|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Continuation of Flood Discussion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
No, I do not mean only Paleozoic, I mean all the way from Tapeats to Claron and the location is the entire GC GS area from bottom to top. Which is what I SAID.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
No, I do not mean only Paleozoic, I mean all the way from Tapeats to Claron ...
Okay, so I should have said Phanerozoic, or most of it anyway. And by the way, IIRC, the Claron is partly lacustrine.
and the location is the entire GC GS area from bottom to top. Which is what I SAID.
But you ignore the Ancestral Rockies rising to the east of there, right?. You also ignore the Permian and Triassic island arcs offshore of the west coast at the time. Why constrain yourself to such a small corner of the world? And no, not bottom to top. You ignore the entire Precambrian which is actually a lot more time than the Phanerozoic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
So, you admit that you have to have a young-earth presupposition before interpreting the data? No, it means being willing to set bias aside.
If YEC prevails, I'm afraid we will need to assume the bend-over position and refrain from thinking. No wonder you're so frantic about all this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm interested in what's on the diagram, not what's off the diagram, because what's on the diagram makes the point.
I think of the Rockies as being tectonically raised after the Flood.
And no, not bottom to top. You ignore the entire Precambrian which is actually a lot more time than the Phanerozoic. I don't want to fight about my view of the angular unconformity, otherwise I'd include it because I believe all that too was laid down in the Flood. At least the strata were. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
No, it means being willing to set bias aside.
And your bias? Would you set that aside?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
I'm interested in what's on the diagram, not what's off the diagram, because what's on the diagram makes the point.
Well, that's weird since the rocks shed from the Ancestral Rockies correlate with the middle of your Phanerozoic sequence.
I think of the Rockies as being tectonically raised after the Flood. I don't want to fight about my view of the angular unconformity, otherwise I'd include it because I believe all that too was laid down in the Flood. At least the strata were.
How do you get an erosional unconformity during a flood? Particularly an angular unconformity?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
But you ignore the Ancestral Rockies rising to the east of there, right?. Here comes the tectonic activity associated with the end of the imagined floods. After all, that raised the Rockies which caused all the water to slosh east and wash away the Appalachians. http://www.evcforum.net/Images/Smilies/rolleyes.gifAnyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Here comes the tectonic activity associated with the end of the imagined floods. After all, that raised the Rockies which caused all the water to slosh east and wash away the Appalachians.
Never mind that fact that you would have to explain, then, where and when the Appalachians came from. YECs just keep on digging. I'm really curious about how Faith is going to explain this tectonic event that causes the flood, causes the flood to recede, causes post-flood erosion and causes tectonism in the basement rocks all at the same time. Bring popcorn...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The angular unconformity occurred, in my humble opinion. as a result of the tectonic activity AFTER the Flood. I know it's hard to keep the thoughts of a silly creationist in mind but I HAVE said this many times by now.
That disturbance raised the whole stack, and it was also associated with the release of the volcano or volcanoes beneath the canyon area which issued in lava flows here and there and intrusions into the Precambrian rocks and the magma dike to the north of the GS which issued in lava at the top of the strata there. You can tell all the strata were already in place because the dike just goes straight from bottom to top. It didn't occur during the laying-down of the strata. Same with the faults, which split the strata from bottom to top. An angular unconformity was the result to the north of the northernmost fault, with the Claron remaining horizontal over the tilted strata. There you have an example of an angular unconformity where the horizontal strata were clearly NOT laid down after the lower strata were tilted, because clearly the whole block of strata just dropped on the north side of the fault line, breaking off from the strata on the south side, all as a block. The Claron was broken also, was not deposited after the fault or it would not have deposited flat up against the fault line like that and the upper part of it would have fallen over the cliff and piled up. So there's an angular unconformithy that fits my model. And I can't prove it but the Great Unconformity was formed then too. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The Appalachians were formed by tectonic activity too. All the mountains were formed about the same time when the original continent split at the Atlantic ridge. That's THE tectonic activity I'm talking about that occurred at the end of the Flood. It merely buckled the Appalachians but it thrust up the Rockies rather precipitously, having a stronger impact on this end of the continent than on the east side. It made the angular unconformities in the GC GS area among other things. It raised the Rockies. It may have been the elevation in that direction that facilitated Flood water runoff.
Hope you are enjoy8ing your popcorn.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm really curious about how Faith is going to explain this tectonic event that causes the flood, causes the flood to recede, causes post-flood erosion and causes tectonism in the basement rocks all at the same time. Bring popcorn... Oh. The tectonic activity did NOT "cause the Flood." I do think it's connected with the receding of the Flood though, which is the cause of the massive erosion that I've circled in Message 328, and the angular unconformities and the faultings and the volcanism with the magma dikes and intrusions and so on. All stuff that didn't happen until all the strata were in place.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
The angular unconformity occurred, in my humble opinion. as a result of the tectonic activity AFTER the Flood. I know it's hard to keep the thoughts of a silly creationist in mind but I HAVE said this many times by now.
While I can imagine some scenarios for intraformational disruption, all of them leave behind obvious and diagnostic evidence which is absent in the Grand Canyon section. In fact, the evidence leads to the contrary. You may think what you want, but I hope you will understand why we oppose wishful science in the classroom.
That disturbance raised the whole stack, and it was also associated with the release of the volcano or volcanoes beneath the canyon area which issued in lava flows here and there and intrusions into the Precambrian rocks ...
Except that some of them are not intrusions...
,,, and the magma dike to the north of the GS which issued in lava at the top of the strata there.
All we are asking is for evidence.
You can tell all the strata were already in place because the dike just goes straight from bottom to top. It didn't occur during the laying-down of the strata.
Not the Cardenas Basalt.
Same with the faults, which split the strata from bottom to top.
The younger faults, yes. So what? We know that the region was uplifted sometime in the Tertiary Period.
An angular unconformity was the result to the north of the northernmost fault, with the Claron remaining horizontal over the tilted strata.
This is a cross-cutting relationship establishing relative age. If you want to prove otherwise, please do so. Your assertion is not evidence.
There you have an example of an angular unconformity where the horizontal strata were clearly NOT laid down after the lower strata were tilted, because clearly the whole block of strata just dropped on the north side of the fault line, breaking off from the strata on the south side, all as a block. The Claron was broken also, was not deposited after the fault or it would not have deposited flat up against the fault line like that and the upper part of it would have fallen over the cliff and piled up. So there's an angular unconformithy that fits my model.
Do you think that faults only move once? Sorry, but the Hurricane Fault system is long lived. The Claron is deformed, but the underlying rocks are deformed even more. We call that a 'growth fault' (although the term is usually applied to faults that do not crop out). So, no, you still have not provided any diagnostic evidence for your scenario.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You really are committed to finding the most trivial objections to anything I say. But why should I expect anything else? Well, I have to leave for a while. I'll try to answer you later, which will be a lost cause as usual but we do try.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Oh. The tectonic activity did NOT "cause the Flood." I do think it's connected with the receding of the Flood though, which is the cause of the massive erosion that I've circled in Message 328
So, where did this tectonism occur and why? How did it cause catastrophic runoff of the flood waters? How does that relate to the tectonism that disrupted the Vishnu rocks and the GC Supergroup rocks?
...and the angular unconformities and the faultings and the volcanism with the magma dikes and intrusions and so on. All stuff that didn't happen until all the strata were in place.
The faults you see are mostly normal faults that formed in tension, including the Hurricane Fault. On the other hand, the kind of disruption you (claim to) see in the GC Supergroup would be related to lateral shear or compression. How do you rationalize these disparate strain regimes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
You really are committed to finding the most trivial objections to anything I say. But why should I expect anything else?
Correct. If you are trying to unseat the established explanation, you should be prepared to answer detailed questions. That's what we do in science; as opposed to religion where conclusions are never allowed to be questioned.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024