Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why the Flood Never Happened
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1829 of 1896 (718018)
02-03-2014 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1826 by Faith
02-03-2014 6:19 PM


Re: More evidence for Faith to ignore.
quote:
Typical anti-creationist crap. There are different kinds of mountains with different kinds of exposed surfaces in different kinds of climates, there is no reason to expect erosion to be identical from one to another.
Okay, so if erosion is so dependent upon climate, why do the Andes look so similar over thousands of miles of extent through different climatic zones?
I would think that parts of it should look like the Appalachians, and other parts like the Canadian Shield. According to you, that is...
quote:
Mountains formed of upthrust tilted strata would erode differently from mountains formed from folded strata for instance, ...
What do you think 'upthrust strata' are but folded sequences?
quote:
... and certainly from mountains formed from igneous rock.
You mean like the igneous rock under the Andes which are similar to the more eroded Sierra Nevada?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1826 by Faith, posted 02-03-2014 6:19 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1832 by Faith, posted 02-03-2014 7:12 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1830 of 1896 (718020)
02-03-2014 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1827 by Faith
02-03-2014 6:20 PM


quote:
Of course you have nothing to say about how you think it is against the Flood.
How what is against the global flood? Please be specific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1827 by Faith, posted 02-03-2014 6:20 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1831 of 1896 (718021)
02-03-2014 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1819 by herebedragons
02-03-2014 11:17 AM


Re: restatement
It is thought that the major deformation of the Grand Canyon area was during the Laramide orogeny which began about 80 mya. But between 600 mya and 80 mya, the area was part of the stable continental core.
Well, the GC itself is located in the Colorado Plateau which did not see a lot of deformation during the Laramide. Most of the tectonism occurred afterward with the formation of the Basin and Range Province which surrounds the Colorado Plateau on the north, west and south sides. This action was mostly tensional, resulting in abundant normal faults, but the plateau retained its identity.
Now, if you want to see real deformation, look at the Precambrian rocks of the Grand Canyon. These, of course are hard for Faith to explain because they are obviously older mountain building event(s) which are overlain by flat-lying sedimentary systems, which are, themselves folded elsewhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1819 by herebedragons, posted 02-03-2014 11:17 AM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1834 by Faith, posted 02-03-2014 7:28 PM edge has replied
 Message 1837 by herebedragons, posted 02-03-2014 8:29 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1833 of 1896 (718024)
02-03-2014 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1832 by Faith
02-03-2014 7:12 PM


Re: More evidence for Faith to ignore.
Originally, yes, as I recall Lyell illustrating, but if they've lost their rounded folds they are going to erode differently. The Rockies show straight flat strata, at least where I've seen them, in Canada, while the Alps and the Appalachians show folds. Wouldn't they erode differently?
You are only seeing part of the Rockies. I suggest you google 'the grand hogback' or 'garden of the gods'.
Know also that the Rockies have actually been uplifted three times in the last 400my or so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1832 by Faith, posted 02-03-2014 7:12 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1835 by Faith, posted 02-03-2014 7:32 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 1839 of 1896 (718051)
02-04-2014 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1834 by Faith
02-03-2014 7:28 PM


Re: restatement
I happen to think that angular unconformities such as the Great Unconformity, even if located deep under flat-lying strata, were formed after all the strata above were laid down, and were not ever mountains. The weight of the overhead strata, two miles deep over the Supergroup, would have resisted the force that tilted the Supergroup
How is that? Why would the overlying rocks not deform while the ones underneath do so, assuming both were present at the same time?
This doesn't really make sense even in a rheological model. Do you have experiments showing this phenomenon?
... so that it formed there, from the tectonic force and perhaps also the volcanic force which was exerted at the same time and made the granite and the schist basement rocks.
No. That much disruption will not leave the superjacent rocks unaffected.
If the underlying rocks were that mobile, they would contain fragments of the rigid rock above.
Instead, we have the opposite effect where rounded fragments of the underlying unit are found in the upper. In fact, they are found in troughs within the underlying unit. These things are not possible in the scenario that you attempt to develop.
Seems to me that Siccar Point was formed the same way, by lower strata being folded and eroded against a great depth of horizontal strata above, which all eroded away since then.
Now, you contradict yourself. if the upper strata are eroded away then there is a new depositional regime which is exactly what we see. Is this what you are saying?
There's even a dike there too to show volcanism beneath that formation as well, which again seems most likely related to the formation.
Volcanism can occur at any point after. If you ask me, all of these events militate against a young earth.
Then there's also the north side of the Hurricane Fault which can be seen on the cross section so often posted here, ...where strata that had been continuous with the strata on the South side of the fault tilted and fell a great distance, but keeping the layer of the Claron Formation horizontal on top of the tilted layers. That certainly was not laid down after the tilting, ...
Why is that?
...it was already there and fell with the whole block.
How do you know this?
quote:
And again there's a magma dike paralleling the fault.
And?
I'd guess they were probably folded elsewhere as a block though, just as they were bent as a block in the GC, showing that the strata were all in place before the tectonic force occurred. Too bad it's usually just a small block that happens to though.
I have no idea what your point is here. There are a lot of observations that really have nothing to do with the timing of faulting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1834 by Faith, posted 02-03-2014 7:28 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1842 by RAZD, posted 02-04-2014 8:41 AM edge has not replied
 Message 1843 by PaulK, posted 02-04-2014 2:00 PM edge has not replied
 Message 1845 by Faith, posted 02-04-2014 3:31 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 1840 of 1896 (718053)
02-04-2014 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1835 by Faith
02-03-2014 7:32 PM


Re: More evidence for Faith to ignore.
All that's important here is whether there is evidence of different degrees of erosion between the different parts. Is there?
Of course there are, but time is one of the factors. Otherwise, we should see highly variable landforms within a single mountain range that traverses through multiple climatic zones.
I mean I thought my guess was pretty good that different kinds of mountains would erode differently.
That does not mean that time is not a factor. For instance, the Alps and the Appalachians were formed in the same way with the same kinds of rocks. Why do they look so differently?
I don't care if the Rockies are consistently one kind or another, the question is whether you get different degrees of erosion from different ways mountains were formed. You do, don't you?
Volcanic ranges erode differently from continental collisions. However, you cannot dismiss different degrees of erosion as simply climatic. I think you labor to make an insignificant point.
There is little doubt that mountain ranges are of different ages. For instance, we have deformed Cretaceous rocks related to subduction along the west coast of North America. So, where are the deformed Cretaceous rocks on the east coast?
No doubt this is one of those interpretations that is based on particular kinds of evidence, but we never get the evidence, just the interpretation.
That is because you do not read the primary literature, or even a textbook. If you are really interested the information is available.
And why would this matter in this discussion anyway?
Just pointing out that things are not really as simple as one might be led to believe... such as having one mountain building event in the history of the earth.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1835 by Faith, posted 02-03-2014 7:32 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1844 by roxrkool, posted 02-04-2014 2:49 PM edge has replied
 Message 1846 by Faith, posted 02-04-2014 3:44 PM edge has replied
 Message 1847 by Faith, posted 02-04-2014 3:55 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(3)
Message 1852 of 1896 (718129)
02-04-2014 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1847 by Faith
02-04-2014 3:55 PM


Re: More evidence for Faith to ignore.
I didn't. See above.
So, your only real point is that all mountain ranges are the same age, right?
Subduction occurs on the west coast, not the east coast, right? The east coast is moving away from Europe by the separation of the continental plates at the Atlantic ridge, it's a different scenario is it not? Rather less violent than subduction? Enough force to gently buckle the Appalachians but not enough to deform the rocks you are describing or raise the Rockies.
That wasn't the point. The point is that if Cretaceous rocks are deformed in one mountain range, but not in another, it suggests that they are of different ages.
But no, you are wrong.
Divergent tectonics did not form the Appalachians.
And the Appalachians were not just 'gently buckled'. We have pieces of Africa still overthrust onto the North American craton.
Seems to me the evidence ought to be a main part of any discussion, not relegated to the technical literature.
I am providing you with evidence. The problem is that there is so much that I don't even know where to start, and even more that I have forgotten.
And you make it sound easy but the technical language is beyond me, I've tried to read some of the papers online, forget it.
It is beyond a lot of people. I have always said that this is more complex than YECs make it out to be.
I don't suppose that your inability to understand the technical issues would make you pause at dismissing mainstream science, would it?
I'd have to take a long course in Geology and I'm too old for that and normally too busy with other things too, except lately when my life has been taken over by this forum.
As I said, this doesn't seem to keep you from insinuating that you know better than people who have studied these things for entire careers.
And I don't want to take on all the issues involved in the Flood anyway, just a very few. AND, I really don't think it would make a difference to the argument anyway.
Some would call that 'avoidance'.
Well, you all don't believe it's that simple, but I do.
You can believe whatever you want. Just don't present it as superior to the hard work of many geologists over the last couple of centuries. This presents an air of false arrogance.
My job as a creationist is to see things differently than you do.
Your job as a sentient being is to use your mind to analyze data, not just make stuff up because it makes you feel better.
I don't think having knowledge of the technical language would help with this either since most of it assumes the Old Earth scenario.
Assumes old ages with abundant support.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1847 by Faith, posted 02-04-2014 3:55 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1860 by Faith, posted 02-05-2014 6:00 AM edge has replied
 Message 1866 by RAZD, posted 02-05-2014 8:57 AM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 1853 of 1896 (718130)
02-04-2014 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1851 by Faith
02-04-2014 6:22 PM


Re: mountains
NOW it's a passive margin, but when the separation began at the Atlantic ridge there was most probably some degree of jolting, ...
So you admit that the Appalachians formed at an earlier time.
At last, some progress here.
In fact, they formed when North Africa collided with North America starting back in Ordovician time. That explains the westward directed thrusting of supracrustal rocks along with pieces of oceanic crust and the edges of the African basement which occur along the east coast.
I don't know if that jolting is what buckled the Appalachians or it was caused by the same violent jolting that raised the Rockies, and continued on across the continent in a milder form.
Not a bit.
In fact, there is evidence that the west coast was passive margin at the time, possibly with outboard island arcs.
Again we see mountain building of different ages.
I'd guess it was the initial jolt as the continents ripped apart.
As I said, all evidence says that the Appalachians formed at a continental covergent boundary. The Mid-Ocean Ridge had nothing to do with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1851 by Faith, posted 02-04-2014 6:22 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1861 by Faith, posted 02-05-2014 6:05 AM edge has replied
 Message 1873 by herebedragons, posted 02-05-2014 10:20 AM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 1854 of 1896 (718132)
02-04-2014 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1846 by Faith
02-04-2014 3:44 PM


Re: More evidence for Faith to ignore.
I did not dismiss different degrees of erosion as climatic, edge, in fact I merely tacked on the climate point as an afterthought, don't know why you make so much of it.
Okay, then, you abandon that part of your argument?
My main point is that the way the mountains formed would explain the different degrees of erosion and I'm answering something somebody said about how it could only be due to time.
Well, it appears that time is the major factor. For instance, post-orogenic basins formed the Appalachians during the Triassic, whereas they formed in the Rockies in the Pennsylvanian (Carboniferous) and the Tertiary. Please explain.
My guess would be that the difference has to do with the fact that the Alps were pushed up a lot higher than the Appalachians, looks pretty obvious to me.
Unfortunately, the metamorphic evidence suggests similar elevations.
The Appalachians were comparatively gently formed compared to the Alps, may also have been softer than the Alps which were under greater pressure so greater compaction. Something like that.
The rock sequences are of similar age and composition. Possibly the amounts of strain are higher in the Alps, but I wouldn't characterize the Appalachians as having been more 'gentle'. In fact, according to most YECs the Alps would have been 'softer' because of the great recumbent folds present.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1846 by Faith, posted 02-04-2014 3:44 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1862 by Faith, posted 02-05-2014 6:13 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1856 of 1896 (718134)
02-04-2014 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1845 by Faith
02-04-2014 3:31 PM


Re: restatement
I really wish I could design one. The closest I came to finding one was the illustration PaulK mentions, in Lyell's online book, where he is demonstrating the buckling or folding of strata by lateral force -- a book on each side-- with a pile of cloths as the strata. Of course he's not trying to prove my scenario but I thought it was a good illustration for that purpose. He has a book on top which keeps the cloth confined to the area between the side books.
You refer to a zone of weakness. The problem is that there are lines of evidence that would support this if it happened. For instance, usually such zones show signs of mylonitization, grinding with formation of secondary lamination. There should also be a zone of detachment between the bodies of varying ductility and usually pieces of the more competent rock within the less competent, commonly showing alignment. This is just to name a few features that would be diagnostic.
Problem is, they are not present in the GC.
... PaulK says I said the upper strata were rigid-but-not-rigid but I'm not sure what he's remembering from me. They would have been pretty rigid it seems to me, with two miles of strata above compressing them all. Rigid enough to make an effective resistance against the forces from beneath anyway.
The forces are not from beneath. They are lateral, and the strain is concentrated in the weaker zone. You are not interpreting the forces correctly nor do you account for the expected features.
You may think of this feature as an overthrust. Which, by the way, most YECs deny.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1845 by Faith, posted 02-04-2014 3:31 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1864 by Faith, posted 02-05-2014 6:18 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1857 of 1896 (718135)
02-04-2014 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1844 by roxrkool
02-04-2014 2:49 PM


Re: More evidence for Faith to ignore.
Hi, edge! Hope you have been well.
Too busy until recently. Right now just doing volunteer work. In fact, I was up at Mines today meeting with students. Hope all is well with you. I think Chuck is retired in Reno now.
She just sucks you in, doesn't she? lol
Well, it can't be for long. These things bore me after a while and I stop responding. I detect an underlying intelligence, buried in a flood of pernicious religious dogma and misinformation. But yeah, I guess I'm a sucker for giving people the benefit of the doubt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1844 by roxrkool, posted 02-04-2014 2:49 PM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1858 by roxrkool, posted 02-04-2014 9:55 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(3)
Message 1867 of 1896 (718181)
02-05-2014 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1861 by Faith
02-05-2014 6:05 AM


Re: mountains
How odd. I thought the continents were separating from that ridge.
Yes, it is odd that you think nothing happened prior to the initial opening of the Atlantic Ocean.
Odd also that you should think separation of the continents would result in convergent deformation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1861 by Faith, posted 02-05-2014 6:05 AM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 1868 of 1896 (718184)
02-05-2014 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1862 by Faith
02-05-2014 6:13 AM


Re: More evidence for Faith to ignore.
Here's a typical piece of Old Earth mystification. "During the Triassic" is utterly meaningless to me.
Of course it is. I would expect that a lot of things are utterly meaningless to you.
My guess is that this dismissal means that you don't really care, either.
I associate all the names of eras with ROCKS. The idea that basins formed during the Triassic or during the Carboniferous and Tertiary is just gobbledygook, like saying a rock is a landscape, which is one of the most bizarre ideas of historical Geology. It provides nothing in the way of evidence one could even begin to picture in one's mind.
You mean to your mind.
I always thought the Alps were very high mountains and the Appalachians very low mountains more like rolling hills.
And?
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1862 by Faith, posted 02-05-2014 6:13 AM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 1870 of 1896 (718187)
02-05-2014 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1864 by Faith
02-05-2014 6:18 AM


Re: restatement
Your post conveys just about nothing to me so I can't respond to it, except to this part:
As I expected. It appears that I was right in guessing that your knowledge of the earth was just bumper-sticker slogans.
Lateral force buckled the lower strata.
And how did that stress translate to the lower layer?
The buckling pushed upward against the strata above.
So, this force was strong enough to deform the lower layer and uplift the upper layer, but left no deformation in the upper layer.
Sorry, but you're going to need a reference here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1864 by Faith, posted 02-05-2014 6:18 AM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 1871 of 1896 (718189)
02-05-2014 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1860 by Faith
02-05-2014 6:00 AM


You're right about that. I don't consider Old Earth science to be reliable testable science, ...
Then you do not agree. You do feel competent to judge. Why do you say that I am right?
... and the technical language only serves to make it inaccessible.
Well, I suppose a minimal amount of knowledge would be assumed. But feel free to criticize.
The technical language is often Old Earth language anyway. Triassic this and Cretaceous that. Which is merely mystification.
Yeah, it's a tough world where words have meaning.
I'm sorry that things aren't easier for you.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1860 by Faith, posted 02-05-2014 6:00 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