|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence that the Great Unconformity did not Form Before the Strata above it | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm fine with anybody wanting to do experiments. I can also do my own later if it works out that way.
All this stuff about depositing on a slope seems to forget that we're talking about forming a layer of even thickness like all those in the strata formations. The strata in that road cut and also the other road cut edge posted: The question is did the layer deposit that way or was it tilted or otherwise deformed later? If you can form one such layer can you also form a stack of evenly thick multiple layers on a slope as is shown in those tilted road cuts. Just getting some sediment to stick to a slope doesn't address this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
That's a great video and I've watched it more than once. I also know a little Spanish and a few times they referred to "capas horizontales" or horizontal layers. That was the final result in the tank experiment. I wish I could understand what he's saying between 7 and 7:30 more clearly.
The first few layers did somewhat drape so that was interesting, but they also filled in the low places. After it was all covered up to a level point then they deposited horizontally, no tilting there. Although you want me to see the result as like the McKee drawing the only similarity I see is the initial draping. There is no filling of the low places in the drawing, or in any of the other drawings either; and there is nothing in the experiment like the drape-upon-drape in the drawing. That drape-upon-drape effect is more apparent in one of the other drawings as I recall but I couldn't find that illustration.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Well, what I think of it? I don't think the experiment matches the McKee drawings very well at all. You get some drape but you don't have the drape upon drape effect of the drawings, and the drawings don't show the sand filling in the low places as the "fine sediment" does in the experiment. I think there's plenty of room for more experiments. Go for it if you'd like.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Concerning horizontality, the question is whether by necessity the layers in those road cuts could only have been originally horizontal when deposited. OK, I'll try to keep your wording in mind.
If you can form one such layer can you also form a stack of evenly thick multiple layers on a slope as is shown in those tilted road cuts.
You're not thinking this through. If you can form one sloped layer atop another sloped layer, then the top of the new sloped layer is just another sloped surface on which another layer can be deposited. OK. ABE: I think I had in mind that you could get something approximating a layer by a fluke but that it wouldn't hold up through successive depositions. /ABE
Just getting some sediment to stick to a slope doesn't address this.
"Stick" is the wrong word. For the most part sediment doesn't slide down a slope to the lowest point (unless it's too steep) because of normal everyday friction. What in the world makes you think it could? Well, even that experiment in the video shows the sediment settling more deeply in the lower areas while only lightly coating the slopes and peaks.
What makes you think sediments can only deposit horizontally? What is the process you thought through to arrive at this conclusion? There don't really need to be experiments, only a belated realization by you that you have no idea how some incredibly simple and obvious things about the real world really work. Well, honestly, the main thing is that I consider Steno's principle to be sensible and realistic, certainly no less so than his other principles, such as superposition which nobody seems to feel needs to be rethought. So all this insistence on forming actual layers of the sort seen in the Grand Canyon or the two road cuts at issue at the moment, does hit me as some kind of trickery, even a violation of nature. It's not that sediment won't deposit on a slope, it's that Steno's principle isn't about that, it's about how the evenly thick layers formed. So if that's what you are aiming to prove, fine, let the experiments begin, because I WILL need to see experiments for something that feels to me like a violation of Nature. And the more you all accuse me of that violation the more cynical I get.
Your message gives no indication that you thought at all about the arguments I made about sand not being able to flow down a slope, that if it did beaches would quickly empty of sand. I asked you to think about why any newly deposited grain of sand would have any greater likelihood of sliding down slope than any of the other grains that were already there that it fell next to. You've made your point. Nevertheless the sediments in the video experiment DID pool in the lower places as I would expect.
So why don't you tell me your thinking about this a little bit. If sand slides down slope to the lowest point, why are there beaches? If sand slides down to the lowest point, what causes the newly deposited grain of sand to move down slope when all the other grains of sand that were already there didn't do so? I never claimed anything along these lines. I'm thinking only about the formation of Strata and while at some angles sediments probably wouldn't fall down the slope and pool at the bottom, at other angles they would, and perhaps the more so in water, and even where they don't I don't expect to see anything resembling Strata. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
And you seem to forget that you said sediments could not be deposited on a slope. But what I've had in mind is EVENNESS of deposition, evenness of thickness, such as we see in the Grand Canyon strata and also in these road cut pictures. That is what I doubt and would expect an experiment to aim to show. The video experiment does not show that, it shows sediment pooling in the low places and lightly covering the slopes, not at all anything like an even thickness, but then its design wouldn't work for that anyway. What is needed to show if evenly distributed layering is possible on a slope is an experiment in which the base is a continuously angled surface like those in the road cut pictures.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
An overthrust does not violate the principle of superposition, which is really the Principle of ORIGINAL superposition just as the principle of horizontality is the Pirnciple of ORIGINAL horizontality. The overthrust is understood to have been originally the lower layer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Sorry, wanting to emphasize it I suppose, but I'll refrain from capitalizing since it's confusing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I've never seen a creationist violate the principle of superposition and don't see why we would. You've wrongly accused me of it a few times though.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
do an experiment or demonstration, but not for you to just say "Nope, that doesn't do it." In other words it's got to prove your argument or it's not worth it? ABE: I'll grant that there is more drape effect in the experiment than I would have expected, but unlike the McKee drawings it's so evenly distributed it just comes off as thinly coating the slopes on the way down to pooling in the depressions, rather than forming draped layers as in the drawings. I know this seems picky but that's how it hits me. Maybe you need to get something more asymmetric to make your case. /ABE As for the draped sandstone I'm not sure how it should be set up. I DON'T see the same draped effect in the video experiment; I DON'T see sediment pooling in the depressions on the drawings, just draped layers. "Drape upon drape" means to me something more like layers of equal thickness that start thin at the top but drape down into the depressions with equal thickness like actual layers except they're draped, if that conveys anything. That's what I see in the McKee drawings. Maybe steeper "monadnocks" are needed for the experiment. The experiment I'm realizing needs most to be done from my point of view is deposition of layers on a slope like those in both road cut pictures. Can layers that look like the layers in those pictures really form that way? If not then that adds weight to my argument. But I do reserve the right to say, "Nope, that doesn't do it" so maybe it would be best to leave it until I can do it myself. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I can add that none of the layers of the Grand Canyon are even or consistent in thickness. The Tapeats varies from 0-400 feet thick. The Bright Angel Shale is 350-500 feet thick. The Muav varies from 350-600 feet thick. And so it goes. All layers of the Grand Canyon vary in thickness. I'm aware of the variations in thickness across huge distances. Nevertheless the impression of the strata over pretty huge distances, such as seen for instance from a distance in the Grand Canyon, is of a remarkable evenness of thickness. Visible variations of thickness within a few hundred or even perhaps thousands of feet would suggest something other than normal deposition patterns to me.
With consistent sedimentation rates across the slope, what are you imagining could prevent layers being deposited evenly? I'd rather not get into an argument about this now, I'd rather see what happens in an experiment if you don't mind. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I could do a dry angle-of-repose experiment now, getting back to Coragyps' challenge, but the others I really can't set up properly and want to wait until family get here toward the end of June. They can also get some of the material I need that would be hard for me to get.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
eh, somehow, I never found this link before: http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/VFT/VFTManitou.html That's a great find, very similar to the other road cut situation, and the arguments are the same ones we've been pursuing. I didn't even know my own argument already existed. So they dismiss the idea of a fault on the unconformity line. That pretty much leaves trying to find out if layers like those and the ones in the other road cut really will form by deposition on the slope. Just wondering: Would you say the layered rocks in the picture are highly compacted?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Are you talking about variations in thickness from DEPOSITION or from deformation after deposition? Forces, pressures, compaction after deposition can thin out a layer for instance.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You've lost me every time you've said this about compaction and "forced folding." Sometimes I'll look up your terms but sometimes they are so unrelated to what's on my mind at the moment I just let them go. Anyway, if you want me to understand what you are saying here you need to translate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Family arriving for a week on the 27th. I have a list of items I need them to get for the experiments. Some time during that week we should be set to go.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024