not out there to prove or disprove any deity but to enhance our understanding of the lithosphere.
To me you sound like a person whod be willing to shout at the heart surgeons how bad a job theyre doing because youd watched a couple of episodes of "Dr House" and were familiar with words lupus or auto-immune.
Its the Dunning-Kruger effect in full swing:
quote:
The Dunning—Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude. Conversely, highly skilled individuals tend to underestimate their relative competence, erroneously assuming that tasks which are easy for them are also easy for others.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1239 by saab93f, posted 04-17-2015 7:50 AM saab93f has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1247 by herebedragons, posted 04-17-2015 12:41 PM New Cat's Eye 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