Did the Flood really happen?

quote:

---

What is there to cause the sea floor uplift? I don't see any possible cause.
But we know that tectonic force can push the land up into mountains

---

There is nothing special about the sea floor that exempts it from the same forces that raise the land. Indeed, there are quite large areas of sea floor that once were land (the Black Sea, much of the Mediterranean, at least parts of the North Sea, just to name those I’m familiar with)

That makes absolutely no sense. There's nothing obvious about it, strata don't deposit neatly over a mounded surface, the idea is preposterous, it is far more defensible that the tilting of the Supergroup pushed up the stack of strata, causing that mound over it.Ba da boom.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I have no problem with the idea that land can sink, I think that's what happened in the Gulf of Mexico, and no I will not argue this further here so if any comments are made to this, take them to the new thread. Anyway, sinking isn't all that unlikely, raising the sea floor is. It is not like the land. Tectonic pressure can create twisted pretzels of strata, can can make accordion type mountains like the Appalachians besides pushing the land in a way that causes mountains to rise straight up. It could even cause the sinking of the land to form the landlocked seas and lakes of the sort you mention.There really is no force that could raise the sea floor. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

There's nothing obvious about it, strata don't deposit neatly over a mounded surface, the idea is preposterous,

---

And they didn’t. What you call the mounding happened much later.

quote:

---

it is far more defensible that the tilting of the Supergroup pushed up the stack of strata.

---

That isn’t defensible at all, especially as the strata on top of the SuperGroup wasn’t affected by the tilt.

quote:

---

I have no problem with the idea that land can sink,

---

Which has nothing to do with what I said. Indeed the areas I referred to were covered by rising sea levels or the breach of natural dams.The point is that there is no distinction between land and sea bed that prevents sea bed from being uplifted.

quote:

---

Anyway, sinking isn't all that unlikely, raising the sea floor is. It is not like the land

---

It is, because the main distinction is the sea level. Doggerland was covered because melting ice caused the sea to rise. Being covered by the sea doesn’t make it that different.

quote:

---

Tectonic pressure can create twisted pretzels of strata, can can make accordion type mountains like the Appalachians besides pushing the land in a way that causes mountains to rise straight up

---

And the sea bed is subject to exactly the same forces.

You were talking about "large areas of sea floor that once were land" by which you meant the floors of the various bodies of water you mentioned. That's not about sea floor rising, that's about land area sinking to become bodies of water.

Tectonic pressure happens mostly at plate boundaries. What percentage of plate boundaries are in the ocean?

quote:

---

You were talking about "large areas of sea floor that once were land" by which you meant the floors of the various bodies of water you mentioned

---

As evidence for the point that there is no real distinction between land and sea bed that would exempt sea bed from the forces that make land rise. It is quite clear if you read it. You just went off about land sinking for no reason, without even addressing the real point.

They push around the plates and may raise a mountain of sorts ON the ocean floor, while also being the cause of the mountains on the land and very likely the sinking that forms inland bodies of water, but I don't see any way they are going to lift the sea floor to land level.

quote:

---

I don't see any way they are going to lift the sea floor to land level.

---

What is going to stop it ? There’s nothing special about sea level - which changes anyway. So why can’t sea bed be raised higher than the current sea level ?

They can push up underwater mountains but if the mountain approaches the surface Jesus smacks it down?

We can SEE, we can UNDERSTAND, how tectonic forces alter the land, push up mountains, twist the strata and so on. The physics involved is really very clear. You just keep asserting that there's no reason why the sea floor couldn't rise to land level but that's no argument. You have no mechanism in mind for how it could happen. What pushes it up? A mountain is not the sea floor rising, it's just a mountain on the sea floor.

The same forces act everywhere. Above and under the sea. Most of it under the sea,Colliding plates often push up mountains. Everywhere. Such as the Aleutian Islands. See and understand. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

I see that evidence in the fact that the strata in the diagram are not in the same position they would have been in when originally deposited. All the attempts to find a way to depict what I think happened have to do with trying to explain how they got from their original position to the position shown on the cross section. Trying to be clearer: They were originally horizontal strata stacked vertically; they ended up on their side with the formerly vertical time periods spread out horizontally across the island and the rest of their lengths that were originally horizontal, now beneath the island, where they are so distorted it's hard to tell what their orientation is, but it's clear that they come down vertically from the short parts of them, then get turned toward the East. I see how Geology arrives at that if it is assumed it all occurred in the strata in their current position as depicted on the cross section, but this doesn't take into account that those strata are not in the position in which they were originally deposited and an explanation is needed for that fact, and that raises the question of exactly when those identified unconformities occurred. But your evidence assumes the Old Earth point of view, because it is just as possible to interpret all three as having occurred at the same time. HOWEVER, the main problem here is that the strata have obviously changed their position since their original deposition, which I've explained as their having "fallen" from that original, at least tilted from it, which I further tried to explain by postulating that the mountain probably rose beneath the original block of horixontal strata, broke it and caused the two broken of parts to tilt in opposite directions, the right part becoming what we see on the cross section. I've been doing my best and have done it again above. I don't understand how it could have happened either given the scarcity of information on the cross section, I conclude that they fell into their current position from the fact that they are IN a position they couldn't have been in when oridinally laid down. And your depiction of the change in orientation when the original straight horizontal strata are tilted so that the order of their time periods is now spread from right to left across the island is exactly what I had in mind. So I was postulating that what caused the strata to tilt could have been the rising of the mountain beneath it. You seem to have no explanation whatever but an explanation is definitely needed. How did the strata as we see them on the cross section get turned on their side?Since the strata beneath the island are simply part of the strata on top of the island it is clear that the whole block of strata, both the short ends of it on the island AND the distorted strata beneath the island, were originally that straight flat block of strata you've been drawing at the top of those posts about it. Based on edge's information you are circling areas in that block of strata beneath the island that are unconformities, and the assumption seems to be that they occurred while the block of strata were in the position they are in on the cross section. But if that whole block was originally the nice straight horixontal block you keep prensting as the first phase before the tilting, this raises the question whether those disturbances now identified as unconformities perhaps occurred at the same time in one tectonic event as the strata "fell" into their current position from their previous form as straight horizontal strata.I hope that is clear but I can't predict. I'm doing my best to be clear. You have to account for the change in position from their original deposition as you've drawn it on many posts to their current disturbed condition beneath the island with their top parts ON the island all tilted in one direction etc etc etc. No, I've been postulating that Snowdon pushed up under the original horizontal strata and broke them in two, each side tilting and falling, on to the left and one to the right, the right side forming the whole situation we see on the cross section now. But I see that some of the strata seem to have draped themselves over Snowdon so something like what you suggest may be part of the picture. In the fact that the strata as now presented on the diagram are not in the position they would have been in when originally deposited. They are now on their side, the time periods running from West to East rather than stacked up vertically one on top of another. The Flood has nothing to do with this. It appears that a tectonic event caused the strata to change from their original horizontal position to this completely different position on their side. Again these unconformities would have been caused tectonically after the strata were laid down, and since it appears that something changed their position from their original horizontal position to this current position on their side, with the part beneath the island being pushed from west to east, clearly some kind of strong tectonic force was involved that could have caused those unconformities during the transition from their original position to their current position.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.

The millions of times people fail to understand you are never your fault.