More evidence that the strata were all in place before being distorted

So I found myself thinking about this again after some time. This cross section of England that William Smith did kept coming to mind as indisputable proof that such a geological formation couldn't be explained by an ancient earth, but that the flood and a young earth explain it nicely.That is, clearly all the strata were laid down before the tectonic movement occurred that pushed them almost upright. The strata span all the "time periods" from Paleozoic to Cenozoic so it's a good example of the whole shebang being in place before the tectonic force acted on them as a block.So according to standard Geology the strata were laid down over a period of hundreds of millions of years, about 540 million years from the beginning of the Cambrian period, different periods of time each supposedly having taken many millions of years, during which for some reason only very specific kinds of sediments were deposited, shown on the cross section as quite a variety of different rocks. I regard this as evidence in itself, not something to be debated.This all adds up to very unlikely evidence for those many millions of years, but really very good evidence for a much more recent Flood that deposited the strata fairly rapidly as separate sediments.We can certainly also say about it that the strata were originally laid down horizontally and then pushed into their current slant, so the argument that sediments can deposit evenly on a slope isn't relevant, it being clear that it couldn't happen on such a steep slope.I like this cross section so much because it is such a good uncluttered unambiguous example of All-Strata-First-Then-Tectonic-Distortion, which is great evidence against the OE and for the YE and Flood. And I want to get these facts into the picture here as foundational to the current argument.It's another example of the same process I identified at the Grand Canyon where the strata are undisturbed from the Precambrian to the Permian and then again at the Grand Staircase from the Permian to the Holocene, AFTER which the canyons were cut and the staircase formed and so on and so forth, as I demonstrated on the copies of the cross section of the area. And there are lots of other geological formations that demonstrate the same order of events, which is what prompted me to propose this topic a couple of years ago: Strata all in Place before any Tectonic, Vlcanic, Erosional Disturbance , which is of course another attempt at a point I've been trying to make for years.This isn't the same argument as the one I started in that proposal, because I do have a new thought to bring to the table. In the earlier proposal I just wanted to accumulate the examples that showed that tectonic disturbance came after all the strata were laid down, which strongly suggests that they are just slabs of rock that formed from different kinds of sediments, many containing the remains of animal and plant life, that would have originally been deposited by water, and couldn't have been time periods in which you'd expect a lot of activity on the surface of the earth. There's NO such activity indicated on these slabs of rock, there areknife-edge straight tight contacts between many of them, they just get stacked up as layers and THEN they are subjected to various forces, tectonic movement that breaks and twists and buckles them. In the Grand Canyon the movement cut the canyon itself plus all the carved steps and canyons in the Grand Staircase, etc.But I've wanted more evidence that this is the universal order of events, and I got a new perspective on it as a result of prayer as I was thinking about this cross section.The main objection to my argument is that even if it's clear in one place or even many places that there was no tectonic disturbance until after all the strata were laid down, that doesn't prove that's always the case, and supposedly there are plenty of other places where it occurred lower in the strata, or at an earlier "time period."Well, the examples to try to make that point are pretty ambiguous, often a situation where upper strata are simply absent, and my answer is always that the disturbance did not occur during the laying down but afterward there too, it's just that all the strata above happened to be washed away due to the tectonic movement, leaving the uppermost layer at the level where it is supposed the tectonic disturbance occurred. Well, there's no real way to prove that, although it's logical enough and I think it's true.And what I mean by no way to prove it is NO WAY TO PROVE IT, not that the evidence shows something else as Percy suggests below. The evidence is simply too ambiguous to prove anything for sure.Anyway as I thought about it and prayed for a new way of looking at it, what came to mind is the whole scenario of tectonic activity on the planet. Specifically I looked up the pattern of active volcanoes, which are associated with tectonic movement, and found some typical maps showing that they are commonest around the Pacific Rim, also sometimes called "the ring of fire," which is where the continents are pushing toward each other and the sea floor is being subducted under them. Or here's one that's more schematic, emphasizing the activity around the Pacific Rim: The other side of the continents, the eastern edge of the Americas and the western coast of Europe and Africa (except for the split between Europe and Africa which runs through the Mediterranean Sea} are dotted with dead volcanoes {which I think are most apparent on Google Earth), which shows that they were active at the beginning of the continental movement when the Atlantic ridge first formed, but then died out as the tectonic pressures became more active where the continents are pushing together.So with the idea that evidence could be found in the tectonic movements I read up on it and spent some time on the theories of the supercontinents that are believed to have come together and broken up many times over the course of earth's history. The last such supercontinent has been named Pangaea, and its breaking up produced the seven continents we know today. The interesting thing about all this is the timing assigned to the various stages.As I've been pursuing this topic of how the strata were laid down before any disturbance distorted them I always had in mind that the continents were stable (within the context of the current extremely slow tectonic drift of course), but now I find that the theory is that they've been moving around, and rather wildly too, during the laying down of the strata.Here's Part 2 of a 3-part video of a lecture on plate tectonics covering all the supercontinents. Part 2 covers the precursors to the formation of Pangaea, between 250 and 300 million years ago, which is after many of the strata/time periods have already been laid down. WHERE were they laid down on these shifting pieces of land? He doesn't get into that. One piece of land includes what is going to become North America and Europe, where strata were certainly laid down in the Paleozoic era when all this shifting of tectonic plates was supposedly going on. Somewhere in the middle of that conglomeration of land is Britain which should be accumulating strata rather calmly and horizontally all this time, judging by the cross section, though how that is possible with all the shifting of boundaries is a question. In fact there's one pretty dramatic event at about 3:55 on the counter, about 420 million years ago, in the Cambrian period, where there is a collision affecting the future North America and Europe that the lecturer says formed mountain ranges in Europe. Enough tectonic force there one would think to disturb the Cambrian layer of England, but there's no sign of it on that cross section.Anyway, the supercontinent Pangaea actually takes shape in the Carboniferous period (about 6:30 on the video counter), many strata up from the Precambrian, a layer or two from the end of the Paleozoic on the cross section of England at the top of this post. Around 9:50 on the counter Siberia crashes into Europe, forming the Ural mountains, and of course I'm continuing to wonder why the strata in England aren't being affected since there it is between two large bodies of land where tectonic plate movement could squish it pretty hard you'd think. But according to the cross section clearly they just went on laying themselves down horizontally throughout the Paleozoic and Mesozoic and even to the end of the Cenozoic before they were upended, presumably by a tectonic force. North America too for that matter since it's spanned by strata yet there's the Grand Canyon quietly building up its stack during this period without showing signs of disturbance. And Pangaea starts breaking up in the Permian period, right at the end of the Paleozoic, yet the strata in England just go on laying themselves down.In other words the tectonic movements they propose are impossible. The actual evidence shows ONE basic breaking and moving apart of land masses from one original land mass, the collection of movements currently underway around the world, with volcanic activity clearly in evidence at the edges that are pushing into new territory, such as around the Pacific Rim, and dead volcanoes at the edges where the land masses originally broke apart and the movement began, such as around the Atlantic rim where the breaking occurred at the Atlantic ridge. There isn't any evidence of earlier collisions and splittings, only of the pattern we see today. All the actual evidence shows ONE originally unified piece of land that broke into the current continents all at one time. This obviously did not need anything like the time allotted to the accumulated "time periods" of the Geologic Time Scale. The time line given for all that skittering of land masses around the globe is seriously called into question by the mere fact that the formation of the strata as we now see it could not have survived intact anywhere on the planet with all those multiple collisions and splittings. The ONE upheaval that formed the situation of the strata in Smith's cross section is evidence for a young earth, for a worldwide Flood, followed by ONE worldwide volcanic and tectonic disruption of ALL the land mass everywhere, causing it all to break up and move apart in the directions we now see occurring.This ONE flurry of activity causing ONE breaking apart between the Americas and Europe/Africa would nicely account for the situation in the British Isles as shown on Smith's cross section, and the one-directional tectonic distortions of the strata wherever they are found, and the relatively intact strata stacks where those are found. There really couldn't be that much coherence if anything like that tectonic scenario of multiple supercontinents and splittings had happened.The mere preposterousness of all that, along with the preposterousness of the idea that a slab of rock represents a time period of millions of years, and its contents anything but a graveyard of some portion of whatever was living at the time of its formation, is evidence of a young earth and specifically of a worldwide Flood.MY OVERALL CONCLUSION IS that there was only ONE great tectonic event that affected ALL the land mass at once, broke up the original "supercontinent" into the current seven continents, which have been moving in their respective directions since then. This all began AFTER ALL THE STRATA WERE IN PLACE so ALL the distortions of all the strata everywhere occurred after they were all in place. There was NO tectonic or volcanic disturbance ANYWHERE ON EARTH until after all the strata were in place. The continuous movement of the continental plates causes new volcanoes to erupt and new earthquakes to occur, and the continuous pressure with occasional new jolts keeps the mountains slowly rising and so on, but it's all basically one continuous motion that's doing this. There are no separate tectonic events in reality, just occasional joltings as the same continuous motion subducts sea floor where it pushes into it. Whatever disturbances can be seen anywhere on earth have occurred AFTER ALL THE STRATA WERE IN PLACE, which means, as I have argued over and over for the last few years, that the supposed hundreds of millions of years they represent according to standard Geology had to have to have passed without any of the normal disturbances this planet is prone to. No evidence of any sort of disturbances for all that time, no evidence they were ever on the surface of this planet that is so active with all kinds of normal disturbances. This is a killer argument against the Geological Time Scale. And this post adds a good argument based on the way the continental plates move in one basic orchestrated action, that it isn't just a few places where it is obvious there was no disturbance, but everywhere.The Flood built the strata and then they were tectonically disturbed. Period.I do not want to debate this after all. But I'll bump it up where it can be temporarily appreciated.Thank you and goodbye.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : typosEdited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

People will be investing time and effort. It wouldn't be fair to them if you ended up abandoning the thread. Are you sure you want to begin a thread like this? If by "there's no real way to prove that" you mean you have no evidence for your position, then I can't promote the thread. Also, your post proposes several different geologic scenarios, each requiring their own evidence, making the thread rather too broad. Even as it is your proposal is long.It would also be reassuring to have your assent to following moderation and the Forum Guidelines, and to quoting what you're replying to.But in any case, the proposal raises a few too many concerns to promote outright. Perhaps you might consider something more narrowly focused. At one point you say that all tectonic motion today is in one direction. I think if you move the relevant material for that idea from this proposal to a new thread proposal that it would generate a great deal of interest.

I have no intention of abandoning a thread once it is promoted. The other one wasn't promoted.But I disagree with you that there's more than one topic here. The topic is that the one direction of tectonic movement as illustrated opn the map proves the point that all the strata everywhere were subjected to the same distorting forces at the same time.Of course I agree to the rules.ABE: I don't know what Dr. A finds so humorous, which he posted on the humor thread, obviously something he expects to go over my head, all I can do is guess that the idea of one direction of tectonic movement is funny. As I said I'm aware that there are different tectonic movements, and if you want to call the movement on either sider of the Atlantic trench two rather than one direction, that's fine, but the point is that it all keeps going in the direction it started and there is no evidence that it's ever shifted directions from whatever direction it has been going in. So whatever force it exerts is always from the direction it has been going in. So in the Americas that direction is east to west, in Europe and Africa it's west to east, for India it's southwest to northeast, and where Europe is still separating from Africa it's moving north while Africa is moving south.I hope this is clarifying.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Your participation in science threads over at least the past year has been peppered with threats to abandon discussion. If your energy isn't up to it at the start of a new thread, I can see you becoming frustrated quickly. Assertions made in your proposal that would be topics in their own right:

• The Smith cross section is "indisputable proof that such a geological formation couldn't be explained by an ancient earth, but that the flood and a young earth explain it nicely."
  ​
• "It also shows the completely different rock type of each layer, which in itself shows that the whole interpretation of time periods of millions of years attached to each layer is ridiculous as I’ve often pointed out, but for some reason this obvious evidence against the OE scenario is brushed aside. I’d laugh except it’s depressing."
  ​
• "So it's pretty clear on the maps and diagrams that there is one major tectonic direction separating the continents.
  ...
  "Well, in a nutshell since there is only one direction of tectonic movement and it’s worldwide, there would be only one major tectonic disturbance affecting the strata."
  ​
  You later append that you meant that the direction of tectonic motion never changes, which is fine, but that's not what the current wording says, so it will have to be amended.
  ​
• "OE Geology says the continents have moved around many times, back and forth, since the origin of the planet, but that’s all conjecture based on OE assumptions."
  ​
• "Also, isn’t it rather obvious that the continents couldn’t change the direction of their movement anyway?"
  ​
• "Britain is after all right where the continents broke apart and the Atlantic trench opened up."

I think if you pick just one topic and lay out the evidence and arguments for it that it will be more than enough.

Just so you know, I'm working on an answer to you and probably a complete rewrite of the OP.

....

Well, yes, this was one of the concerns I expressed in my Message 4: After more than a decade this "I'm leaving" act became old long ago, but the threat has a way of interrupting or hindering discussion, so as moderator I strongly discourage it. Because you usually don't actually leave, and even when you do usually soon return, I encourage anyone currently in dialog with you to continue posting replies.

I'm so offended at your post about the refugees I'm leaving for good. If you want to apologize, AND suspend Hyro for his personal attacks, I'll reconsider but I'm not holding my breath. I want this OP to be as good as I can get it nevertheless so I keep trying to improve it. Bye.