Did the Flood really happen?

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

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. 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. Better would be to find some facts and marshal them into some coherent arguments.--Percy

You said, "I have given plenty of evidence," and that's not true. You're allergic to evidence. 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. 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. It hasn't happened because evidence must be connected to argument. 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.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo, slight clarity improvement.

The Hobbit isn't a scientific text, either.--Percy

Actually, an at least partial reason for the height of the mid-oceanic ridges is that the relatively hot rock at the spreading center is slightly less dense than the cooler rock further from the spreading center. Less dense floats higher.

quote:

---

At the spreading center on a mid-ocean ridge the depth of the seafloor is approximately 2,600 meters (8,500 ft).[1][2] On the ridge flanks the depth of the seafloor (or the height of a location on a mid-ocean ridge above a base-level) is closely correlated with its age (age of the lithosphere where depth is measured). The age-depth relation can be modeled by the cooling of a lithosphere plate[3][4] or mantle half-space.[5] A good approximation is that the depth of the seafloor at a location on a spreading mid-ocean ridge proportional to the square root of the age of the seafloor.[5] The overall shape of ridges results from Pratt isostacy: close to the ridge axis there is hot, low-density mantle supporting the oceanic crust. As the oceanic plate cools, away from the ridge axis, the oceanic mantle lithosphere (the colder, denser part of the mantle that, together with the crust, comprises the oceanic plates) thickens and the density increases. Thus older seafloor is underlain by denser material and is deeper.[3][4]

---

Mid-ocean ridge - WikipediaLinks and much more reading at source page.May want to also look at Guyot - WikipediaAll this is pretty irrelevant to continental deposition and deformation considerations. But someones got to put something interesting into the topic. MooseEdited by Minnemooseus, : Clean up formatting a bit.

...

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.

---

...

quote:

---

Increasingly, the Gulf of Mexico is regarded as a backarc basin behind the Jurassic Nazas Arc of Mexico.

---

Gulf of Mexico - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Back-arc basins are geologic basins, submarine features associated with island arcs and subduction zones. They are found at some convergent plate boundaries, presently concentrated in the western Pacific Ocean. Most of them result from tensional forces caused by oceanic trench rollback (the oceanic trench is wandering in the seafloor direction) and the collapse of the edge of the continent. The arc crust is under extension or rifting as a result of the sinking of the subducting slab. Back-arc basins were initially a surprising result for plate tectonics theorists, who expected convergent boundaries to be zones of compression, rather than major extension. However, they are now recognized as consistent with this model in explaining how the interior of Earth loses heat.

---

Back-arc basin - WikipediaAnother interesting tidbit (or two) I encountered:

quote:

---

Western and central Cuba are a deformed orogen, that came about due to the collision of an island arc in the Cretaceous with the Florida-Bahamas platform. As a result, the Cuban ophiolite zone became obducted and a northward verging fold and thrust belt formed.

---

Geology of Cuba - Wikipedia

quote:

---

An ophiolite is a section of the Earth's oceanic crust and the underlying upper mantle that has been uplifted and exposed above sea level and often emplaced onto continental crustal rocks. Ophis is Greek for "snake", and lite (from Greek lithos) means "stone", after the green-color rocks that make up many ophiolites.

​

Their great significance relates to their occurrence within mountain belts such as the Alps and the Himalayas, where they document the existence of former ocean basins that have now been consumed by subduction. This insight was one of the founding pillars of plate tectonics, and ophiolites have always played a central role in plate tectonic theory and the interpretation of ancient mountain belts.

---

My "bolding".Ophiolite - WikipediaTectonics seem to be pretty damn complicated.I seem to be turning into a geo-LamarkNewAge. Oh Flying Spaghetti Monster, save me!Moose

Non-topic snark hidden. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : What cha think.

I don't know if you overlooked it or what, 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. If you still don't get it, it's the best I can do and I'm leaving this discussion.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You mixed up some of the quoting, but I was able to straighten it out. I fixed a few typos, too. 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. Again, please leave me out of this. Please just make the case for your position. 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? Where do you see evidence of strata being turned on their side? 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? 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: 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. 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. Please explain how without breaking any laws of physics. You need to explain what you mean by "fallen," especially since you've placed it between quotes. 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. 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? 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: 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: 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? 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? 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. This is a perplexing thing to say. I've been very specific about what happened. 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? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. According to the diagram Snowdon is all strata, though there may be basement rock at the base. Here's the closeup again: 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. 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. 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. 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. Where in the diagram do you observe the effect of any west to east push?--Percy

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: And then you tilt them upward on the left and erode the tops off like this: 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: 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: 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

What caused the strata to tilt?

I still want an answer to the question about the tilt, 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? Anyway in this case you aren't going to get those separately delineated short pieces of strata with their flattened tops.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. 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. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

For the 715th time: uplift due to tectonic forces.

Uplift due to tectonic forces. OK, so the strata were originally stacked straight and horizontal across the island, and vertically from Cambrian to Holocene?Then uplift caused the whole thing to tilt so that they were arranged across the island horizontally from Cambrian to Holocene, with most of the strata now beneath the island and quite distorted.Yes?ABE: Hm, but that wouldn't look at all like the example Percy was pointing to in the Grand Canyon cross section.Question: What caused the uplift? (it's more or less the same question I just asked)Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

OK, so the strata were originally stacked straight and horizontal across the island, and vertically from Cambrian to Holocene?

---

That was never the case. Some tilting occurred before all the strata were deposited and not all the strata completely covered the island. These things can be seen in the diagram - and they have been mentioned before.

quote:

---

Then uplift caused the whole thing to tilt so that they were arranged across the island horizontally from Cambrian to Holocene, with most of the strata now beneath the island and quite distorted.

---

Much of the distortion below the surface happened before all the strata were deposited.

quote:

---

ABE: Hm, but that wouldn't look at all like the example Percy was pointing to in the Grand Canyon cross section.

---

The parts that Percy is pointing out are close enough. The fact that earlier events complicate the diagram of Britain isn’t relevant.