|
Author
|
Topic: Motley Flood Thread (formerly Historical Science Mystification of Public)
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.9
|
|
Message 751 of 877 (835235)
06-20-2018 7:05 AM
|
Reply to: Message 724 by Faith
06-19-2018 2:06 PM
|
|
Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done withIf
It's sad when someone, either through ignorance, incompetence or design, makes it impossible to move a discussion forward. Such is the case here where you repeat your original argument (and only part of it) from scratch, with no acknowledgement of, let alone any reply to, the rebuttal:
Faith writes: I'm talking about contacts where there is no visible sign whatever of a layer that is assumed to have been there and eroded away based on belief in the Time Scale and not based on actual evidence. Perhaps you'd like to tell us about your "actual evidence," because we've certainly told you about ours, over and over again. When there are no signs of erosion then evidence for unconformities comes from either a jump in time as indicated by indicator fossils, or by actual radiometric dating when possible, or by out-of-sequence strata (e.g., sandstone overlying limestone).
If there is some of that layer present that's a different situation. An exmple would be the Temple Butte Formation, which has an off and on presence between the Muav Limestone and the overlying Redwall Limestone. See the "Muav Limestone/Redwall Limestone" entry I just added to Message 723 upon discovering this information in Wikipedia.
Why are you going on about this? I'm not going on about unconformities with little or no evidence of erosional cutting. Had you read the conclusion of Message 723 you would know that because it notes that five (now six with the additional information I found) of these unconformities are erosional - the erosion is definitely visible. Unconformities falsify your idea of continuous deposition, and erosional unconformities are visibly undeniable evidence. Angular unconformities falsify your idea that no deformation of strata occurred until all strata were deposited. To repeat this in list form to help insure the information gets across this time:
- Erosional unconformities are undeniably not invisible.
- Erosional unconformities falsify your idea of continuous deposition.
- Angular unconformities falsify your idea that no deformation of strata occurred until all strata were deposited.
--Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 724 by Faith, posted 06-19-2018 2:06 PM | | Faith has replied |
|
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 752 of 877 (835236)
06-20-2018 7:36 AM
|
Reply to: Message 751 by Percy
06-20-2018 7:05 AM
|
|
Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done withIf
An unconformity is a buried erosional or non-depositional surface separating two rock masses
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 751 by Percy, posted 06-20-2018 7:05 AM | | Percy has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 753 by PaulK, posted 06-20-2018 7:43 AM | | Faith has not replied | | | Message 760 by Percy, posted 06-20-2018 9:38 AM | | Faith has replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17828 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.3
|
|
|
Message 753 of 877 (835237)
06-20-2018 7:43 AM
|
Reply to: Message 752 by Faith
06-20-2018 7:36 AM
|
|
Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done withIf
You should have read on
In general, the older layer was exposed to erosion for an interval of time before deposition of the younger
Or more sensibly you should have realised that the definition is consistent with erosion being present at every example Percy mentioned, and so doesn’t help your case at all.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 752 by Faith, posted 06-20-2018 7:36 AM | | Faith has not replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.9
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 754 of 877 (835238)
06-20-2018 7:59 AM
|
Reply to: Message 729 by Faith
06-19-2018 3:32 PM
|
|
Re: subjective interpretation
That you have a complete lack of evidence is made clear when you argue like this:
Faith writes: Nobody has a clue what the preFlood world actually was like so I can't possibly be saying exactly WHAT was ruined,... If you have no clue, no evidence, of what the preFlood world was like, how do you know anything was ruined?
...all I know is that this world looks like a gigantic wreck. The world exists in all states of condition. Here are some particularly nice ones:
What parts of the world look like wrecks to you? Especially the Nevada desert that you criticize has great beauty:
Why do you think the world is wrecked? Is the concept of natural beauty lost on you? I'm lucky - I sit in my family room or study or back porch and look out on a beautiful forest that extends for miles (not without its clusters of houses) with squirrels and chipmunks and turkeys and the very occasional quail and birds and deer and fishers and hedgehogs and snakes and toads and tree frogs and the very occasional bear and changing seasons and snow and sleet and rain. Sometimes during a violent thunderstorm we'll sit on the back porch while the rain pours down amidst cracks of thunder and great bolts of lightning - beautiful and wondrous. Here's the view out my family room window:
Back up your words - show us the view out one of your windows and show us how it's a wrecked world out there. Since you have no idea what the preFlood world looked like, how can you draw any comparison of the world today with the world preFlood?
That's all I'm saying. The strata are a clue to the Flood that did it,... There is no evidence of a global flood in the strata, which appear to be the result of the same geologic processes we see in operation around the world today.
...there is no evidence left anywhere of what the original Creation was really like since all its parts have been scattered. But scattered doesn't mean non-existent. We've explored a fair amount of the world. Don't you think we'd have come across some of these scattered remnants of the preFlood world by now if they existed? --Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 729 by Faith, posted 06-19-2018 3:32 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 756 by Faith, posted 06-20-2018 8:01 AM | | Percy has replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 755 of 877 (835239)
06-20-2018 8:00 AM
|
Reply to: Message 751 by Percy
06-20-2018 7:05 AM
|
|
Show me the erosion
SHOW ME THE EROSION. PICTURES PLEASE. CLAIMS OF EROSION ARE THEORETICAL AND NOT REAL IN SOME CASES, PERHAPS ALL. .
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 751 by Percy, posted 06-20-2018 7:05 AM | | Percy has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 761 by Percy, posted 06-20-2018 9:45 AM | | Faith has not replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 756 of 877 (835240)
06-20-2018 8:01 AM
|
Reply to: Message 754 by Percy
06-20-2018 7:59 AM
|
|
Re: subjective interpretation
Beautiful foliage covers a multitude of geological sins. As it were.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 754 by Percy, posted 06-20-2018 7:59 AM | | Percy has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 762 by Percy, posted 06-20-2018 9:55 AM | | Faith has replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.9
|
|
|
Message 757 of 877 (835241)
06-20-2018 8:13 AM
|
Reply to: Message 733 by Faith
06-19-2018 3:51 PM
|
|
Re: subjective interpretation
Faith writes: pollen and fossils are evidence of the pre-Flood world. By what logic do you arrive at this conclusion? --Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 733 by Faith, posted 06-19-2018 3:51 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 766 by Faith, posted 06-20-2018 3:40 PM | | Percy has replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.9
|
|
|
Message 758 of 877 (835242)
06-20-2018 8:45 AM
|
Reply to: Message 695 by Faith
06-18-2018 9:08 AM
|
|
Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done withIf
Ignoring the rebuttal and simply repeating her original assertion unchanged has become a Faith hallmark. Here we see it again about angular unconformities:
Faith writes: Faith says that units deform as a block, but then breaks her own rule by claiming the layers from the Sixtymile down tilted by themselves independently of the rest of the unit from the Tapeats up. Clearly she has no coherent definition of a unit. Nonsense. You forget I've excepted angular unconformities. Your claim is that strata deform as a unit. But you also assert this sequence of events that contradict that claim:
- There is a sequence of strata that form a unit.
- Some of the strata within the sequence tilt without tilting the other strata.
- Obviously the strata did not deform as a unit.
For example, we have this sequence of strata that form a unit:
- Kaibab
- Toroweap
- Coconino
- Hermit
- Supai
- Redwall
- Temple Butte
- Muav
- Bright Angel
- Tapeats
- Sixtymile
- Chuar
- Kwagunt
- Galeros
- Nankoweap
- Unkar
- Cardenas
- Dox
- Shinumo
- Diabase
- Hakatai
- Bass
Now the strata of this unit from Sixtymile downward tilt, and the layers above it do not tilt. Obviously this falsifies your claim that strata deform as a unit. There's the dictum that you can have your own opinion but not your own facts, and I'd like to add another. You can't reach any valid conclusions without valid logic. --Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 695 by Faith, posted 06-18-2018 9:08 AM | | Faith has not replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.9
|
|
|
Message 759 of 877 (835245)
06-20-2018 9:30 AM
|
Reply to: Message 722 by Faith
06-19-2018 1:56 PM
|
|
Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done with
When someone refuses to respond to substance and just makes baseless accusations, that's a pretty strong indication that they have no counters to the arguments. Nothing you say has anything to do with your topic, you're just lashing out at people who are pointing out the problems with your views. Let's examine your content-free post bit by bit:
Faith writes: Well I read enough of your post to know I have no interest in answering any of it. Because why? I responded to most of the points in your long Message 681. Didn't you make these points to see how people would respond? Well, I responded, so why do you have no interest in posting a response back? The answer is that you don't really have evidence or arguments and that you're just playing a game. Distracting attention away from the topic is what you do when your chain of illogic and absence of evidence runs into a yet another dead end.
I'm at the point where I sometimes repeat some things because I don't want them to get lost... Actually, you've been at the point for some years where you're only capable of repeating what you've said dozens of times before, always as if they were new points that had never been rebutted when the reality is that they've been rebutted dozens of times.
...but otherwise disagree with so much of the nonsense...even in the teeth of the craziness here. If what we were saying were truly nonsense then you would show that it was nonsense by showing its lack of correspondence to real-world evidence or the lack of rational arguments. But you can't do that, so you do this instead.
...here I don't have any interest in addressing it any more except for that purpose, to keep certain ideas on the table that I take seriously... Why do you take seriously ideas that have no evidential support? Why are you attempting naturalistic explanations for supernatural events, especially when you have no knowledge of or intuition for science? Even if such were possible, you're precisely the wrong person to be attempting this.
Every now and then I may have something more to say. Well, that's not true. After you successfully derail one line of discussion you always have more to say.
Meanwhile sorry but that's the way it is these days. Your ill behavior spans far more than just "these days." It has been your modus operandi for years. So did you enjoy this little response to your digression from the topic? A response that would never have occurred had you stuck to the topic instead of abusing those you're debating with? Here are the points you didn't respond to summarized in list form:
- Any strata with erosional cuts at the top contact with the overlying strata is undeniable evidence of an unconformity. Before the erosion there must have been overlying strata in order to create enough pressure to turn the strata to rock. These overlying layers must have been eroded away in order to expose the strata to erosion.
- The East African Rift is not part of some one time tectonic event 4500 years ago. It is a parting of the African plate into two new plates called the Somali and Nubian plates that began around 20 Ma and continues to this day.
- There's no such thing as "tectonic bashing and crashing". Tectonic movements occur very slowly at the rate of inches/year at most. These slow motions can become apparent when tectonic forces build up stress along existing fault lines or create new fault lines, causing sudden slips that result in earthquakes, such as along the San Andreas fault in California or the North Anatolian Fault in Turkey. Volcanos can be another manifestation, though produced in a less direct way.
- What makes you think Pacific Plate subduction beneath the North American Continent, a process ongoing for millions of years, could be linked to erosion caused by receding flood waters.
- You said that sedimentation and strata formation continued after the Flood but recently ceased. That of course is not true. We observe sedimentation occurring today, and there is no doubt it will continue on into the future. The products of erosion have to go somewhere, and the mechanisms of transport pretty much guarantee that the vast majority of sediments eventually end up on pond, swamp, lake, lagoon and sea bottoms.
- But how does continuous sedimentation up to "Recent time" provide evidence for when Pangaea broke up? The dating of sea sediments from ocean cores tells us that the bottom layers from the oldest parts of the Atlantic, such as off the Maine coast, are around 175 million years old. The dating is mostly done through magnetic striping.
- You were incorrect to say that strata have not been deposited since the breakup of Pangaea, which was actually a lengthy event taking around 100 million years.
- Why do you think the strata in the Smith diagram follow the same pattern as "all the rest" of the strata? And what, exactly, is that pattern? Are you referring to tilted strata? Fairly common.
- Tilted strata did not all occur at the same time but have occurred across all time periods of geologic history.
- The generally horizontal deposition of sediments has nothing to do with "the conventional timing" - it is just something that's been understood since Steno.
- The mere existence of angular unconformities is proof that deformation occurred before all strata were deposited.
- As has been stated before, the Colorado Plateau has been relatively quiet tectonically for hundreds of millions of years, but not the rest of the world, including the regions immediately adjacent to the Colorado Plateau.
- You're making the mistake basing all your conclusions on evidence from the Grand Staircase region because that's where strata are most easily visible, and you're ignoring geological evidence from the rest of the world that clearly indicates that a) Taking your evidence from just one geological region is poor science; and b) That is why your conclusions are wrong.
- The Appalachians did not form at the same time as the breakup of Pangaea. Obviously since the Appalachians exist in both North America and Ireland, they had to exist before the breakup of Pangaea.
- You do mention some evidence from time to time, but you've been unable to connect any of that evidence to your conclusions. Your conclusions are usually just announced out of the blue.
I predict either no reply, or a reply of one or two sentences per point. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 722 by Faith, posted 06-19-2018 1:56 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.9
|
|
|
Message 760 of 877 (835246)
06-20-2018 9:38 AM
|
Reply to: Message 752 by Faith
06-20-2018 7:36 AM
|
|
Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done withIf
Faith writes: An unconformity is a buried erosional or non-depositional surface separating two rock masses How is this a rebuttal to anything I said? I'll once again summarize my points in list form:
- When there are no signs of erosion then evidence for unconformities comes from either a jump in time as indicated by indicator fossils, or by actual radiometric dating when possible, or by out-of-sequence strata (e.g., sandstone overlying limestone).
- An example of pieces of a missing layer being sporadically present is the Temple Butte Formation, which has an off and on presence between the Muav Limestone and the overlying Redwall Limestone. See the "Muav Limestone/Redwall Limestone" entry I just added to Message 723.
- Six of the unconformities in the Paleozoic layers of the Grand Canyon are erosional - the erosion is definitely visible. Unconformities falsify your idea of continuous deposition, and erosional unconformities are visibly undeniable evidence. Angular unconformities falsify your idea that no deformation of strata occurred until all strata were deposited.
I again predict no reply, or replies of one or two sentences per point. I guess another possibility is an off-topic reply about some made-up complaint. --Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 752 by Faith, posted 06-20-2018 7:36 AM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 765 by Faith, posted 06-20-2018 3:29 PM | | Percy has replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.9
|
|
|
Message 761 of 877 (835247)
06-20-2018 9:45 AM
|
Reply to: Message 755 by Faith
06-20-2018 8:00 AM
|
|
Re: Show me the erosion
Shouting is never a good sign, usually a strong sign that one finds oneself boxed in:
Faith writes: SHOW ME THE EROSION. PICTURES PLEASE. You've been shown plenty in the past - before I make the effort to dig these images out I would need some substantial assurances from you that you'll respond in an honest fashion and discuss rather than dismiss them.
CLAIMS OF EROSION ARE THEORETICAL AND NOT REAL IN SOME CASES, PERHAPS ALL. So just to be clear, you're saying that all this text at the USGS website is "theoretical and not real":
- Muav Limestone/Redwall Limestone: unconformity
The Temple Butte overlies the Muav Limestone, but at many points the Temple Butte pinches out, and in those place the Muav Limestone is overlain by the Redwall Limestone. This is from the Wikipedia entry on the Muav Limestone:
quote:
Underlies Redwall Limestone (Mississippian). Locally underlies Temple Butte Limestone (Devonian) that fills narrow paleovalleys cut into the unconformity separating the Redwall Limestone from Muav Limestone.
In other words, the Temple Butte Limestone often exists as fill-in of paleovalleys that were eroded into the Muav Limestone at its contact with the overlying Redwall Limestone.
- Formations within the Supai: unconformity at top of each
Manakacha Formation:
quote:
Unconformable erosional contact between the Manakacha and underlying Watahomigi Formation approximately marked at base of lower sandstone cliff of the Manakacha; erosional relief generally less than 3 ft (1 m) and wavy unconformable surface.
Wescogame Formation:
quote:
Unconformable contact with underlying Manakacha Formation marked by unconformity of erosion channels as much as 80 ft (24 m) deep in western part of map area, and less than 30 ft (10 m) deep in eastern part of map area. Channels commonly filled with limestone/chert conglomerate.
Esplanade Sandstone:
quote:
Unconformable contact with underlying Wescogame Formation marked by erosion channels as much as 50 ft (15 m) deep filled with limestone conglomerate; average channel depth about 35 ft (11 m).
- Supai Group/Hermit Shale: unconformity
quote:
Unconformably overlies Esplanade Sandstone. Dark-red, platy, thin-bedded siltstone of Hermit Formation fills channels as much as 60 ft (16 m) deep eroded into the underlying Esplanade in eastern part of map area, and as much as 130 ft (40 m) deep in Havasu Canyon area, south-central part of map area. Erosional relief is generally less than 10 ft (3 m) in northeastern part of map area.
- Coconino Sandstone/Toroweap Formation: unconformity
quote:
Sharp gradational contact with the interbedded Coconino where crossbedded sand dunes of the Coconino were beveled off and sand was redistributed as flat-bedded sandstone. The Coconino intertongues with lower part of the Seligman in western third of map area.
- Toroweap Formation/Kaibab Limestone: unconformity
quote:
Unconformable contact with underlying Woods Ranch Member of Toroweap Formation attributed to solution erosion and channel erosion; average relief about 10 ft (3 m). Some channels have eroded as much as 150 ft (45 m) into the Woods Ranch in western half of map area. Erosion channels were filled with sandy cherty limestone typical of the Fossil Mountain, providing an extra thickness of the Fossil Mountain.
- Kaibab Limestone/Moenkopi Formation: unconformity
From The Kaiparowits Region, a Geographic and Geologic Reconnaissance of Parts of Utah and Arizona:
quote:
At most places the relief of the eroded Kaibab is small; it was channeled but not deeply incised, and the lowest Moenkopi beds maintain the dip and strike of the highest strata of the Kaibab. At Spring Mountain, Nev., however, the entire thickness of the Kaibab and part of the Supai was cut through, and in the Moab region the Moenkopi rests with sharp discordance on the Cutler.
How are these "theoretical and not real"? --Percy Edited by Percy, : Typo.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 755 by Faith, posted 06-20-2018 8:00 AM | | Faith has not replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.9
|
|
|
Message 762 of 877 (835248)
06-20-2018 9:55 AM
|
Reply to: Message 756 by Faith
06-20-2018 8:01 AM
|
|
Re: subjective interpretation
Faith writes: Beautiful foliage covers a multitude of geological sins. What is a "geological sin"? Can I guess that it has nothing to do with science? There isn't a lot of foliage in these beautiful landscapes from your neck of the woods:
How about some photos from you of the wrecked parts of our planet? Even if you start with the badlands of South Dakota you'll have a hard time making these erosional structures look like wreckage. Want to see something wrecked? Try this image of the Aral Sea:
If you want wreckage just look to man, not nature. --Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 756 by Faith, posted 06-20-2018 8:01 AM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 763 by jar, posted 06-20-2018 11:45 AM | | Percy has seen this message but not replied | | | Message 764 by Faith, posted 06-20-2018 2:08 PM | | Percy has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 763 of 877 (835250)
06-20-2018 11:45 AM
|
Reply to: Message 762 by Percy
06-20-2018 9:55 AM
|
|
Re: subjective interpretation
'tis the Myth of Sisyphus made fact.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 762 by Percy, posted 06-20-2018 9:55 AM | | Percy has seen this message but not replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 764 of 877 (835251)
06-20-2018 2:08 PM
|
Reply to: Message 762 by Percy
06-20-2018 9:55 AM
|
|
Re: subjective interpretation
If you don't see what I see, so be it, but I see it just about everywhere I look, and it's all geology, not plant life. Lucky you to have such a view out your window but trees and ferns and vines and flowers are welcome camouflage for what I'm talking about, the tumble-down broken up desolate look of so much of the world. Piles of gravel, rocks in the surf, amorphous shapes, etc. This all hit me about ten years ago or maybe more. If you don't see it I'm not going to argue with you. I know what I'm talking about is my own impression and it's hardly typical. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 762 by Percy, posted 06-20-2018 9:55 AM | | Percy has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 767 by Percy, posted 06-20-2018 4:50 PM | | Faith has replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 765 of 877 (835257)
06-20-2018 3:29 PM
|
Reply to: Message 760 by Percy
06-20-2018 9:38 AM
|
|
Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done withIf
Six of the unconformities in the Paleozoic layers of the Grand Canyon are erosional - the erosion is definitely visible. Show me one picture. If you don't want to I can live without it. I can't keep up with your voluminous posts anyway that have half a zillion weird misrepresentations and other problems I'd need to answer.
Unconformities falsify your idea of continuous deposition, and erosional unconformities are visibly undeniable evidence. If there isn't any sign of erosion but just a contact line that doesn't disprove continuous deposition; and if there is some sign of erosion there but not a different sediment that wouldn't disprove continuous deposition either; and if there is some portion of a different kind of sediment there that wouldn't disprove continuous deposition either.
Angular unconformities falsify your idea that no deformation of strata occurred until all strata were deposited. As I've said umpteen times they are the only exception to that rule. But the fact that they are the ONLY exception rather confirms the rule. And I have an explanation for them that confirms it further. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 760 by Percy, posted 06-20-2018 9:38 AM | | Percy has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 770 by Percy, posted 06-20-2018 7:11 PM | | Faith has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2
