Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did the Flood really happen?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1192 of 2370 (860560)
08-08-2019 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1144 by Faith
08-07-2019 8:56 AM


Re: Patchwork Quilt Geological Column/s
Faith writes:
Dead creatures would have been washed into the water where they got sorted.
Please do go on about this sorting that happens with deceased life. How did you establish that this sorting is something that really happens? Do you have any examples from the real world? How does deceased life get sorted into the same stratum in which it lived, and how does life overall get sorted so that it is increasingly different from modern forms with increasing depth?
I assumed all that rain would have denuded the land but maybe not completely since I know some creatures did survive until later in the building of the strata.
This is science. You should be arguing for what has evidence, not for your assumptions. Do you have evidence, any evidence at all, for the content of that sentence? Or are you just telling stories you wish were true again?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1144 by Faith, posted 08-07-2019 8:56 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1193 of 2370 (860562)
08-08-2019 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1146 by Faith
08-07-2019 9:01 AM


Re: Patchwork Quilt Geological Column/s
Faith writes:
I did not say that when the rain stopped that's when deposition of the sediments would begin. Quote me.
In Message 1072 you said, "The whole surface of the land would be so defaced just from the forty days and nights of rain it would be unrecognizable and then the strata piled on top of it would further erase any recognizable remains," but if you say that doesn't mean that one followed the other then I believe you.
What's important is the evidence you have for the stories you tell, and whether you meant it one way or the other, you don't have evidence for either one.
I also don't assume that everything was killed though the land was pretty well scoured. Since that is the case it has to be that it wasn't completely scoured.
There's that word "assume" again. Please start telling us about your evidence instead of your assumptions.
The vast majority killed in the early stages, yes.
In that case shouldn't the vast majority have been buried in the first sediments deposited? Were no mammals drowned during the first days of the rain, then their bodies swept into the flood waters as the land was scoured away, and then buried as the first sediments were deposited? If not why not? And if they were, then why do we find no mammals in the deepest strata? Wouldn't finding mammals throughout all strata be the best evidence for the Flood?
we've got a lot of water carrying a lot of stuff. why do you assume the dead creatures would somehow just lie down on the land surface.
We don't assume anything. We accept that for which we have evidence, and the evidence we have says that the actions of floods are fairly random. Why do we not find life of all eras scattered throughout the strata?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1146 by Faith, posted 08-07-2019 9:01 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1194 of 2370 (860565)
08-08-2019 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1147 by Faith
08-07-2019 9:06 AM


Re: Basics Faith, basics.
Faith writes:
If you understood geologic diagrams you would understand that this one shows three tectonic sequences:
NONSENSE, THAT IS HISTORICAL GEOLOGY, IT IS NOT MY PARADIGM.
Perhaps that explains why you haven't put in the effort to understand it. If you did understand it then you would be offering responses like, "Now I know that to geologists it looks like three separate tectonic events, but it's not, and that's because..." But you don't respond this way. You instead respond with no explanation or evidence at all, like this:
There are three AREAS of disturbance, there is no particular reason to assign them to different events, one major tectonic event could account for them all.
Please explain the sequence of events caused by your flood that created these geologic formations.
And I still think YOU don't understand this diagram. I don't think you understand that it was originally those straight horizontal strata ON TOP OF THE ISLAND, that tilted just as you illustrated it, though you don't seem to have any idea why,...
I thought the cause of the tilting was something we agreed upon, uplift caused by tectonic forces.
...and became the short tilted strata along the top of the island from left to right with the rest of their lengths beneath the island.
You really have to work on your terminology. All of the strata except the portions at the very surface are beneath the island. What you're actually thinking of is sea level, and you're still wrong about sea level. Sea level is not some line of demarcation with short tilted strata above and long draping strata below (I'm using your terminology). Sea level is irrelevant, and the strata are continuous from the surface on down into the geologic depths to bedrock.
That's a lot of disturbance just to get repositioned,...
I won't even try to guess what this means. Please explain.
...it's really hard to fit three separate tectonic events into that picture, certainly at least unnecessary.
I can tell you think you've said something meaningful, created a picture in some way, but nothing you've said makes any sense. Could you please clarify?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1147 by Faith, posted 08-07-2019 9:06 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1196 by Faith, posted 08-08-2019 4:26 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1195 of 2370 (860566)
08-08-2019 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1155 by Faith
08-07-2019 3:41 PM


Re: Basics Faith, basics.
Faith writes:
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.
Why do you think tectonic forces only affect land? Since mountains are primarily marine strata, why shouldn't that be conclusive that tectonic forces can uplift sea floor?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1155 by Faith, posted 08-07-2019 3:41 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1197 by Faith, posted 08-08-2019 4:27 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1201 of 2370 (860597)
08-08-2019 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1156 by PaulK
08-07-2019 3:46 PM


Re: Basics Faith, basics.
PaulK writes:
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)
Moose comments on this in Message 1174, and I see that you already responded. We've been saying "sea floor" and not distinguishing where. As Moose reminds us, there's sea floor on the continental margins atop the continental crust (less dense and as upliftable as any other part of the continent), and then there's sea floor atop the oceanic crust (more dense and not likely to be uplifted). We've been discussing sea floor on the continental margins.
But there *is* an interesting uplift issue concerning the Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf was originally continent that was stretched and then subsided as Pangaea split aprt, so it seems that the crust beneath it must be continental (less dense) and also thinner because of the stretching and subsiding. Seems like the entire Gulf should be upliftable.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1156 by PaulK, posted 08-07-2019 3:46 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1206 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-09-2019 12:43 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1202 of 2370 (860599)
08-08-2019 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1157 by Faith
08-07-2019 3:46 PM


Re: Basics Faith, basics.
Faith writes:
I've shown several times now how great amounts of deposition occurred after uplift in the UK cross section.
That makes absolutely no sense.
Given the amount of information you've ignored, that is not surprising. I see you respond again on this issue (originally from my Message 1145) further on in the thread in Message 1169, so I'll wait until I get there to respond.
And obviously the Grand Canyon Supergroup was tilted and eroded before the overlying strata were deposited.
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.
But now you're contradicting yourself again. In Message 1047 you said that that "the whole stack...is affected all at once and in the same way, not separate layers independently of one another." Now you're saying that the Supergroup was affected independently of other layers. Opposite positions cannot both be right. You're wrong one way or the other.
You were correct when you said strata of a column cannot deform independently of one another.
Ba da boom.
Better would be to find some facts and marshal them into some coherent arguments.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1157 by Faith, posted 08-07-2019 3:46 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1203 of 2370 (860600)
08-08-2019 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1179 by Faith
08-08-2019 11:25 AM


Re: Geological Column/ Time Scale is Over and Done With
Faith writes:
Why don't your stop your misrepresentations? Try honesty for a change.
Why don't you stop falsely accusing me?
You said, "I have given plenty of evidence," and that's not true. You're allergic to evidence.
I have no idea what you mean about my making myself the topic. I suspect it's the result of people attacking me personally for my arguments so I respond in kind.
What I actually said in this case was, "I again suggest you don't make claims about yourself because while there are rules against becoming personal participants can of course address and rebut and offer their views on any claims you make." You claimed you've provided plenty of evidence when you haven't, so I pointed out that that wasn't an accurate representation.
I believe I HAVE shown evidence enough to persuade others at least that there is something to the Flood claims,...
You're not even discussing evidence for the Flood, let alone presenting any. You're assuming the Flood and then making up tall tales about it.
...but it hasn't happened and I've stopped caring, long long ago.
It hasn't happened because evidence must be connected to argument.
All I can do is continue to see how the same evidence shows up elsewhere, as that I found in the Grand Canyon area does seem to be present in the UK cross section.
Angular unconformities are present in both the UK and Grand Canyon cross sections, and they arise through uplift/sea-level-fall, followed by erosion, followed by subsidence/sea-level-rise, followed by deposition. Your explanation of independent tilting of the Supergroup is self evidently impossible, and you haven't yet provided any explanation for the angular unconformities in the UK cross section. "Water did it" says nothing more than that you don't know.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo, slight clarity improvement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1179 by Faith, posted 08-08-2019 11:25 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1208 by Faith, posted 08-09-2019 8:21 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1204 of 2370 (860601)
08-08-2019 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1180 by Faith
08-08-2019 11:28 AM


Re: Geological Column/ Time Scale is Over and Done With
Faith writes:
The Bible is the source of my thinking on this subject so it IS a scientific text on this subject.
The Hobbit isn't a scientific text, either.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1180 by Faith, posted 08-08-2019 11:28 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1209 of 2370 (860677)
08-09-2019 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1169 by Faith
08-07-2019 6:47 PM


Re: Basics Faith, basics.
You mixed up some of the quoting, but I was able to straighten it out. I fixed a few typos, too.
Faith writes:
I've already given enough description in Message 1134 for you to draw the diagram.
Your Message 1134 was about something else, not about the diagram we're working on. My last post about it was Message 1010. If you can reply to that I can continue with the diagramming.
It's all there but your acceptance of the standard Geological interpretation prevents you from seeing it:
Again, please leave me out of this. Please just make the case for your position.
Faith writes:
...about how the originally horizontal strata had to fall into their current position, which would not have taken hundreds of millions of years.
Sure, falling can happen rapidly. Where do you see evidence of anything having fallen in that diagram.
I see that evidence in the fact that the depicted strata are not in the same position they would have been in when originally deposited.
We all agree that the strata are not in the same state as when originally deposited, but where do you see any evidence of falling?
In the meantime, here's the diagram again with the three areas of tectonism/erosion/deposition circled. How does the Flood account for this:
I interpret that diagram to show one tectonic disturbance that turned the original horizontal strata on their side...
Where do you see evidence of strata being turned on their side?
...and removed them to their current location with part above the sea level line and the rest beneath it.
When you say "removed them to their current location," removed from where, and what are you looking at in the diagram that tells you from where?
If you understood geologic diagrams you would understand that this one shows three tectonic sequences:
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.
The strata have experienced both uplift/sea-level-fall and subsidence/sea-level-rise (interpret the slash as and/or), so their elevation has certainly changed over time, but their position laterally has not (except as a unit by riding on a tectonic plate). If you think they have, then please identify the part of diagram that indicates this to you and explain why. Keep in mind that this diagram is highly exaggerated vertically:
The actual height of Snowdon and of the rest of the cross section is more like this. There are no great heights for anything to fall from:


Snowdon                                                                  Harwich
The strata also experienced erosion, meaning that parts of the strata have been exposed to the forces of nature (wind, rain, flowing water, ice, cooling/heating and anything else nature can do to an exposed surface) and have disappeared, carried away as small particles to be deposited somewhere else as sediment.
Percy writes:
Faith writes:
You give the Old Earth interpretation,...
No, I follow the evidence, which shows three tectonic sequences, and I provided them for you.
But your evidence assumes the Old Earth point of view,...
Facts and evidence do not make assumptions. You've been ignoring mountains of evidence while providing none of your own. You instead make up baseless scenarios and call them evidence.
...because it is just as possible to interpret all three as having occurred at the same time.
Please explain how without breaking any laws of physics.
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,...
You need to explain what you mean by "fallen," especially since you've placed it between quotes.
...at least tilted from it,...
Of course they've been tilted. And folded, too. This happens when one part of a stratum experiences more uplift or subsidence than another part, or when sideways compressive pressures cause folding. Sea level rise/fall cannot tilt or deform strata.
...which I further tried to explain by postulating that the mountain probably rose beneath the original block of horizontal 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.
Remember the vertical exaggeration of the UK cross section. Look again at the actual height of Snowdon all the way on the west side of the island. How would Snowdon's tiny uplift cause rock to break in the dramatic way that you describe?


Snowdon                                                                  Harwich
...which only shows that you don't get what I'm trying to describe for you to illustrate it,...
Please continue describing your vision. I will draw what you describe. I just have to make sense of it first.
I've been doing my best and have done it again above.
I'm afraid that what you wrote above doesn't tell me anything. I still don't know what "fallen" means, but you did offer tilt as an alternative, and I think everyone agrees that the strata have been variously tilted and folded, and have experienced uplift/sea-level-fall, subsidence/sea-level-rise, erosion and deposition. There are a few pieces of information I need to continue the diagramming, and you quoted where I asked about that:
...about how the originally horizontal strata had to fall into their current position,...
Fall into what? What created the empty space into which they fell? Removing the horizontal strata from the diagram does create empty space, but you must describe where the horizontal strata went. They can't just disappear into thin air. It is this that I'm waiting for you to describe.
I don't understand how it could have happened either given the scarcity of information on the cross section,...
If you don't understand how it could have happened, why are you insisting on a very specific way it could have happened, as you go on to describe:
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 originally laid down.
If they fell then either a) something elevated them to a height from which they could fall; or b) something created a space beneath them into which they could fall. Do you see any evidence of past elevation or empty spaces?
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.
This sounds like a reference to a diagram from another message, my Message 1132 (I think it appeared in other messages too):
quote:
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 is tilt followed by erosion.
But you responded in Message 1134 with, "But it's no explanation at all...etc..." Are you now saying you accept this as the explanation for the horizontal distribution of strata?
So I was postulating that what caused the strata to tilt could have been the rising of the mountain beneath it.
Some geologic event uplifting Snowdon could not have affected the entire island. The entire island was subjected to geologic forces that caused uplift and subsidence, and to rising and falling sea levels. In other words, Snowdon wasn't the cause of what happened to all the strata in the UK cross section but was just one tiny piece of an entire island at the mercy of much larger geological forces. It was these forces that caused the island to be uplifted in the west more than in the east. But much more than just that happened, and a great deal of it is recorded in that cross section.
You seem to have no explanation whatever but an explanation is definitely needed.
This is a perplexing thing to say. I've been very specific about what happened.
How did the strata as we see them on the cross section get turned on their side?
The diagram shows tilted strata. It doesn't show strata on their side. Where are you looking in the diagram that you think shows strata 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.
Basically yes, but remember that sea level is an arbitrary line that changes over time and is not relevant to the geology. When you say "beneath the island" I think you mean beneath sea level, because all the strata beneath the surface are "beneath the island." But there are no "short ends" of strata. The strata extend from the surface down at a slight angle into the Earth continuously through the sea level line and deeper. For the strata there is no "part above sea level" that is separate from the "part below sea level". Each stratum is continuous, unless it encounters unconformities.
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.
That would be incorrect. Explaining unconformities again, they occur when strata are exposed at the surface and are subjected to erosion, with possibly many many feet, even miles, of material being removed, before subsidence/sea-level-rise causes deposition to resume. This means that the unconformities in the cross section could not have formed while deeply buried. They had to have been exposed at the surface at some point, then later buried beneath additional deposits when the area experienced subsidence/sea-level-rise.
But if that whole block was originally the nice straight horizontal block you keep presenting as the first phase before the tilting,...
Don't confuse the sequence of diagrams I'm creating under your direction with what actually happened to create the UK cross section. I can create a sequence of diagrams for that, if you think it would help. It isn't the view of geology that the layers of the cross section were at one time all present in a single column of flat horizontal strata. Several episodes of uplift/sea-level-fall followed by erosion followed by subsidence/sea-level-rise follow by more deposition occurred, and tectonic forces were in operation all during this.
...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.
You're going to have to provide a definition for "fell". What do you mean by "fell," and what are you looking at in the diagram that has the appearance of something having "fallen," and how is that even possible anyway since things that fall have to have space beneath them to fall into. If you mean subsidence then say subsidence.
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.
The sequence of diagrams was just intended to show what you were trying to describe happened at Snowdon with the uplift of strata and the falling away and all that. Character graphics isn't really up to the task of showing the rest of the island with all the details of the deformed strata and the unconformities and so forth. Well, actually, it's doable, but it would take a very long time.
Just a guess: are you perhaps thinking of a sliding or sloughing off of strata from the slopes of Snowdon?
No, I've been postulating that Snowdon pushed up under the original horizontal strata and broke them in two, each side tilting and falling, one 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.
According to the diagram Snowdon is all strata, though there may be basement rock at the base. Here's the closeup again:


...which would not have taken hundreds of millions of years.
Sure, falling can happen rapidly. Where do you see evidence of anything having fallen in that diagram.
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.
This is the second time in this message you've quoted and responded to this. The first time was at the very beginning of your message. Anyway what do you mean the strata are not in their original position? If you only mean they're tilted up or uplifted or subsided then we agree. If you mean something else, like that the strata have moved laterally in some way, then you need to be specific about what portion of the diagram is telling you this and why.
Also please explain what you mean by the strata being on their side, and where specifically in the diagram do you see strata on their side?
About the west to east strata sequence on the surface, that is a result of tilting and erosion, as has been explained several times.
Again these unconformities would have been caused tectonically after the strata were laid down,...
Tectonic forces that uplift, subside, tilt, fold and/or deform strata cannot cause angular unconformities. It takes tilting and/or folding, then uplift/sea-level-fall, then erosion, then subsidence/sea-level-rise, then deposition.
...and since it appears that something changed their position from their original horizontal position to this current position on their side,...
Again, you need to explain this "on their side" thing. If "on their side" is a type of tilting, then when you say "something changed their position," it was tectonic forces.
...with the part beneath the island...
Again, all of every stratum except where it meets the surface is "beneath the island." I'm guessing that once again you mean the portions of strata below sea level. Once more, sea level has no relevance. If you think it does then please explain how.
...being pushed from west to east,...
Where in the diagram do you observe the effect of any west to east push?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1169 by Faith, posted 08-07-2019 6:47 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1210 of 2370 (860679)
08-09-2019 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1186 by Faith
08-08-2019 12:27 PM


How Geologic Processes Create a Horizontal Sequence on the Surface
My message had a single focus, and your reply ignored it. My message explained how tilt and erosion can turn a vertical sequence of strata into a horizontal one. I first showed the diagram I introduced earlier in the thread:
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 I showed how this could have happened to the tilted strata at the Grand Canyon had they been eroded. They look like this today:


But if they experience erosion then they could end up looking like this:




Bright Tapeats
Angel |
Temple Muav | |
Butte | | |
Redwall | | | |
Supai | | | | |
Hermit | | | | | |
Coconino | | | | | | |
Toroweap | | | | | | | |
Kaibab | | | | | | | | |
Moenkopi | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
v v v v v v v v v v v


Note how the vertical sequence of strata have become a horizontal sequence, just as in the UK cross section. If a visual comparison is difficult because the tilt is opposite to the UK cross section, then here's the same image but mirrored:




Tapeats Bright
| Angel
| | Mauv Temple
| | | Butte
| | | | Redwall
| | | | | Supai
| | | | | | Hermit
| | | | | | | Coconino
| | | | | | | | Toroweap
| | | | | | | | | Kaibab
| | | | | | | | | | Moenkopi
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
v v v v v v v v v v v


And here's the UK cross section for comparison. It's the same thing, with tilted layers eroded down to produce a horizontal sequence on the surface:
Now do you understand that what you're seeing in the UK cross section is not a falling over of strata from Snowdon all the way to Harwich?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1186 by Faith, posted 08-08-2019 12:27 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1211 by Faith, posted 08-09-2019 7:02 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1212 by Faith, posted 08-09-2019 11:15 PM Percy has replied
 Message 1216 by Faith, posted 08-10-2019 7:52 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1217 of 2370 (860754)
08-11-2019 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1196 by Faith
08-08-2019 4:26 PM


Re: Basics Faith, basics.
Faith writes:
..and became the short tilted strata along the top of the island from left to right with the rest of their lengths beneath the island.
You really have to work on your terminology. All of the strata except the portions at the very surface are beneath the island.
Yes. Isn't that what I just said?
You refered to the "short tilted strata along the top of the island," which is how you refer to the portion of strata between sea level and the surface. Sea level changes over time. Where it is now is not relevant to the strata in the diagram, which are continuous from surface down through sea level and below. The term "beneath the island" is a non sequitur because everything except the very surface itself is beneath the island.
I used the word "draping" to describe the strata draped over the mountain, not the strata below.
You've applied the concept of draping to strata all across the island that were below sea level, as in this from your Message 400:
Faith in Message 400 writes:
...the part of the strata that had originally extended horizontally to the right are all draped as it were below sea level, where I'm suggested they were further distorted by being continuously saturated with water.
And this from your Message 568 which refers to the Cambrian and Silurian strata that continue to the right beneath sea level half way to Harwich, and the diagram you refer to is the UK cross section, not the Smith composite:
Faith in Message 568 writes:
The diagram indicates that the Cambrian and Silurian layers start on top of it and drape down its side to the right, part of that collapse I keep talking about that nobody seems to understand.
And this from your Message 633 describes the draping as extending from Snowdon on across the island below sea level, and again you're referring to the UK cross section, not the Smith composite, and you work in a reference to Smith depicting formations below sea level, which you later in this message say he didn't do:
Faith in Message 633 writes:
So the strata that now spread across the island horizontally would have been stacked vertically when originally laid down, and the continuation of their strata which we see now all sort of "draped" and wavy and irregular beneath the sea level line of the island proper (as Smith depicted it) would have been horizontally lying across the island.
So when you talk about draping in the future should we assume you mean only the strata that make up Snowdon as you do in this message, or should we assume you mean the strata that extend from Snowdon down and to the right?
And in this context sea level is indeed irrelevant and I'm not interested in sea level, although it's the bottom of the island as William Smith drew it so I don't see how there's any other proper designation for it.
That the bottom of Smith's diagram is sea-level is a reasonable assumption, but it is not indicated on the diagram, and it is unlikely Smith thought it important since his diagram is a composite.
That's a lot of disturbance just to get repositioned,...
I won't even try to guess what this means. Please explain.
The disturbance caused by the tilting of the strata and falling down now horizontally arranged across the island AND beneath the island, which had to happen because THEY ARE NOT IN THE POSITION THEY HAD TO BE IN WHEN DEPOSITED. Since I've been knocking myself out to get this across to you and you still haven't the smidgen of a clue I don't see any point in continuing to try. I don't care if this is my own fault, I'm out of alternatives and I don't see any reason to continue to try.
I think all you need to do is answer the questions. What do you mean by "falling", and what are you seeing in the diagram that indicates "falling"? When you say that strata are not in their original position, do you mean uplift/subsidence, or do you mean that they moved laterally? Uplift/subsidence is readily apparent in the UK cross section, but lateral motion is not. If you think you see lateral motion then please describe where you think it is.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1196 by Faith, posted 08-08-2019 4:26 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1218 by Faith, posted 08-11-2019 4:42 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1219 of 2370 (860779)
08-11-2019 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1197 by Faith
08-08-2019 4:27 PM


Re: Basics Faith, basics.
Faith writes:
The tectonic forces operate laterally on the land, and apparently their movements are always lateral.
I see you ask a question about the causes of tilt further on in Message 1211, so I'll answer that question at the same time that I address this comment.
The tectonic plates themselves move laterally across the surface of the planet, but they are deformed vertically by the pressures that build up at plate boundaries. Try a simple experiment. Place a normal 8-½ by 11 sheet of paper on your kitchen counter. Orient the paper longways in front of you, then put one hand on each end. Move your hands an inch closer together. The paper will be pushed up with tilted sides in the middle. That's analogous to tectonic forces causing uplift, tilt and even mountain building.
Tectonic forces aren't the only cause of uplift, but given what is known about past mountain building events around the British Isles, tectonic forces are most likely responsible for the deformation of those strata.
I don't see how that is going to raise the bottom of the ocean to the level of the continents.
When we say "sea floor" we don't mean the bottom of the ocean. We're talking about submerged continental crust, such as is found on the continental shelf as shown in this diagram:
The continental shelf is easily visible in satellite images from space like this one of the coast off the state where I live. The lighter blue is the continental shelf, which is continental crust, not oceanic:
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1197 by Faith, posted 08-08-2019 4:27 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1220 of 2370 (860780)
08-11-2019 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1206 by Minnemooseus
08-09-2019 12:43 AM


Re: Gulf of Mexico geology
Minnemooseus writes:
quote:
During the Late Jurassic, continued rifting widened the Gulf of Mexico and progressed to the point that sea-floor spreading and formation of oceanic crust occurred.
Gulf of Mexico - Wikipedia
Yeah, I read that before I posted that message. Earlier in that paragraph there's a lot about stretching and thinning of continental crust. It isn't clear from the article much Gulf floor is continental and how much oceanic, but this Google satellite map says maybe around 50/50:
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1206 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-09-2019 12:43 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1221 of 2370 (860783)
08-11-2019 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1208 by Faith
08-09-2019 8:21 AM


Re: To Finish Your Diagram
Percy writes:
I don't know if you overlooked it or what,...
Each member's thread list has a column that indicates whether each thread has any unanswered messages, so I always know when I have messages to answer. I had a busy couple days where I wasn't online much.
...but I did go back and finish Message 1169 as well as I can to explain what's needed to complete your diagram: how the strata changed their position from their original vertical stack to their current position in which the time periods are not vertically stacked but laid out horizontally across the surface of the island. You illustrated the original stack of strata as tilting into the position in which they finally end up, but never finished it by showing that the tilted strata are what we see arranged from left to right across the island, with the greater part of them beneath the island.
I think you're referring to a different diagram, one that isn't about the UK. It was just a general diagram showing how horizontal strata can tilt and be eroded to form a sequence of strata along the surface. The strata start out horizontal like this with the strata ordered A through H from bottom to top, though of course only the surface of the top strata is accessible:
H ----------------------------------------------
G ----------------------------------------------
F ----------------------------------------------
E ----------------------------------------------
D ----------------------------------------------
C ----------------------------------------------
B ----------------------------------------------
A ----------------------------------------------
They then become tilted upward on the left and become eroded like this:
A  B  C  D  E	F  G  H
  \  \  \  \  \  \  \  \
   \  \  \  \  \  \  \  \
    \  \  \  \  \  \  \  \
     \  \  \  \  \  \  \  \
      \  \  \  \  \  \  \  \
       \  \  \  \  \  \  \  \
Now the strata that were once inaccessible are visible on the surface and are ordered A through H from left to right.
The above diagrams should not be confused with the diagrams for your view of what happened to produce the UK cross section. That's a different sequence of diagrams. The part that has me most puzzled right now is that you say the horizontal strata disappear as the granite pushes up through the strata to form Snowdon. We need to show where those strata go. They can't just disappear.
If you still don't get it, it's the best I can do...
I replied to your Message 1169 in my Message 1209. I had some questions whose answers should help me continue the diagramming of your vision of what happened in the UK cross section.
...and I'm leaving this discussion.
Two things. First, you've threatened to leave threads 97 of the last 17 times you've actually left.
Second, if you leave the discussion now it will be continuing a pattern of leaving before any resolution is reached and just as it is appearing that we're narrowing in on key points, like some details about the sequence of diagrams we're trying to produce.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1208 by Faith, posted 08-09-2019 8:21 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1222 of 2370 (860841)
08-12-2019 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1212 by Faith
08-09-2019 11:15 PM


Re: How Geologic Processes Create a Horizontal Sequence on the Surface
Faith writes:
I still want an answer to the question about the tilt,...
I answered the question about tilt in my Message 1219.
...but I also want to point out that your idea about how the tilted strata on the British island are just eroded curved strata is nonsensical. Aren't you guys always saying that erosion will level out a surface?
Yes, erosion gradually levels out a surface. The peaks are gradually worn away, their sediments filling in the valleys below. Eventually it is flat. I've shown the mountain tops gradually eroding away and filling in the valleys:
/\                /\                /\                /\                /\
        /  \              /  \              /  \              /  \              /  \
       /    \            /    \            /    \            /    \            /    \
      /      \          /      \          /      \          /      \          /      \
     /        \        /        \        /        \        /        \        /        \
    /          \      /          \      /          \      /          \      /          \
   /            \    /            \    /            \    /            \    /            \
  /              \  /              \  /              \  /              \  /              \
\/                \/                \/                \/                \/                \/

         __                __                __                __                __
        /  \              /  \              /  \              /  \              /  \
       /    \            /    \            /    \            /    \            /    \
      /      \          /      \          /      \          /      \          /      \
     /        \        /        \        /        \        /        \        /        \
    /          \      /          \      /          \      /          \      /          \
   /            \    /            \    /            \    /            \    /            \
__/              \__/              \__/              \__/              \__/              \__
\/                \/                \/                \/                \/                \/

        ____              ____              ____              ____              ____
       /    \            /    \            /    \            /    \            /    \
      /      \          /      \          /      \          /      \          /      \
     /        \        /        \        /        \        /        \        /        \
    /          \      /          \      /          \      /          \      /          \
___/            \____/            \____/            \____/            \____/            \___
  /              \  /              \  /              \  /              \  /              \
\/                \/                \/                \/                \/                \/

       ______            ______            ______            ______            ______
      /      \          /      \          /      \          /      \          /      \
     /        \        /        \        /        \        /        \        /        \
____/          \______/          \______/          \______/          \______/          \____
   /            \    /            \    /            \    /            \    /            \
  /              \  /              \  /              \  /              \  /              \
\/                \/                \/                \/                \/                \/

      ________          ________          ________          ________          ________
_____/        \________/        \________/        \________/        \________/        \_____
    /          \      /          \      /          \      /          \      /          \
   /            \    /            \    /            \    /            \    /            \
  /              \  /              \  /              \  /              \  /              \
\/                \/                \/                \/                \/                \/

____________________________________________________________________________________________
     /        \        /        \        /        \        /        \        /        \
    /          \      /          \      /          \      /          \      /          \
   /            \    /            \    /            \    /            \    /            \
  /              \  /              \  /              \  /              \  /              \
\/                \/                \/                \/                \/                \/
Anyway in this case you aren't going to get those separately delineated short pieces of strata with their flattened tops.
There are no "separately delineated short pieces of strata with their flattened tops" in the UK cross section. Sea level is arbitrary. A stratum above sea level is not separate from the same stratum below sea level. They are one continuous stratum stretching from the surface down into the depths of the Earth:
Oh well. I haven't been having much success with my drawings, which should explain what I mean about how the strata must have fallen into their current position, but if I get them done maybe I'll figure out how to post them.
Just describe them to me and I will continue the diagramming to show the region around Snowdon. We started with these horizontal strata:
G ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > G
F ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> F
E ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> E
D ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> D
C ------------------------------------------------------------------ CURRENT SEA LEVEL -----> C
B ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> B
A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> A
Then granite thrusts up into the strata like this:
/|_              _|\
                             / / |__        __| \ \
                            / / / / |__  __| \ \ \ \
                           / / / / / / /\ \ \ \ \ \ \
                          / / / / / / /  \ \ \ \ \ \ \
                         / / / / / / /    \ \ \ \ \ \ \
                        / / / / / / /      \ \ \ \ \ \ \
                       / / / / / / /        \ \ \ \ \ \ \
                      / / / / / / /          \ \ \ \ \ \ \
                     / / / / / / /            \ \ \ \ \ \ \
                    / / / / / / /              \ \ \ \ \ \ \
                   / / / / / / /                \ \ \ \ \ \ \
                  / / / / / / /  G R A N I T E   \ \ \ \ \ \ \
		 / / / / / / /                    \ \ \ \ \ \ \
		/ / / / / / /                      \ \ \ \ \ \ \
G -------------- / / / / / /                        \ \ \ \ \ \ --------------------------- > G
F ----------------/ / / / /                          \ \ \ \ \------------------------------> F
E -----------------/ / / /                            \ \ \ \-------------------------------> E
D ------------------/ / /                              \ \ \--------------------------------> D
C -------------------/ /                                \ \--------- CURRENT SEA LEVEL -----> C
B --------------------/                                  \----------------------------------> B
A --------------------                                    ----------------------------------> A
But you don't think the horizontal strata should be there, so we need a diagram between these two showing where the horizontal strata go. If you just tell me I'll diagram it.
If not, since we are clearly not communicating AT ALL, either you to me or me to you, as I said I don't have any reason to continue with this discussion.
Please don't give up now.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1212 by Faith, posted 08-09-2019 11:15 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1229 by Faith, posted 08-12-2019 4:26 PM Percy 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