|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Motley Flood Thread (formerly Historical Science Mystification of Public) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
No, I've specifically said that angular unconformities are NOT a block, specifically said that more than once. Angular unconformities are the ONLY exception to the rule I keep talking about, that LLhe strata were laid down before being eroded or deformed as a whole block or unit; said that many times, I guess you missed it. Angular unconformities are an exception. NOT a block/unit. ONLY exception. Well, then, the Paleozoic and Precambrian sedimentary rocks are in different blocks because they are not undergone the same deformation, yes? "Block" is a term I use to describe the strata eroded or deformed all together at one time and I don't apply it to angular unconformities because they are the single exception to the point i'm making about erosion or deformation to blocks or units.
And also, PLEASE explain the unconformities to us. Certainly. They are contacts between layers that according to standard Old Earth Geology were originally occupied by a layer/time period, which can often be found in other stratigraphic columns in the vicinity. There isn't one iota of physical evidence of any former presence of such a layer where the "unconformity" supposedly exists, it is entirely an assumption based on the Geological Time Scale. In physical reality they never existed, no layer was ever deposited there.
The splitting of the ocntinents was a worldwide event, that's what I'm talking about. Please document this. Is the East African Rift part of that break-up? No idea, but if it's a similar event and it occurred at the same time as part of the same tectonic movement I suppose it was.
A lot of tectonic bashing and crashing going on. The breaking up must have been fairly jolting, but then there was the subduction on the west side of the Americas that pushed up mountains etc. I happen to think it occurred in conjunction with the beginning of the receding of the Flood, because of the effects like the cutting of the Grand Canyon and Grand Staircase and the other massive erosion events in that area; and the dramatically deformed rocks in other places would be a natural result of such a tectonic bashing. So, the deformation occurred before the Tertiary rocks were deposited. No, the conventional timing of the breakup of Pangaea is incorrect, as evidenced by the continuous laying down of the strata up to Recent time, as shown on the Smith cross section of England. Had the strata since the Jurassic not been deposited at the time of the breakup of Pangaea, it would not be deformed in the same pattern as all the rest were, because that deformation is best explained as the result of the tectonic event we are discussing which came after all the strata were in place. In fact the recent strata in the UK would probably have been laid horizontally on top of all the other strata if the conventional timing was true because that's the way those strata were probably originally deposited. Instead the pattern of deformation across all the time periods shows that the continents did not split until after all the strata were laid down. The strata in the Grand Staircase area demonstrate the same thing: all in place up to Claron before tectonic disturbance formed the GS cliffs and the GC.
Yes a very nice theory. Puts together a lot of phenomena in one nice neat elegant package. Yes, cute. Except for the problem of not conforming to the facts, sure. Oh it does conform to the facts.
So you had the mountains forming in western North America and the continents breaking up in eastern North America. When did the Appalachians form? The continents split between the east coast of America and Europe/Africa of course. I think the Rockies were pushed up as a result of the subduction beneath the west coast of America, but the whole continent was affected, I don't think you can split it between east and west, it all happened at the same time due to the same tectonic event. The Appalachians of course formed at the same time but the pressure wasn't as forceful on that side of the continent as it was in the west so they are more of a buckling or crumpling of the land than a thrusting up of whole blocks of strata as in the Rockies. And there was volcanism released as a result of this event too of course, which accounts for the Sierras among other things. The dike at Siccar Point one remnant of it in that area. The magma that reaches all the way to the Claron in the GS is another. Magma doesn't reach as far in the GC because the strata had been washed away above the point where the magma did spill over. The Hurricane Fault and the angular unconformity to the north of it were also the result of this tectonic event, the result of the raising of the land to the south, and apparently a LOT of sedimentary material just sort of fell off the cliff on the north, a lot of it getting washed away by the Flood water as so much of the Grand Staircase was also. Oh there's more... Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
So you've got a mechanism for the rising and falling of the sea floor, and you recognize that "stratigraphic mega sequences" are "global events," and all that is really interestingly suggestive of a worldwide Flood Except that there was no world-wide flooding, Maybe no "floodING," whatever that is, but worldwide inundation of the entire planet, oh I think so.
... and there were six transgressions, How do you know it was six separate transgressions and not just six phases of the worldwide Flood?
and there were mountain-building events going on at the same time. How do you know it was at the same time? Aren't the strata continuous across the entire Midwest of the USA?
And it has taken about a half billion years to happen. SO unnecessary and unlikely. All the current dog breeds evolved within a few hundred years, if evolution had even a hundred thousand years to work with all living things would be extinct by now.
... and all there is against it is your assumption of millions of years.. That does not follow. Why not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I reject your "complex history," I see it as I described: the strata are deformed according to a recognizable pattern, all at one time, both at the surface and underground.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Mutation is not needed for evolution at any level; it may contribute something from time to time but very very rarely; the rest of the time it is useless and adds nothing except new variations on genetic diseases. If domestic/artificial selection produces such a range of breeds in such a short time although natural selection would take longer it would NOT take millio9ns of years.
And unfortunately a hundred thousand years WOULD lead to extinction, certainly not according to the prevailing paradigm which is massive delusion, but according to the truth, which is that the original Creation designed immortal beings, both human and animal, and it's only because of the Fall that death entered. If there had been no sin or death all creatures would simply have diverged into wonderful varieties of unimaginable kinds. But death brings it all to an end eventually, and that hundred thousand years is probably a huge overestimation. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
So you just handwave away all angular unconformities. No, they need to be explained and that's why I've got an explanation I've been working on. But I'd also mention again that they really are the ONLY exception to this rule and that in itself is very interesting, because of the prevailing model were correct there should be a huge number of such "exceptions," it should be the typical case. But it's not Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Faith says that units deform as a block, but then breaks her own rule by claiming the layers from the Sixtymile down tilted by themselves independently of the rest of the unit from the Tapeats up. Clearly she has no coherent definition of a unit. Nonsense. You forget I've excepted angular unconformities.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Oh nonsense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
No.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I spent way too much time trying to take PaulK's views of the underground portion of that Smith diagram seriously. No. It was all deformed as a unit or a block and the distortions seen there where the strata encounter those blank areas are most probably where the strata were intruded and displaced by the usual underground rocks such as schist and granite, like the situation in the Grand Canyon, some of the strata being turned into schist as a matter of fact. This is just another case of strata being laid down all together through all the time periods and then deformed as a unit, only it occurred in a particularly messy way in this case. There aren't even any true angular unconformities here but if there were I reject the standard interpretation anyway: the whole thing occurred at one time and not one segment at a time.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The "evidence" you were giving just never made any sense though I kept trying to see it as you seemed to see it. I finally realized it's all an attempt to make something out of nothing. You can't explain the history of the formation of the strata after they are that extremely deformed, and my first take on it was right: The strata on the surface follow a pattern that clearly demonstrates deformation as a unit, and so do the strata underground. The areas you try to make into evidence for deformation before deposition are really just distortions brought about after the deformation. And besides, this would be the only example on the planet of what you are claiming for it. That alone falsifies it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The line that curves up was distorted after deformation probably by encountering the metamorphic rocks underground. The underground strata were deformed as a unit of parallel layers and then further distorted afterward.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Seems kind of strange that on one else had a hard time with it. Not strange at all since you all are quite eager to make as much something out of as much nothing as you can, you don't care if you have to find it in a deformed mess or hallucinate it or whatever you have to do. Since you all are capable of believing that a time period can become a slab of rock and you believe in hundreds of millions of totally unnecessary years for something that should take a few thousand at most, and you believe a reptile ear can evolve into a mammalian ear, and you believe there was a sedimentary layer in a super tight contact that shows not a shred of erosion, I'm sure it wouildn't be hard to come up with unconformities long after the rock had been deformed even though there are other possible explanations for it. And you believe some salt in a layer is proof positive of a warm climate some ridiculous number of millioins of years ago and so on and so forth. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
This is an interesting article in which the author uses only arguments proposed by different supporters of a Flood to show it could not have occurred at any time in the Earth's history. There is no general agreement among them of what constitutes pre-Flood, Flood, and post-Flood. Page not found | National Center for Science Education If you want to join this thread please pick a topic and argue it and quote from the article. ABE: Also could somebody put that article into a form I could copy into a Word document. For some reason it's a struggle and I finally gave up. Thank you. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
No, not everyone, just Historical Geologists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
thanks. Yes I know there are all those disagreements so maybe it wouldn't be worth it to read the whole article.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024