Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: Not buying the whole "poor discriminated against atheist" meme

Topic: Testy Explains the Layers Which Include the Tonto Group (Read 6666 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • Martin.au
  • Thingyologist
Re: Testy Explains the Layers Which Include the Tonto Group
Reply #1700
As always, researching Dave's nonsense results in learning something interesting. 

Here is a cross section of the American Fork Canyon which contains some of Dave's Tintic Quartzite. 

Note that it is at the bottom of a huge amount of sediment on the South side of the canyon, but sitting right on top of the Mutual Formation on the North side.  This cartoon is confirmed by looking at the USGS data for the region (green square).    (this is a really beautiful website BTW, if you're actually interested in Geology and don't think that having googled the names of a few things gives you specific knowledge of those things...   https://geology.utah.gov/apps/intgeomap/#)





I'm sure Dave won't see the fault in his thinking.
"That which can be asserted with evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." (Dave Hawkins)

  • Martin.au
  • Thingyologist
Re: Testy Explains the Layers Which Include the Tonto Group
Reply #1701
Where's the evidence that all those DIFFERENT formations are one continuous sheet? (Let alone one "extraordinarily thin" or  "extraordinarily flat" one?  :dunno:
Who decided that they are "DIFFERENT"? Based upon what? "I'm a geologist and I live in Potsdam, New York ... hmm I think I'll name this sandstone 'Potsdam' ..."

Different basins for starters.
"That which can be asserted with evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." (Dave Hawkins)

  • osmanthus
  • Administrator
  • Fingerer of piglets
Re: Testy Explains the Layers Which Include the Tonto Group
Reply #1702
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Quartzite is a metamorphic rock, so you'll also have to explain how the formations in Utah and South Dakota was subjected to such heat and pressure in the time since it was deposited.
Easy. The heat of decay from all those billions of dead things all decomposing at once. :yes:
Truth is out of style

  • osmanthus
  • Administrator
  • Fingerer of piglets
Re: Testy Explains the Layers Which Include the Tonto Group
Reply #1703
The Deadwood Quartzite is an even bigger problem for Dave

This material was laid down, metamorphosed and eroded into boulders. Some of these which were then rounded by surf then marine organisms made 1-2 inch bore holes in them

All while submerged and being buried by sediment in a catastrophic global flood...
Not only that, but the abstract mentions that the boulders contain trace fossils that were formed when the quartzite was soft sediment. So it had to be laid down when the water was placid :grin: enough to preserve such trace fossils, then lithified, then metamorphosed, then eroded out into boulders, then bored by marine critters and rolled around in the surf.

And it had to get all of that done before later layers of sediment were laid down on top of it.
Truth is out of style

  • osmanthus
  • Administrator
  • Fingerer of piglets
Re: Testy Explains the Layers Which Include the Tonto Group
Reply #1704
Where's the evidence that all those DIFFERENT formations are one continuous sheet? (Let alone one "extraordinarily thin" or  "extraordinarily flat" one?  :dunno:
Who decided that they are "DIFFERENT"? Based upon what? "I'm a geologist and I live in Potsdam, New York ... hmm I think I'll name this sandstone 'Potsdam' ..."
Look at the formations you listed. Different depths, different compositions, some metamorphic.  Obviously the same, right?
But, to play devil's advocate, none of those factors preclude it all being laid down in the same transgression. In fact we can be sure that sediment was deposited over a vast range during the Sauk. Which doesn't mean that Dave has correctly identified it all, but it is what we would expect to find.
Truth is out of style

  • osmanthus
  • Administrator
  • Fingerer of piglets
Re: Testy Explains the Layers Which Include the Tonto Group
Reply #1705
A transgression that might be 1000 miles or more in length, but is depositing only from a band with a width of a few miles at any given moment. As the coastline moves in or out, the band of deposition moves in and out with it. And, no, it was not the same band for all those formations you named. The Tapeats formed from the west to the east. The sandstones in Eastern North America formed from the southeast to the northwest. Can't be the parts of the same layer.
Well yes, they can. It's perfectly possible that, given different gradients on the east and west coasts, you would see that result.
Truth is out of style

Re: Testy Explains the Layers Which Include the Tonto Group
Reply #1706
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Quartzite is a metamorphic rock, so you'll also have to explain how the formations in Utah and South Dakota was subjected to such heat and pressure in the time since it was deposited.
Easy. The heat of decay from all those billions of dead things all decomposing at once. :yes:
I've hiked on quartzite ridges in Killarney Provincial Park in Ontario.   No one who's ever seen it could mistake it for sandstone. 
  • Last Edit: October 15, 2017, 03:48:56 PM by entropy
While you were getting your PhD in virology, I got my PhD in truth detection. :wave:  Dave Hawkins

Re: Testy Explains the Layers Which Include the Tonto Group
Reply #1707
Where's the evidence that all those DIFFERENT formations are one continuous sheet? (Let alone one "extraordinarily thin" or  "extraordinarily flat" one?  :dunno:
Who decided that they are "DIFFERENT"? Based upon what? "I'm a geologist and I live in Potsdam, New York ... hmm I think I'll name this sandstone 'Potsdam' ..."
Look at the formations you listed. Different depths, different compositions, some metamorphic.  Obviously the same, right?
But, to play devil's advocate, none of those factors preclude it all being laid down in the same transgression. In fact we can be sure that sediment was deposited over a vast range during the Sauk. Which doesn't mean that Dave has correctly identified it all, but it is what we would expect to find.
Sure, and the fact that there is a ton of limestone mixed up in there supports marine transgression rather than global inundation.
While you were getting your PhD in virology, I got my PhD in truth detection. :wave:  Dave Hawkins

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Testy Explains the Layers Which Include the Tonto Group
Reply #1708
But, to play devil's advocate, none of those factors preclude it all being laid down in the same transgression. In fact we can be sure that sediment was deposited over a vast range during the Sauk. ...
Oh, no question!
But that's a very different thing from saying that it's all one layer, "incredibly" (or "extraordinarily") thin and "incredibly" (or "extraordinarily") flat, or in any way consistent with a one-off, weeks/months-long violent Flood.
And, of course,  the Sauk sequence is a North American phenomenon.
Not global.


ETA:  ninja'd
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Testy Explains the Layers Which Include the Tonto Group
Reply #1709
A transgression that might be 1000 miles or more in length, but is depositing only from a band with a width of a few miles at any given moment. As the coastline moves in or out, the band of deposition moves in and out with it. And, no, it was not the same band for all those formations you named. The Tapeats formed from the west to the east. The sandstones in Eastern North America formed from the southeast to the northwest. Can't be the parts of the same layer.
Well yes, they can. It's perfectly possible that, given different gradients on the east and west coasts, you would see that result.
Yes, same transgression. Not the same facies.
https://www.climate-policy-watcher.org/plate-tectonics/sauk-transgression.html
Quote
The distribution of Cambrian sedimentary facies around this arch shows that the facies are generally parallel to the arch, and that sand facies are generally next to the arch whereas deeper water shale and limestone facies are further offshore, showing that this is an original feature and not formed by erosion. The name given to the Eocambrian through late Cambrian rise of sea level is the sauk transgression, which formed a shallow or epeiric sea over more than 75 percent of North America. During this period sea levels rose about one foot (0.3 m) every 20 years. As the seas rose they deposited a layer of quartz-rich sandstone over an unconformity that migrated toward the center of the craton with time, forming one of the major transgres-sive sand sequences of the past 500 million years of Earth history. Most of these sands were derived from the previous 500 million years of weathering products that accumulated on the cratonic interior of North America, and as the sea level rose, the high energy beach environment reworked these soils, sands, and other products in the regolith to a stable quartz-rich assemblage now preserved as the basal transgressive sand. Many of the sand grains in this basal quartzite are very rounded, and well sorted (meaning they have similar size to each other), suggesting that some of them were derived from windblown sand deposits before they were transported by rivers and reworked in the high-energy beach environment.

Next paragraph is also very interesting.

In any case, this doesn't fit with Bluffy's fantasy. 1' every 20 years does not work with a 40 day storm and subsequent flooding over the next year.

And the sand layers are neither continuous nor of consistent composition, thickness nor were they necessarily flat.

Are we there yet?

  • osmanthus
  • Administrator
  • Fingerer of piglets
Re: Testy Explains the Layers Which Include the Tonto Group
Reply #1710
I didn't claim they were the same facies. I was just pointing out that the same transgression could give the result you mentioned, so the result mentioned was not, in itself, an argument against them being part of the same deposit.

None of that quote really matters anyway. All Dave is trying to argue is that there is a layer which was all laid down at the same time. IOW, local differences in sediment type or thickness wouldn't be relevant to his case. His case is sunk by the simple fact that there are large areas with no Cambrian sediment.

But yes, the obsession with flatness is bizarre. I have no idea where he gets that one.
Truth is out of style

Re: Testy Explains the Layers Which Include the Tonto Group
Reply #1711
Where's the evidence that all those DIFFERENT formations are one continuous sheet? (Let alone one "extraordinarily thin" or  "extraordinarily flat" one?  :dunno:
Who decided that they are "DIFFERENT"? Based upon what? "I'm a geologist and I live in Potsdam, New York ... hmm I think I'll name this sandstone 'Potsdam' ..."
Look at the formations you listed. Different depths, different compositions, some metamorphic.  Obviously the same, right?
But, to play devil's advocate, none of those factors preclude it all being laid down in the same transgression. In fact we can be sure that sediment was deposited over a vast range during the Sauk. Which doesn't mean that Dave has correctly identified it all, but it is what we would expect to find.
Be careful agreeing with me.  You might get your Darwin Club Card revoked!

  • osmanthus
  • Administrator
  • Fingerer of piglets
Re: Testy Explains the Layers Which Include the Tonto Group
Reply #1712
I'm not agreeing with you, numbnuts. Not about your silly Fludde mythology anyway. I still think that's ridiculous.
Truth is out of style

  • Martin.au
  • Thingyologist
Re: Testy Explains the Layers Which Include the Tonto Group
Reply #1713
5' per century is fast. That's about 5x the current rate. I wonder if that's purely eustatic.

ETA: Just read the page. Looks like subsidence plays a role too.
"That which can be asserted with evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." (Dave Hawkins)