|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did the Flood really happen? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: 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. PaulK already explained this, but it bears repeating. First here's the UK cross section for reference:
There was never a time when all those strata were stacked one above the other straight and flat and horizontal. The sequence might have gone something like this:
I'm sure Edge could have done a much better job and included more detail, but this should give you a good idea of the sequential stages necessary to creating the current appearance and orientation of the strata. It definitely was not a case of first lay down all the strata, then deform them to have their current appearance.
ABE: Hm, but that wouldn't look at all like the example Percy was pointing to in the Grand Canyon cross section. Just as the weather in the US west is much different than that in the UK, the geological events in the US west were much different than those in the UK. Nothing would lead us to expect that they would look similar. The only similarity they should have is that they both followed the rules of geology, such as initial horizontality, superposition, the present is the key to the past, etc.
Question: What caused the uplift? (it's more or less the same question I just asked) This was answered earlier , but if you need more detail just ask. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: I see the point you are trying to make but I really don't see the steps that had to be followed to get to it. You did suggest that you could illustrate those steps so may I ask that you please do that? Thanks. The point I made in Message 1210 was how the tilt of the layers on the periphery of the Colorado Plateau could have been eroded to produce the appearance of a lateral sequence of strata of the surface. This is a pretty good diagram, what more do you want:
If you instead meant creating a sequence of diagrams using character graphics showing how the UK cross section came about, I believe I said it was possible but would be incredibly time consuming. It shouldn't be necessary once you understand the principle of tilting plus erosion plus deposition is what creates angular unconformities. That sequence of events is shown happening multiple times in the UK cross section. It's a "lather, rinse, repeat" kind of thing, you shouldn't need the entire repetitive sequence illustrated. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Typo.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: Sea level is sea level, I can't see it any other way. The idea that it has changed is pure theory. I don't think dismissing things by calling them names like "pure theory" is the way to go, particularly when you've been offered so much evidence and explanations.
Any evidence for it would just as well be evidence for the Flood, which is the only time I'm aware of that sea level ever changed. You haven't offered any evidence that the Flood really happened.
Yes I know that mainstream Geology is against me. It's fine to disagree with any scientific discipline or theory. What's not fine is to disagree with no understanding.
Sorry, I did refer to the strata beneath the island as "draping," so I can see how that would be confusing. But it does also drape over Snowdon. It doesn't look like draping to anyone but you.
Again, I don't see that your Grand Canyon reference applies to the UK example since they aren't smoothed off which is what mainstream Geology always claims erosion does over such huge lengths of time. There's no expectation that the American west and the UK should be equally smooth. They're hugely distant from each other and have experienced completely different geologic histories. The sloping layers near the Grand Canyon were merely used to show that tilting plus erosion will result in a lateral sequence of strata at the surface. That's basically what happened in the UK, tilting plus erosion. It isn't rocket science. (Of course, it was actually multiple iterations of tilting plus erosion.)
The tops of the strata continue to look broken off to me. Remember that the vertical dimension is greatly exaggerated in those diagrams. The exposed strata are eroded, not broken off, and on a scale of a couple hundred miles the vertical relief is almost flat. There's nothing broken off, nor are the remains of anything broken off apparent.
I suppose if millions of years really had intervened since they got arranged across the island as we see them now, they might have been leveled off or smoothed off, but as we see them in their rectangular form they serve best for evidence that the time hasn't been that long. You're forgetting that uplift is operating at the same time as erosion. The UK's geologic history was not a) Deposit all the strata; b) Uplift and tilt it; c) Erode for several hundred million years. It was nothing like that simple. It was far more complicated than that. See Message 1223 where I attempt to enumerate what happened.
I despair of describing what I mean by "fallen" in any way that would get it across. I've tried and failed too many times already. If you can't describe it then perhaps it didn't happen. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Faith writes: It doesn't look like draping to anyone but you. Perhaps not the best simile though they do look drapish to me. But they also look sort of like they've been blown by the wind toward the east or is it the west, to the right anyway. West is to the left, east is to the right, like on any map since forever.
They look like they fell beneath the sea level line... Why do you think they "fell"? Strata are rock all the way down to basement rock which is just more rock all the way down to where it melts. There is no hole or depression or whatever for the strata to fall into. We need to understand why you keep describing them as falling, because without that explanation all we can answer is that we see nothing that indicates falling.
... and got misshapen in the process. Until we know why you think the strata fell it isn't possible to respond to this.
There's no expectation that the American west and the UK should be equally smooth. They're hugely distant from each other and have experienced completely different geologic histories. It seems to me that if erosion is going to smooth out a rough surface in the same span of time in two different parts of the world-- and it IS the same span of time -- you can tell by how it's all the same time periods in both places --, anyway, it does seem to me that the time factor should smooth out both surfaces just because we're talking millions of years. Again, the two widely separated regions experienced different geologic histories. For example, when one was above sea level and experiencing erosion the other might have been below sea level and experiencing deposition.
My theory of course is that the Flood covered the whole planet, it laid down sedimentary strata all over that planet all in the same time period,... Contradicted by radiometric dating. Also contradicted by strata not being ordered by size/density of sediments. Also contradicted by the fact that there are many, many strata in any local geologic column, instead of all sand settling into one layer, all mudstone/clay into another, all limestone into another, and all pelagic sediments into another. Also contradicted by the many layers of strata that are in an order consistent with Walther's Law. Also contradicted by the many unconformities. Also contradicted by the way fossil types appear in specific strata instead of scattered across all strata. Also contradicted by the increasing difference of fossils from modern forms with increasing depth.
...and at the end of the Flood there was a massive tectonic upheaval... "Massive tectonic upheaval" is vague, and no evidence for it is identified.
...that may have caused the receding of the Flood,... Seas will recede from uplifted land, but that doesn't cause the water that is claimed to have been added to the Earth by rain and by the fountains of the deep (for which there is also no evidence) to go away.
...and all the deformities we see of all the strata everywhere on earth, AND the angular unconformities, particularly the Great Unconformity, were the result of that one great event,... Unconformities, angular or otherwise, cannot be created in buried strata. They must be exposed first.
...and it also was connected with the beginning of volcanic activity as the tectonic plates began to move and separate the continents. Contradicted by dating of volcanic activity and deposits. Also contradicted by the history of tectonic plate movements.
And I'd say there is some evidence for such a chain of events in the fact that those strata on the surface of the UK island don't look like they underwent tectonic upheavals in separate time periods millions of years apart,... Contradicted by the details in the UK cross section itself, in particular the unconformities.
...they look too similar to each other across the surface of the island,... So vague as to be content free.
...same tilt etc.... Contradicted by details in the diagram showing different tilts, for example strata bent nearly 45° from a descending slant to an ascending slant, and ending in an unconformity:
And also contradicted another example of opposite tilt:
...suggesting whatever happened to them happened to all of them all at once. Everything in the UK cross sections suggests the opposite: multiple episodes of uplift, subsidence, sea level rise, sea level fall, deposition and erosion. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: If that is supposed to be your illustration of my vision it's not what I have in mind. The strata should be pushed up as a tent, both sides tilted to either side of the mountain, no horizontal parts left on each side. Yes, I know, that's why I asked for a description of where the horizontal parts go, but you didn't tell me. This will eventually be a sequence of diagrams, but all I've been showing is the first two because you objected to the horizontal parts in the second diagram, which shows the strata just as the granite has thrust up into it on the extreme west end of the island. The rest of what you described about falling and broken upper parts and spreading out on the surface and falling beneath the surface and distorting will all come later. So let me try asking again. We start with this:
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. Please just reply to the paragraph above. We'll get to all the falling and so forth later. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Improve 2nd diagram.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: I thought I explained: the sides slope out like the sides of a tent. Okay. I need to understand how what you describe differs from what the diagram shows now. Right now the diagram shows the granite pushing up into the strata to create an inverted "V" shape, which is the shape of a pup tent or a teepee. What kind of tent shape would you like to see instead, keeping in mind that this is character graphics, not a freehand drawing?
They don't bend as you have them. Farther out to the side they may become horizontal again but without a bend. Are you saying the sides should descend in a curve that gradually becomes horizontal? If so then again, character graphics, and I think what is shown is fine. People will understand that there's only so much you can do with character graphics. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Not that the Bible has anything to do with this topic, but anyway:
Faith writes: Adding to the Bible means adding teachings you take to be on the level of scripture. Proverbs was written at various times prior to the 3rd century. Ringo quoted this:
Doesn't this invalidate the entire New Testament? Of course, there are problems with Proverbs, e.g.:
Which to follow? As the scarecrow said, "Of course, people do go both ways." --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: It says do not add to HIS words, meaning add YOUR OWN words, but the New Testament is HIS words. Really? Aren't, for example, the first four books of the NT not by God but by men: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? You'll argue that they were just conduits for God's word, but that's just an unsupported claim. I know you'll go on to say how many esteemed Church leaders have believed this (which is true) and showed it true (which is false). All you've got is a "50 million Frenchmen can't be wrong" kind of argument, an argument which has been wrong over and over again throughout history. But we probably shouldn't have this discussion in this thread. Perhaps move to the The Bible: Is the Author God, Man or Both? thread. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Faith writes: My problem with all this is that I really have no idea what you are talking about or why, what it has to do with the Flood or anything related. Thanks for answering my questions but I end up with a big "so what?" Refusing to understand what people say or see what people show you, and then ignoring it, could lead to making the same wrong arguments over and over. What you don't know *can* hurt you. I'm reminded of a Life in These United States item in Reader's Digest from a half century ago. A policeman pulled over a young lady. She'd been driving carefully and didn't understand why she'd been pulled over. The policeman asked to see her license and registration. Looking at her license he said, "It says here that you wear glasses." "Yes, it does, but I don't really need them." "Can you read that sign for me?" She strained, could but not make it out. "Uh, I'm sorry, no. I guess I do need my glasses." "Why don't you put those glasses on and then try reading that sign again." "Okay," she answered, putting on the glasses. "'Road Ends 500 Feet.' Oh no!" "You wear your glasses when driving from now on, okay miss," he said, handing her back her license and registration. "Have a nice day." If we can't see what we're looking at or what's being explained then we won't learn anything and we'll be doomed to making the same wrong arguments over and over again. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
PaulK writes: It already has. Sorry, too subtle. Yes, it has. For years and years. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: None of that could possibly create the geological column. Because... --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: Oh I don't deny that layers are forming in the oceans, but they couldn't ever look like the geo column,... Because... --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
jar writes: We would see the surface rising based on satellite data. We would see elevation increasing everywhere. A great weight on one region either from mountain building or accumulating sediments or accumulating ice or something else causes that region to sink into the buoyant mantle which in turn compensates generally by rising elsewhere around the world. I think it's called isostasy. Isostatic equilibrium can take a long, long time. You mentioned increasing compression from the weight, and while that must happen it seems unlikely as a significant factor in the rising or sinking of land due to glaciation and deglaciation. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
PaulK writes: quote:Really? On what do you base that conclusion? Faith is at least consistent. As in the Smith stratigraphic diagram of Britain, she interprets any non-horizontal and/or non-straight strata as having sagged. Anyone who doesn't accept her interpretation and her explanations of it just doesn't understand:
quote: I don’t know why you can’t read the legend,... Eyesight issues, probably too much white, but I don't know that it matters. Faith has enumerable excuses for rejecting contrary information. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: ...too small... For the 137th time, when image and/or text is too small, use CTRL+'+' repeatedly until it's large enough. Use CTRL+'0' to return to normal size. If you're on a Mac substitute CMD for CTRL. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024