That's OK, I'm used to it and I don't see any point in trying again to get any of it across.
We understand what you are saying just fine. What you lack is evidence and grounding in basic physics. If I said that pigs fly you would understand what I am trying to get across, but you wouldn't believe me.
"Laying down" does not take more than a few minutes if water does it, whether a river...
By river I assume you mean one where the water is flowing. Sediments do not fall out of active water, such as that in a flowing river. Add a half inch of soil to a tall glass, then fill it the rest of the way with water. Stir for a few minutes, since you said "laying down" would take no more than a few minutes. While still stirring have someone measure how much soil has fallen out of suspension. You'll find nothing at the bottom of the glass, except maybe some of the larger rock or sand grains swirling around. The soil remains suspended in the active water.
...or precipitation out of standing water,...
Stop stirring. How long does it take for all of the soil to fall out of suspension so that you again have a full half inch of soil at the bottom of the glass? In other words, how long before the water is fairly clear. It will be much longer than a few minutes. It will probably be a day or two.
This shows that the behavior of suspended particles in water is contrary to what you claim for your Flood, that the sediments fall out suspension quickly. Small particles, which is what most sedimentary strata are mostly made of, will stay suspended in the active waters of your Flood. These particles will only begin to fall out of suspension when the Flood waters become fairly still.
Another thing you must explain is how a flood that was only a couple thousand feet deep over the land (because there were only low hills in the antediluvian world and the flood only rose a little above the highest hill) could deposit sediments a couple miles deep.
...or the kind of deposition that gets created by rushing water which has been shown many times before, mostly in flume experiments but once in nature caused by a flash flooding river.
The Bertault flume experiments deposited sediments at a steep angle, not horizontally. This is queued up at the exact right spot in case you don't remember:
And how was the Flood like a flume or a flash flooding river? This would seem to contradict your claim that the Flood behaved differently from anything at normal scales because of its sheer immensity.
Many layers can be laid down simultaneously by these means.
If you mean a sequence of layers being deposited simultaneously one atop another, you haven't described any means by which this would be possible.
And don't forget the amazing laying down of sediments to a great depth that Mt. St. Helens created in very short order.
The 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption deposited volcanic ash and material from pyroclastic flows, not sediments carried by water. That volcanos can do this was well known for a very long time before Mount St. Helens, and there are plenty of layers of volcanic ash and basalt in the geologic column.
Aside from the fact that I’ve previously told you that the West is on the left and East is on the right, aside from the fact that is the conventional orientation for maps and aside from the fact that the labels provide enough information and aside from the fact that the tilt is obvious enough that you could work it out from that alone.
You have no excuse for not knowing at all.
quote:
No idea what you think is a folded rock.
Which is not even relevant, even if it wasn’t a common geological term and obvious on the diagram.
quote:
Probably no point in trying to explain it since it's impossible to follow such descriptions. Nobody can follow mine and I can't follow yours.
There is no impossibility in following our descriptions. You don’t offer any that would let us work out which strata you are talking about. So, I can only conclude that you don’t want us to know what you are talking about.
quote:There really is NO order to the strata themselves either, they are a stack of sediments that hardened into rocks, and if there is an order to it only something like Walther's Law could provide the order, an order based on the mechanisms of deposition by water.
The order you refer to is not Walther’s law. And it is produced by the environmental changes which occur as the coastline advances and retreats. A flood wouldn’t produce those sequences. It would just bring in the sediment carried with it.
Because of the way Faith structured her paragraph I found your answer a little unclear, so in case others do also, when you say, "The order you refer to is not Walther’s law," it's about where she refers to "an order based on the mechanism of deposition of water." Earlier in the paragraph Faith referred to the order of the strata, calling it "NO order," which is, of course, untrue. She usually has the strata of the Grand Canyon in mind, and those strata were formed by processes covered by Walther's Law.
I'm not sure where you are suggesting there is no order, but the Great Britain cross section shows plenty of orderly patterns. For instance, several of the formations show grading of sedimentary grains with coarser conglomerates at the base.
So looking at the diagram again:
When you said that there are orderly patterns I thought you were going to comment about the ordering of the types of layers of sandstone, shale/mudstone and limestone and so forth, but you instead describe formations that have coarser sediments at the bottom than at the top. What symbols in the diagram indicate this, and aren't formations with the fine sediments at the top and the coarser at the bottom more representative of deposition by water that became gradually less active over time than of slow deposition over thousands of years in a fairly consistent environment?
The Bible is certainly more reliable and should always be the standard. In fact I take this bit of comparison in which sometimes there is agreement to be an argument that the radiometric methods are NOT reliable in themselves.
The accuracy of radiometric dating has been established by correlation with tree ring data back about 14,000 years. The accuracy of Bible dating has been established because Faith says so.
When you said that there are orderly patterns I thought you were going to comment about the ordering of the types of layers of sandstone, shale/mudstone and limestone and so forth, ...
Yes, that occurs with transgression and it is one of the patterns seen in the diagram.
The reverse can also be found in some locations where there has been a marine regression, however, the nature of these occurrences are less likely to be preserved because of the inevitability of erosion as sea level drops. I don't really see that in this diagram.
... but you instead describe formations that have coarser sediments at the bottom than at the top. What symbols in the diagram indicate this, and aren't formations with the fine sediments at the top and the coarser at the bottom more representative of deposition by water that became gradually less active over time than of slow deposition over thousands of years in a fairly consistent environment?
By 'coarser', I assume you mean conglomerate deposits rather than sandstone?
This is an interesting feature of the diagram. The small circle patterns represent gravels or cobbles or boulder deposits above each one of the erosional unconformities.
Notice that, if you connect the small circles with a line, they form a pattern that cuts across the upper layers above the unconformity. They form a horizon that parallels the unconformity rather than lying within each younger layer.
These might be called 'lag deposits' that form on top of the unconformity as it is being buried. They are fragments of the rocks beneath the unconformity included in the layers above it. They are 'locally derived'.
Do you see? They are part of the overlying sequence but form a pattern within a pattern that looks like a separate layer parallel to the unconformity. Look at almost any picture of the Great Unconformity in the Grand Canyon and you can see this feature. The Siccar Point unconformity also shows cobbles of the underlying rock just above the unconformity surface. This is very common and is cleverly shown in the section.
The Great Barrier Reef is an old, old structure going back at least a half a million years but the current reef, the one we see today is at least 8000 years old. Since this reef began growing after the end of the last Ice Age we can be certain that there was not a world-wide flood that tore out and moved the reef in at least 8000 years. Since the current reef is built on top of a whole series of much older fossil reefs we can be sure that it has been at the current site for not less than 8000 years.
Unless of course Faith can provide a model, mechanism, method, process or procedure that would allow either of the Biblical Floods to tear an 8000 year old reef up and then carefully place that reef intact on top of a half million year old already existing reef.
But even if Faith can provide a model, mechanism, method, process or procedure that would allow either of the Biblical Floods to tear an 8000 year old reef up and then carefully place that reef intact on top of a half million year old already existing reef we are still left with needing her to explain at least a half million year old structure that has existed intact surrounding a continent with overwhelming evidence of continuous human habitation for at least 65,000 years.
We first obtained a copy of the diagram from the Wikipedia article, Geology of Great Britain, which found it in a different book at Project Guttenberg, Cambridge County Geographies - Cornwall by S. Baring-Gould. University Press 1910. Here's a link to the section on geology, and if you scroll down a bit you'll find the diagram. The description is different, focusing on Cornwall instead of Devonshire.
There is supposedly something in the lower strata (beneath sea level of the "island proper) which indicates a folded rock, which indicates the order of deposition according to standard geology. I suppose I'd recognize an actual folded rock but I don't know what schematic representation is being talked about.
I skip posts, sorry, especially if they start out with or are clearly full of snark and criticism so if you want yours read you may have to be a tad more accommodating. I understand that, as someone said recently, there is no good reason to accommodate a crazy creationist's ideas, so for me there is no reason to accommodate my opposition.
However, although there is no reason to suppose that such a "folded" rock would have any impact on anything I've said so far I would like to know what on earth is meant by it. Thank you.
COuld someone explain how the strata beneath the "island proper," meaning beneath the part that William Smith illustrated, were ascertained?
First, I assume they are buried and not visible to the naked eye as are the strata on the island itself, is that correct? To edge, if you answer simply that you have no idea what I'm saying please don't bother, so would someone else please answer my question?
Second, if they are buried, I assume since they are below sea level that they are also water saturated, is this correct?
Third, if they are buried, were they identified by cores or what? The diagram was made in 1910 according to Percy so did they have the technology to bore down to the strata and bring up cores then? If not, how would they have ascertained the form of those strata we see on the diagram beneath the island?
It is very clear that the strata beneath the island were NOT laid down there. But I gather others here think they were? Yes?
So is all the discussion about the order of deposition and the gravel deposits and so on referring to what is believed to be what happened to the strata as we see them now?
In reality we do see layers which are heavily eroded - and were eroded before the layers above them were deposited. We do see mixed sediments.
How do you know they were eroded before the layers above were deposited?
And what is the point you are making about "mixed sediments?'
And again, are you talking about erosion you suppose happened to the strata in their illustsrated position in the diagram? (againh, I think it is very clear that the strata were originally laid down ON TOP OF THE ISLAND, that is, on top of the part that Smith illustrated, and NOT where they are found now, beneath the island. Apparently a tectonic force broke them and "collapsed" them into their current position from left to right instead of the original bottom to top. The tilted parts that are visible ON the isoland would have been positioned to the left on top of that mountain, although most likely, as I believe you suggested, the mountain was pushed up, and probably as a result of the same tectonic force that "collapsed" the strata into their current positions. I still have a problem visualizing how the strata beneath the island got there since the island must rest on some kind of support, continental support, something.
So another question is, What is holding up the island?
The rest of your post is the usual debunkery but I would really like to understand what Geology thinks about those lower strata.
By river I assume you mean one where the water is flowing. Sediments do not fall out of active water, such as that in a flowing river.
These things have been illustrated here before, flume experiments and even the incident where a whole stack of sediment layers was laid down all at once by a flooding river. And river deltas do layer sediments, and I assume the water is flowing at that point. There is also, again, the fact that a flow from Mt. St. Helens laid down a whole stack of strata simultaneously. I know you want evidence and it is out there and really should be found and produced here but I'm a bad person, as you know, and not up to it.
The flume experiments simply demonstrate that water DOES deposit sedimentary layers. There are many ways water layers sediments. Precipitation is one. The point is that it's WATER WATER WATER that accomplishes this feat, and the Flood provided a LOT OF WATER.
Flume experiments tell us nothing about a fludde. In flumes the ater is confined to move in one direction, and the presence of walls and floor strongly affect the behavior.
I vaguely remember your river thing, but can't dig it up right now. In the absence of evidence we'll ignore it.
As Percy pointed out a few messages ago, the flow from Mt. St. Helens was pyroclastic flow, not water.
™ Version 4.2
(1)