Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The TRVE history of the Flood...
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(3)
Message 631 of 1352 (807470)
05-03-2017 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 615 by Faith
05-02-2017 7:01 AM


Re: The Flood Explains the Cratonic Sequences. Basins are a joke
Your drawing doesn't make any sense.
This is what it actually looks like.
Today:
Processes similar to this and this and this and this and this and millions of other different processes happening simultaneously around the world.
End of the Cambrian:
Processes similar to this and this and this and this and this and millions of other different processes happening simultaneously around the world.
End of Jurassic:
Processes similar to this and this and this and this and this and millions of other different processes happening simultaneously around the world.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 615 by Faith, posted 05-02-2017 7:01 AM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 632 of 1352 (807514)
05-03-2017 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 627 by Minnemooseus
05-02-2017 11:43 PM


Re: Ordovician is a time period
After all, as the evo side frequently protests, the Ordovician is a time period not a bunch of rocks (OSLT).
That said, I do recognize that in geo-talk (slang?), "drilling an oil field in the Ordovician" actually means "drilling an oil field contained in Ordovician aged rocks".
Okay, to clarify (and I'm not much of a stickler on things like this) the official terminology as I learned it is this, from Wikipedia:
"A geologic period is one of several subdivisions of geologic time enabling cross-referencing of rocks and geologic events from place to place.
These periods form elements of a hierarchy of divisions into which geologists have split the Earth's history.
Eons and eras are larger subdivisions than periods while periods themselves may be divided into epochs and ages.
The rocks formed during a period belong to a stratigraphic unit called a system." (Period - Wikipedia(geology)) (bold added for emphasis)
In other words Ordovician Period (notice capitalization) refers to a period of time, and Ordovician System refers to the rocks that formed during that time period.
Maybe tomorrow, when it gets light, I'll go out and look at some preCambrian.
Okay, so the Precambrian is another time period that includes time before the Cambrian Period. It is huge, consisting of 90% of the existence of the planet. As we learn more about this deepest part of time, it becomes increasingly complex and is more and more subdivided.
But yes, in your area, most of the rocks are Precambrian in age.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 627 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-02-2017 11:43 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 633 of 1352 (807519)
05-03-2017 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 615 by Faith
05-02-2017 7:01 AM


Re: The Flood Explains the Cratonic Sequences. Basins are a joke
We are in one of those phases where nothing you say makes any sense to me and you blame that on my being a YEC and that's really the end of the possibility of discussion.
If you say so.
Again I don't see anything in your post that shows why the water didn't need to rise miles to lay down the sediments miles deep. You assert it but don't prove it or even give a half-baked reason for it. As long as the geological column exists miles deep anywhere on the continent it could only have been deposited by water miles deep.
Not really. The craton (the basement rock, if you will) could subside and allow more sediments to be deposited in a later event. We know that this happens, so I'm not sure what your complaint is.
The Grand Canyon for a visible instance is a mile deep; adding the strata of the Grand Staircase shows the whole column was originally two miles deep at least, and there is reason to believe there were more strata above that. Nothing you have said about basins or the craton changes this picture.
Actually, the Grand Canyon and Grand Staircase rocks were not deposited on the higher part of the craton. It actually occurs on the edge of the craton where subsidence is frequently observed.
As John Morris said in that article about the St. Peter Sandstone, that sandstone reaches across the entire continent of North America 3000 miles by 1000 miles and up to 300 feet thick. That's evidence for the Flood. There were no mountains at that time, the continent was a flat featureless plain (scoured off by the forty days and nights of rain and subsequent mudslides etc.).
There are a few problems with Morris' story. For instance, if this was a transgressive sand, that means that there was a source for the sand. That means a land mass and erosion of a quartz-rich source rock. Where do you think that was?
In fact, much of North America was underwater in the Ordovician. However, Morris forgets that there are other continents and does not recognize that most of those were not inundated. Remember the differences reported by Pressie?
The Cratonic sequences would have been phases of the Flood, each laying down a thousand or more feet of strata (1250 feet in the Sauk Sequence), the unconformities that mark each phase being the effect of the erosion caused by the regressive phase (not a "missing" time period millions of years old).
Except for the obvious (to most of us) time range and the fact that the sequences do not cover entire continents or mountain belts.
Basins would not have been there originally.
Some of them perhaps. However, it isn't to difficult to tell the age of a basin from its filling material. There are modern basins, for instance that oil companies drill completely through to find pre-basin rocks as source rocks or as reservoirs.
If that is the case, we would know it. I have seen the effects of salt tectonics here in Colorado. It's pretty obvious.
The fact that the Cratonic Sequences are recognizable in the basins just means the unconformities that mark them are recognizable.
That and the fact that they rocks vary laterally in many ways, including thickness and number of units. This was one of the early puzzles for geologists as to why there were some rock sequences that are so thick and why they often occur in mountain ranges.
The reasonable explanation for the whole thing is that the strata were laid across the whole continent one on top of another most likely by a rising tide, then much of it was eroded away when the tide went out.
Sure over millions of years there were many transgressions. Some major and some minor.
The water was rising all the time in the Flood.
That makes it kind of hard to explain evaporites and trace fossils, doesn't it?
The next tide/ transgression was higher and deposited another deep thickness of strata on top of the first, then regressed, eroding away much of what it had just deposited, and so on up through the six sequences. The water had to keep rising to deposit at the higher and higher levels laid down by the previous tide. (Neither craton nor basins, had they existed, would have affected this basic pattern).
So in between these 'tides', you had time for dinosaurs to populate the planet and build nests and raise young, all the while changing the community of species.
After it was all laid down the basins formed, in the case of the Michigan because of the salt layer at the bottom of it. The eroded areas called unconformities remain visible in the basin.
The problem being that the sediments are significantly thicker in the centers of the basin.
What the craton has to do with any of this completely escapes me.
I would imagine so.
I mean the fact that they are called 'cratonic sequences' doesn't mean the the craton has anything to do with them, yes?
(Balance of text snipped for brevity)
Your little story is nice, but it is contrafactual. There is nothing to support it. I'm not going to sit here and take it apart point by point as I/we have in the past. You can believe what you want, but it makes no sense with respect to the data in the field. You are alone on this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 615 by Faith, posted 05-02-2017 7:01 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 635 by Faith, posted 05-03-2017 4:20 PM edge has replied

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


(2)
Message 634 of 1352 (807524)
05-03-2017 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 630 by Admin
05-03-2017 9:19 AM


Re: The Flood Explains the Cratonic Sequences. Basins are a joke
Edge hasn't responded yet and will have to confirm, but when you say this:
quote:
Faith writes:
1) So, since you are not addressing Percy's idea that miles-thick sedimentary deposits are possible from a shallow sea I gather you are saying no, that is not possible, which of course it isn't.
As I said, Edge will have to confirm, but I believe he's agreeing that miles-thick sedimentary deposits are possible from a shallow sea. That's how the Michigan Basin formed. Here's that image again. Note that the depth of sediments grows to over a couple miles, and the water depth was never near that great. It was a shallow sea, the lowest point in the region, and it accumulated sediments over time that with the weight of increasing thickness gradually subsided into the continent
How this could have happened after deposition of strata across a continent is not clear. I would ask Faith how that might have happened.
In answer to your suggestion, yes, I believe it can and does happen.
When you look at the depth of sediments in the Mississippi Delta, you have to ask how 15km of Tertiary sediment can fit into a body of water only 4km deep, at the most. This stuff has to be sinking into the asthenosphere. Right now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 630 by Admin, posted 05-03-2017 9:19 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 635 of 1352 (807531)
05-03-2017 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 633 by edge
05-03-2017 3:20 PM


Re: The Flood Explains the Cratonic Sequences. Basins are a joke
I believe I already explained what would have to happen for the water not to have to rise miles to cover miles of sediment in Message 514. Each deposit sinks so that the next can be deposited in shallow water. That explanation seems to cover it. Since there are extremely deep areas of the Geological Column, flat across the country, and some of it DOES extend into the UK and Europe, as Morris says, those parts had to all sink together. A basin explains absolutely nothing about that. And as evidence it's useless. You need evidence for the large flat areas and so far I haven't seen any. But hey maybe I missed it. If so I'll come back to it eventually. Yes, I don't get what the cratons have to do with any of it since presumably the sequences covered the entire continent.
I've had enough. Communication with you is impossible. I'm not interested in your little snarky remarks or any of the rest of it. Far as I can see the Flood explains it all just fine.
And Pressie's volcanoes won't fit in the Jurassic strata. You might tell him that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 633 by edge, posted 05-03-2017 3:20 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 636 by edge, posted 05-03-2017 5:42 PM Faith has replied
 Message 638 by Pressie, posted 05-04-2017 1:47 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 636 of 1352 (807543)
05-03-2017 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 635 by Faith
05-03-2017 4:20 PM


Re: The Flood Explains the Cratonic Sequences. Basins are a joke
I believe I already explained what would have to happen for the water not to have to rise miles to cover miles of sediment in Message 514. Each deposit sinks so that the next can be deposited in shallow water. That explanation seems to cover it.
And that explanation has been refuted.
But basically yes a portion of the cration subsides under the weight of new sediment.
You know, it wonders me that YECs can easily accept that water will displace the asthenosphere to form the ocean basins, but cannot accept that sediments are actually shown to do so.
Since there are extremely deep areas of the Geological Column, flat across the country, and some of it DOES extend into the UK and Europe, as Morris says, those parts had to all sink together.
Very possible. At the particular time of the Saint Peter sandstone both the North American continent and Eurasia were not undergoing mountain building, so the were at a relatively low elevation, so yeah, they had a similar history. That changed in the late Ordovician.
A basin explains absolutely nothing about that. And as evidence it's useless. You need evidence for the large flat areas and so far I haven't seen any. But hey maybe I missed it. If so I'll come back to it eventually. Yes, I don't get what the cratons have to do with any of it since presumably the sequences covered the entire continent.
No. That has never been stated. I went out of may way to explain this part of the story.
I've had enough. Communication with you is impossible. I'm not interested in your little snarky remarks or any of the rest of it. Far as I can see the Flood explains it all just fine.
And I'm not thrilled with you calling my arguments fraudulent. So we are even.
And Pressie's volcanoes won't fit in the Jurassic strata. You might tell him that.
As I have said repeatedly, the craton does not necessarily include the continental margins where volcanoes and mountain occur. The cratonic sequences only explain the inter-regional transgressions across certain northern continents.
And I'm sorry, but if there are volcanic rocks in the Jurassic, they HAVE to fit in somehow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 635 by Faith, posted 05-03-2017 4:20 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 637 by Faith, posted 05-03-2017 10:16 PM edge has replied
 Message 646 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-04-2017 11:44 AM edge has not replied
 Message 678 by Admin, posted 05-05-2017 9:03 AM edge has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 637 of 1352 (807554)
05-03-2017 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 636 by edge
05-03-2017 5:42 PM


Re: The Flood Explains the Cratonic Sequences. Basins are a joke
Seems to me you never even looked at Message 514 let alone refuted it.
You say YECs don't consider that sediment could cause subsidence into the asthenosphere but that's what I was thinking about in 514. What degree of subsidence would be necessary to prevent the water from having to rise miles.
Since there were no time periods, the idea that there were time periods of mountain building is just a mystification to me.
If the continents were all one supercontinent it's hard to understand how all wouldn't have undergone the same effects at the same time.
You may have gone out of your way to explain things that I nevertheless didn't get. Perhaps you're happy leaving it at that.
Your snark has far outstripped any offenses on my part. And I apologized for the recent one. I don't recall you ever apologizing for anyting.
Comments about the craton and continental margines are utterly totally meaningless to me. I don't know what point you're trying to make, so it doesn't become part of the discussion. One of those things you explain without getting anything across. Happens a lot in conversations with you.
Volcanic rocks in Jurassic strata is qujite possible. Volcanoes are not. Because there is no such thing as a Jurassic period, it's a fiction. The evidence is of slabs of rock, flat slabs of rock, not a hint of their ever having been a time period at all. Most amazing piece of delusion ever invented. Even more amazing than macroevolution.
.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 636 by edge, posted 05-03-2017 5:42 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 639 by edge, posted 05-04-2017 9:28 AM Faith has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 638 of 1352 (807559)
05-04-2017 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 635 by Faith
05-03-2017 4:20 PM


Re: The Flood Explains the Cratonic Sequences. Basins are a joke
Faith writes:
And Pressie's volcanoes won't fit in the Jurassic strata. You might tell him that.
Really?
I beg to differ as those basalts you see here are Jurassic and
here you will find a photo of a Jurassic dyke found in a Triassic "bunch of rocks"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 635 by Faith, posted 05-03-2017 4:20 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 642 by Faith, posted 05-04-2017 10:35 AM Pressie has replied

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


Message 639 of 1352 (807599)
05-04-2017 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 637 by Faith
05-03-2017 10:16 PM


Re: The Flood Explains the Cratonic Sequences. Basins are a joke
Volcanic rocks in Jurassic strata is qujite possible. Volcanoes are not.
I thought this thread was done, but this statement is puzzling. How do you get volcanic rocks without volcanoes of some sort?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 637 by Faith, posted 05-03-2017 10:16 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 641 by Faith, posted 05-04-2017 10:25 AM edge has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 640 of 1352 (807602)
05-04-2017 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 625 by Faith
05-02-2017 3:41 PM


Re: The Flood Explains the Cratonic Sequences. Basins are a joke
The fact is they were. You should stay out of discussions you haven't been following.
You should kiss my ass!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 625 by Faith, posted 05-02-2017 3:41 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 641 of 1352 (807608)
05-04-2017 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 639 by edge
05-04-2017 9:28 AM


Re: The Flood Explains ... most things geological
Volcanic rocks in Jurassic strata is qujite possible. Volcanoes are not.
I thought this thread was done, but this statement is puzzling. How do you get volcanic rocks without volcanoes of some sort?
The same way you get dead dinosaurs or dead trilobites in various strata. They were carried in the Flood and deposited in that particular layer. It's not a time period. The fact that it's a flat slab of rock found among other flat slabs of rock all over the world is the proof that it's not a time period, it's a slab of rock that was originally a layer of wet sediment laid down in the Flood. A volcano won't fit there.
Yeah this thread is done, I just had some mopping-up thoughts.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 639 by edge, posted 05-04-2017 9:28 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 644 by edge, posted 05-04-2017 11:15 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 642 of 1352 (807609)
05-04-2017 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 638 by Pressie
05-04-2017 1:47 AM


Re: The Flood Explains ... all kinds of things geological
Faith writes:
And Pressie's volcanoes won't fit in the Jurassic strata. You might tell him that.
Really?
I beg to differ as those basalts you see here are Jurassic
Nonsense. The mountains formed after the Flood. Perhaps it was mostly a bunch of rocks called Jurassic that got pushed up into the form of mountains of course.
and here you will find a photo of a Jurassic dyke found in a Triassic "bunch of rocks"
Isn't it dike, not dyke? Anyway so you have a dike called Jurassic that penetrated into a bunch of rocks called Triassic. So?
Come to think of it how is that possible since the Jurassic followed the Triassic? I know it's not impossible but I don't see a clue in the picture that the rock positions were reversed.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 638 by Pressie, posted 05-04-2017 1:47 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 643 by jar, posted 05-04-2017 11:09 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 645 by edge, posted 05-04-2017 11:27 AM Faith has replied
 Message 648 by ringo, posted 05-04-2017 11:54 AM Faith has replied
 Message 677 by Pressie, posted 05-05-2017 2:30 AM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 643 of 1352 (807612)
05-04-2017 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 642 by Faith
05-04-2017 10:35 AM


The truth of the Biblical Flood is that the Biblical Flood never happened.
Faith writes:
The mountains formed after the Flood.
Except of course for the fact that there has never been a world-wide flood while humans existed and the evidence, including what is actually written in the Bible shows that is a fact.
First, as was shown back in Message 120 and again in Message 171 there is not just one Biblical Flood myth but two and they are mutually exclusive. One or both must be false.
Second as was shown in Message 169 there are paintings and petroglyphs from before the dates of the imagined Biblical flood that have never been submerged under water.
Then there are the facts laid out in Message 175 that also predate the imaginary Biblical Flood and continued right through the period.
And the facts that show the Bible is not a good witness were presented in Message 279.
Then there are the other things that lived and existed right through the imaginary Biblical flood that were presented in Message 342 and Message 346 and Message 347.
The TRUTH of the Biblical flood is that it never happened.
Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 642 by Faith, posted 05-04-2017 10:35 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 644 of 1352 (807613)
05-04-2017 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 641 by Faith
05-04-2017 10:25 AM


Re: The Flood Explains ... most things geological
The same way you get dead dinosaurs or dead trilobites in various strata. They were carried in the Flood and deposited in that particular layer.
Perhaps then you have evidence that intact lava flows were transported over long distances to their present locations in the strata. Perhaps you have some idea how certain volcanic structures such as calderas and volcanic vents were preserved during transport to the Jurassic System.
It's not a time period.
Whatever you say, Faith.
The fact that it's a flat slab of rock found among other flat slabs of rock all over the world is the proof that it's not a time period, it's a slab of rock that was originally a layer of wet sediment laid down in the Flood. A volcano won't fit there.
Except where they do fit in.
And, perhaps to you, it's just a 'flat slab of rocks', but the observations say differently. There are processes, compositions and textures that have meaning.
Yeah this thread is done, I just had some mopping-up thoughts.
Yeah, there could be a lot to mop up if one is interested.
And just to amplify on an idea that came up earlier about compaction, here is an image of a section through the Hermit/Coconino contact showing mudcracks in the red Hermit Shale filled by sand from the overlying Coconino Sandstone. I've been looking for this image for days now.
Notice the 'lightning bolt' shape of the cracks as they were compressed by the weight of overlying sediments.
Notice also the wavy nature of the contact as there were slight variations in pressure exerted on the underlying shale.
And here is another item that I thought might be of interest to some before the thread dies. This is a schematic of how many lithological contacts occur. While the differing compositions are clear, it is not clear where to draw the contact as it would appear on a map. Would it be at the first shale or at the last sandstone layer?
The reason I bring this up is because of all the talk about knife sharp contacts that we have seen. The reality is that contacts are not always clear cut.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 641 by Faith, posted 05-04-2017 10:25 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 647 by Faith, posted 05-04-2017 11:52 AM edge has replied
 Message 649 by Faith, posted 05-04-2017 12:04 PM edge has replied

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


Message 645 of 1352 (807616)
05-04-2017 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 642 by Faith
05-04-2017 10:35 AM


Re: The Flood Explains ... all kinds of things geological
Isn't it dike, not dyke?
Spelling in the English language is not uniform over the world.
Anyway so you have a dike called Jurassic that penetrated into a bunch of rocks called Triassic. So? Come to think of it how is that possible since the Jurassic followed the Triassic?
I guess you are not familiar with the concept of cross-cutting structures...
The point is that if a dike cuts across a rock (Triassic in this case), it is younger than that rock. If it does not cross-cut another rock (Jurassic in this example) then it is older than that rock. So, the dike had to form sometime between the older and younger rock.
Okay, so if you can find a place where the dike cuts across all sedimentary rocks to the most recent 'flood' rocks, then you could say that it is younger than all of them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 642 by Faith, posted 05-04-2017 10:35 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 679 by Faith, posted 05-05-2017 9:44 AM edge has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024