|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did the Flood really happen? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22948 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
JonF writes: Mammals 300 years? ;-} I'm a YYYEC! Thanks for the catch, fixed now. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22948 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
Faith writes: edge writes: So, imagination is not good or useful? The problem you have is that we see different environments today that have different organisms and sediment types. Why would the past be any different? You are trying to reconstruct such environments from a sedimentary ROCK with a few fossils of creatures of a particular kind buried within it. We're not reconstructing environments just by looking at strata. We're looking at sandstone strata and seeing that they have the same composition in lithified form as sand deposits along coastal areas today. We're looking at shale and mudstone strata and seeing that they have the same composition in lithified form as sediments being deposited today off the coast of seas and lakes. We're looking at limestone strata and seeing that they have the same composition in lithified form as sediments being deposited today in warm shallow seas like the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico.
You ASSUME the rock represents a time period in which those fossil creatures lived, and that raises the question how that whole time period got squished down into a rock. This isn't an assumption, just obvious logic, and you believe the same thing, that all fossilized life became entombed in strata during the time period when it lived, just like we do. Where you differ is in believing that all life lived at the same time and became buried at the same time. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Percy writes: Faith writes: You ASSUME the rock represents a time period in which those fossil creatures lived, and that raises the question how that whole time period got squished down into a rock. This isn't an assumption, just obvious logic, and you believe the same thing, that all fossilized life became entombed in strata during the time period when it lived, just like we do. Where you differ is in believing that all life lived at the same time and became buried at the same time. The evidence that would support Faith's position would be finding everything that lived at the same time jumbled up together unless she can provide the model, mechanism, process, procedure or method that allowed either of the Biblical Floods to sort the life forms in the order we find them in reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1961 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
The strata ON THE ISLAND PROPER, meaning resting on the straight horizontal sea level line, are all side by side from left to right, and the scale will make no difference to that fact
This is where you are using very confusing terminology. Sometime, it takes me days to figure out what Faith is trying to say.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22948 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
Faith writes: Can you describe where in this diagram that strata built upon granite is indicated: Where the "Cambrian" and "Silurian" strata are shown starting on it and hanging down from there to become the lowest portion of the strata beneath the island. That doesn't answer the question. You claimed that the diagram *emphasizes* the strata that built on the granite. Where does the diagram perform this *emphasis*. Cambrian and Silurian are indicators of age, not of granite. Here's a closeup of that part of the diagram:
Please describe where in this closeup you see that it is indicating that there is granite. I'm not saying there isn't granite anywhere in the area covered by the diagram. I'm saying that nowhere in the diagram do I see it saying anything at all about granite, and I'm asking you that if you see the diagram saying that there is granite somewhere then please tell me where the diagram is saying that. Also, the Snowdon strata that descend to the right are not "hanging down". They are completely supported by basement rock.
And I might as well repeat here what I already tried to describe to PaulK (I think): From something he said I came to think the mountain was probably raised up by the same tectonic force that caused all the rest of the strata to "collapse" as I put it,... I think everyone's still pretty uncertain what you mean by "collapse." My guess is that you're saying that at one time the strata stretched flat and horizontal across Wales and England, that there was uplift with Snowdon in the west being uplifted much more than Harwich in the east causing a tilt downward toward the east (the right), and so the strata just fell off to the right, in effect, "collapsed." Where is the evidence in the diagram or anywhere else that there was ever any such a "collapse?" Did you check the floor of the English Channel between England, Belgium and the Netherlands, or did the collapse stop right at the eastern shore?
...from their original position stacked above what is now the mountain, so that what is now the left to right positioning of the usual order from Cambrian to Holocene was originally vertically stacked on top of the mountain before it was a mountain but would have been basement rock like those beneath the Tapeats in the Grand Canyon area. Basement rock is the wrong term for the sedimentary strata of Snowdon.
Anyway I gather the strata as they are now seen on that illustration are assumed to have been laid down that way, meaning laid down just as we see them on the illustration? Is that correct? So that what I keep saying about how they "collapsed" into that position is not recognized at all? You should really try reading what people write, especially when they've written it so often. Here it is yet again. No, no one believes "the strata as they are now seen on that illustration are assumed to have been laid down that way." Just as we've said many times already, the strata reflect episodes of deposition, uplift, subsidence, sea level rise and fall, and erosion. Deposition tends toward the horizontal, just as Steno said. Deposition over long periods creates deeply buried strata that are subjected to the compressive forces responsible for lithification. Tectonic forces uplift and tilt strata. Uplifted regions become exposed to erosion. Rising sea levels and/or subsidence can submerge previously exposed and eroded regions where they'll experience additional deposition, creating an unconformity, possibly angular if the region was tilted before being eroded. These are basic geological principles that we've been explaining to you for nearly 20 years. They can all be observed taking place all around the world today (except for lithification, I suppose). Where can we go to observe the kind of "collapse" you think happened? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22948 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
Faith writes: The strata we see both on the surface of the island and beneath it, which are all one geological column spread out from left to right across the island both above and below, cannot be the way it was originally laid down, since they would have been laid down one on top of the other from bottom to top. They are now left to right,... If you take these sedimentary layers A (on the bottom) through H (at the top):
H ---------------------------------------------- G ---------------------------------------------- F ---------------------------------------------- E ---------------------------------------------- D ---------------------------------------------- C ---------------------------------------------- B ---------------------------------------------- A ---------------------------------------------- And then you tilt them upward on the left and erode the tops off like this:
A B C D E F G H \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ Then the formerly vertical ordering will, at the surface, appear to be left to right. That's all you're seeing. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1961 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Please describe where in this closeup you see that it is indicating that there is granite.
We do not have a legend, so it's kind of moot, but one could argue that the lowest rock unit is "granite" in the sense that there appears to be an intrusive rock below the Cambrian sedimentary rocks. Certainly farther south in Cornwall, there are very granite-looking rocks exposed around the tin mining areas, and the old literature that you linked me to, prominently mentions granite. For the record (and I mentioned this earlier), the symbol using short, randomly oriented line segments is a traditional symbol for intrusive rock.
I'm not saying there isn't granite anywhere in the area covered by the diagram. I'm saying that nowhere in the diagram do I see it saying anything at all about granite, and I'm asking you that if you see the diagram saying that there is granite somewhere then please tell me where the diagram is saying that.
The diagram is smudgy in this area but if you follow the line that dips down below the sea level datum at about 60% of the way (left to right) across the detailed diagram, you will see continuity of the intrusive symbology present in the deepest parts of the long cross section. I think I also pointed out the other day that there are some odd symbols on the Smith stratigraphic column that appear to indicate some kind of intrusive rock.
Also, the Snowdon strata that descend to the right are not "hanging down". They are completely supported by basement rock.
This basement is shown as an intrusive. I believe that is what Faith is calling granite. However, it's always hard to tell what Faith is thinking. Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22948 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
JonF writes: I think you're forgetting that the vertical scale is greatly exaggerated to show the relationships more clearly. In the real world the angles of those layers are nowhere near as steep as in the drawings. A key question is what is the degree of exaggeration of the vertical scale in this diagram. In other words, how tilted are these strata in reality. I think it's possible to figure out:
The elevation of Northampton is 220 feet above sea level. On the diagram that is 57 pixels on my computer. So 57 pixels is 220 feet or .041 milles, which is 0.00072 miles/pixel. The distance across the horizontal extent of the diagram is 2614 pixels or 200 miles, while is 0.077 miles/pixel. Dividing one by the other we find that the vertical scale is exaggerated by 107 times. This tells us that the deepest part of the diagram (beneath Wolverhampton) is only .32 miles deep or 1700 feet. It's easy to scale the image so it shows what the cross section actually looks like at true scale. It's as flat as a pancake (click on the image to expand, it helps a little). Yes, that little white bar is the true-scale cross section:
Even if "collapse" were a thing in geology, the tilt could never have been steep enough for the stack of strata to fall over. I'd like to know what Edge thinks, because some data is inconsistent with such a slight degree of tilt. For example, if you look at Siccar Point you can see that the tilt there is very apparent and much more than in my true-scale cross section:
Another issue is that the elevation of Snowdon and Northampton are inconsistent. If Northamton's elevation of 220 feet is 57 pixels then Snowdon's height of 186 pixels is only 770 feet, and we know that Snowdon is actually 3500 feet, which is a significant discrepancy. This tells me that the cross section not only has different scales for the horizontal and vertical (which is standard for geological cross sections) but that the vertical scale is widely inconsistent from one place to another (which is very much non-standard). So I'm suspicious. It's all well and good to come up with a precise calculation of the true tilt, but meaningless if it doesn't match reality. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Add another example of discrepancy at the end.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1961 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
The elevation of Northampton is 220 feet above sea level. On the diagram that is 57 pixels on my computer. So 57 pixels is 220 feet or .041 milles, which is 0.00072 miles/pixel. The distance across the horizontal extent of the diagram is 2614 pixels or 200 miles, while is 0.077 miles/pixel. Dividing one by the other we find that the vertical scale is exaggerated by 107 times. This tells us that the deepest part of the diagram (beneath Wolverhampton) is only .32 miles deep or 1700 feet.
Actually, collapse is a well-known process in geology and that is why we can say that it is of no consequence in this particular discussion.
It's easy to scale the image so it shows what the cross section actually looks like at true scale. It's as flat as a pancake (click on the image to expand, it helps a little). Yes, that little white bar is the true-scale cross section: Even if "collapse" were a thing in geology, the tilt could never have been steep enough for the stack of strata to fall over. I'd like to know what Edge thinks, because some data is inconsistent with such a slight degree of tilt. For example, if you look at Siccar Point you can see that the tilt there is very apparent and much more than in my true-scale cross section:
I think the best way to explain would be that this is a schematic diagram. Notice that there is no scale shown in either the horizontal or vertical dimensions, other than the notation about it being 200 miles across. It is also a hand-drawn diagram which does not lend much precision to measurements. Another issue is that the elevation of Snowdon and Northampton are inconsistent. If Northamton's elevation of 220 feet is 57 pixels then Snowdon's height of 186 pixels is only 770 feet, and we know that Snowdon is actually 3500 feet, which is a significant discrepancy. This tells me that the cross section not only has different scales for the horizontal and vertical (which is standard for geological cross sections) but that the vertical scale is widely inconsistent from one place to another (which is very much non-standard). So I'm suspicious. It's all well and good to come up with a precise calculation of the true tilt, but meaningless if it doesn't match reality. I think we can safely say, however, that there is an extreme amount of vertical exaggeration which sacrifices angular relationships to readability and basic strtigraphic concepts. As to the comparison with deformation at Siccar Point, keep in mind that as we go north and west on the diagram (toward Ireland and Scotland) deformation increases as the core of the Caledonian Orogeny is approached. Hence, the deformation at Snowdon is greater than Northhampton, etc. I'm pretty sure that the apparent folds shown at Snowdon are also schematic and that they are more intense than the diagram indicates. Some easy internet research should confirm this or not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22948 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
Faith writes: You already conceded this isn't true, that the lower boundary of sedimentary deposits will follow the contours of the surface they're deposited upon. The lower boundary, yes, at the very bottom of the stack, but the top of each will be straight and horizontal. Sedimentary deposits will follow the contours of any surface they're deposited upon, not just basement rock. For example, if submerged strata are uplifted unevenly so that they tilt, then subsequent sedimentation will be upon a tilted surface, not a horizontal one. Repeating what I've said several times in the past, deposition tends toward the horizontal because lower elevations tend to fill in faster, so as sediments are deposited more deeply the tilt at the top will gradually become more and more horizontal.
NONJE OF THE STRATA WERE DEPOSITED IN THEIR PRESENT POSITION as illustrated on the diagram. The record of uplift and subsidence and of rising and falling sea levels is clear in the geologic record. There is no record of significant lateral movement of strata (miles, which is the type of distance you're talking about) in the geologic record. If you think you've found evidence of such large lateral movements then please let us know. The only known example of significant lateral movement of strata is on the sea floor where strata reside on what is essentially a conveyor that eventually carries them to a subduction zone.
The strata on the island is those above the straight line which is sea level. I think the count must be above 10 now, that you've been informed that current sea level is meaningless to anything you're saying about strata. If you think otherwise then please explain and discuss. Please don't just keep repeating the error.
They are all tilted upward toward the left like slices of bread. They are broken off at the top. They were obviously not deposited in that position. Yes, that is correct, the strata were not originally deposited in their current tilted orientation. We've said many times that strata are in general deposited fairly horizontally. When tilted and uplifted to become exposed to the elements then they gradually erode away. It isn't brokenness you're seeing on the exposed surfaces of the strata, just the effects of erosion.
The strata beneath the sea level line are continuations of the shortened tilted strata above the line. They were obviously not deposited there, just as the strata above were not deposited in their illustrated position, because strata are deposited horizontally and stacked vertically. There is no indication of lateral movement of the strata, and especially no indication that the now-tilted strata are not continuous from above sea level to below sea level. Current sea level, as you've now been informed countless times, is not relevant. If you think otherwise then please explain why instead of just repeating your error. Maybe you're right about what seem obvious errors to us, but you can't just keep asserting them sans evidence. You have to show how they are true by bringing forward evidence and a valid interpretive context that shows that they're true.
These are neither. The strata in the diagram are neither horizontal nor stacked vertically because they've been uplifted unevenly so as to tilt. It's just tilt you're seeing, nothing more.
In their original position the lower strata would have been spread out horizontally... When you say "spread out horizontally" I hope you only mean that marine sediments deposit roughly evenly over an area. If you mean something different like sediments being deposited in one place and then spread out horizontally from there to other places, then please explain why you think this, and why it is relevant to your Flood.
...across the island and the whole stack with the short strata at the far left would be upright from Cambrian up to Holocene. Please stop using the term "upright." It makes it sound like you're standing the strata on end. "Upright" is not a synonym for horizontal. If you mean horizontal or flat and straight then please say horizontal or flat and straight, or if you mean something else then say that. Just please stop saying "upright."
Sorry if my language is hard to understand. That is why I would like to be able to sketch it. In fact I'm wondering if I drew it on paper, a few drawings at least and then scanned them into my computer if those could be somehow transferred to the forum. I'm not even sure what program to scan them TO in order to make that possible, AND I'm still afraid to turn on my computer because the virus had already eaten up a lot of material and I don't even know if I'll have time to load the malwarebytes program. BUT if I can and do, is there some way I could draw what i have in mind and scan it in so it would get onto the forum? Scan in your sketches in an image format like JPEG or PNG, then upload them to an image website. Other people will have to tell you which website to upload to, I don't use any myself (I see that JonF uses imgur.com, but I don't know any details about it, though I see it does use drag/drop for images). Once the image is there you can reference it from your messages. About the virus, do you know how to boot your computer in safe mode? How do you know it is a virus? What do you see happening that tells you something is deleting files? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1699 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I disagree with everything you said, that's why I repeat things but I'll stop. That may mean I have to stop posting altogether on this subject. The more I see of the interpretations of Historical Geology the less sense it makes to me. I really want to draw it the way I see it so I think I'll do that and try to understand the instructions about scanning it all in later.
The thing about your insistence that sedimentary deposits follow unstraight contours is that in the geological columns they are all clearly either straight or originally straight and those in the UK diagram are unusual and were clearly not deposited in their current position. I use "upright" for vertical, not horizontal, but I'll use "vertical" since there is a problem with "upright." ======================================Thanks for the information about how to scan in something and about the virus. About the virus:If it says somewhere "safe mode" I'll use it. If I ever get the computer plugged in again. I know it's a virus because I know I clicked on the wrong thing and got a weird looking orange page, and I stupidly did it twice and only realized what I'd done later. What it has been doing is using text that is not relevant to the site I go to but to some other site. I'll go to a Christian site and get a page of information about something else. It freaked me out so I didn't keep track, just shut down the computer and unplugged it. I unplugged three or four plugs and am not sure I could even get it all plugged back in, but maybe I can get help with that. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1699 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Actually that's pretty much what I have been describing, but I still think I'll do my own sketches.
The tilting as you see it would be enough to cause some of the disturbances we see in the strata that are beneath the island. And what you've shown here ought to make it clear that the strata beneath the island got there due to the tilting and were not there originally, as edge seems to be seeing it. The tilting would have thrust the righthand side of the strata beneath the sea level line and the upheaval itself would account for a lot of the distortion we see there. In fact since the tilting would have been caused by the one tectonic upheaval to which I ascribe all the disturbances everywhere, including in the Grand Canyon, it would account for the Great Unconformity everywhere it is found, and for Siccar Point too. Maybe I won't need to do the sketches. We'll see though. I was going to sketch the tilting as caused by the raising of the mountain, Snowdon, on the west side of the island, which I see as originally the basement rock beneath the strata above. Its raising would have pushed up the strata there, causing it to tilt to the right. It would also have broken off the strata on the west side which accounts for the broken off tops of those along the surface of the island. Not erosion, breaking. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1699 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I wanted to see if I could use your schematic system to do my sketches but it isn't working for me. I can describe what I'd like to do though:
Take your horizontal strata and lentghten them by fifty or sixty hyphens.That would represent the original deposition of the whole column Then we have the tectonic activity, so we show the mountain being raised beneath the column about a third of the way from the west end of the drawing. As it rises the strata above tilt both to the west and to the east, breaking right over the mountain's top.The west side falls off into the sea. The east side keeps tilting, now with its broken-off tops, as the moutain keeps rising, until the strata on the east are mostly beneath the sea level lilne with their broken-off tops tilted above that line. At some point in this tilting process most of the disturbances occur that we see in the strata beneath the sea level line, within the block of strata in various layers, and in the different thicknesses of the strata. Since these should all be under water as I've been suggesting, the differing thicknesses are probably explained by water saturation distorting them. But the tilting itself would have gone a long way to distorting the whole column. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10299 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1
|
jar writes: The evidence that would support Faith's position would be finding everything that lived at the same time jumbled up together unless she can provide the model, mechanism, process, procedure or method that allowed either of the Biblical Floods to sort the life forms in the order we find them in reality. Not only sort life itself, but also sort igneous rock layers so that the ratios of isotopes in those rocks correlates with the species found above and below them. Faith can dispute the accuracy of radiometric dating, but Faith can't dispute the fact of those measured isotope ratios.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1699 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Seems to me it's the Old Earth system in which everything should be all jumbled up, not the Flood. The surface of the earth NOW is all jumbled up isn't it? Animals die willy-nilly on the surface, they don't get nicely buried in nice neat specific sediments, whether above or below the sea, let alone in conditions that would fossilze them. Why should any previous time period, let alone, what, dozens? hundreds? of "time periods" be marked by such nice neat sedimentary strata with specific collections of fossils buried in them? it makes no sense at all that such periods of time should be marked out by flat neat sedimentary rocks of different kinds of sediment for every few million years, and the effort to rationalize it has to involve extreme mental contortionism. Or just denial.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024