|
Author
|
Topic: Did the Flood really happen?
|
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
Message 1216 of 2370 (860699)
08-10-2019 7:52 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1210 by Percy
08-09-2019 6:25 PM
|
|
Re: How Geologic Processes Create a Horizontal Sequence on the Surface
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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1210 by Percy, posted 08-09-2019 6:25 PM | | Percy has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 1224 by Percy, posted 08-12-2019 1:34 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.7
|
|
|
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 |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 1218 of 2370 (860764)
08-11-2019 4:42 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1217 by Percy
08-11-2019 3:27 PM
|
|
Re: Basics Faith, basics.
Sea level is sea level, I can't see it any other way. The idea that it has changed is pure theory. 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. Yes I know that mainstream Geology is against me. 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. 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. The tops of the strata continue to look broken off to me. 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. 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. But your vision of what happened seems reasonable to me up to a point. It seems to suggest that the strata sagged rather than falling into their current position. The upper parts above the sea level line, --which you may not see as sea level but at least I know you know what I'm referring to -- still look like theyhad to have been broken rather than eroded. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1217 by Percy, posted 08-11-2019 3:27 PM | | Percy has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 1225 by Percy, posted 08-12-2019 1:58 PM | | Faith has replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.7
|
|
|
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: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.7
|
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
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.7
|
|
|
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: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.7
|
|
|
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 |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.7
|
|
|
Message 1223 of 2370 (860845)
08-12-2019 1:25 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1214 by Faith
08-09-2019 11:56 PM
|
|
Re: How Geologic Processes Create a Horizontal Sequence on the Surface
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:
- Initial deposition in a marine environment, such as the Cambrian and Silurian layers
- Tectonic uplift associated with mountain building elevated these strata, much more in the west than in the east causing tilt
- Erosion of the uplifted and tilted layers
- Subsidence and/or sea level rise
- More deposition in a marine environment, such as of the Devonian layers
- More uplift, again more in the west than the east causing yet more tilt
- Erosion of the uplifted and tilted layers
- Subsidence and/or sea level rise
- More deposition in a marine environment, such as of the Jurassic layers
- More uplift, especially in the east
- Erosion of the uplifted and tilted layers, again in the east
- Subsidence and/or sea level rise
- More deposition in a marine environment, such as of the Cretaceous and later the Tertiary layers
- Uplift of the whole region to it's current height above sea level
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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1214 by Faith, posted 08-09-2019 11:56 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.7
|
|
|
Message 1224 of 2370 (860848)
08-12-2019 1:34 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1216 by Faith
08-10-2019 7:52 AM
|
|
Re: How Geologic Processes Create a Horizontal Sequence on the Surface
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:
Tapeats Bright
| Angel
| | Mauv Temple
| | | Butte
| | | | Redwall
| | | | | Supai
| | | | | | Hermit
| | | | | | | Coconino
| | | | | | | | Toroweap
| | | | | | | | | Kaibab
| | | | | | | | | | Moenkopi
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
v v v v v v v v v v v
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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1216 by Faith, posted 08-10-2019 7:52 AM | | Faith has not replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.7
|
|
|
Message 1225 of 2370 (860849)
08-12-2019 1:58 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1218 by Faith
08-11-2019 4:42 PM
|
|
Re: Basics Faith, basics.
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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1218 by Faith, posted 08-11-2019 4:42 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 1226 by Faith, posted 08-12-2019 3:13 PM | | Percy has replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 1226 of 2370 (860853)
08-12-2019 3:13 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1225 by Percy
08-12-2019 1:58 PM
|
|
Re: Basics Faith, basics.
I've rewritten this to take out the sarcasm. It's not screaming in all caps but it's also not the right tone so I hope this reads better.
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. They look like they fell beneath the sea level line and got misshapen in the process.
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. 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, and at the end of the Flood there was a massive tectonic upheaval that may have caused the receding of the Flood, 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, and it also was connected with the beginning of volcanic activity as the tectonic plates began to move and separate the continents. 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, they look too similar to each other across the surface of the island, same tilt etc.suggesting whatever happened to them happened to all of them all at once. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1225 by Percy, posted 08-12-2019 1:58 PM | | Percy has replied |
|
DrJones*
Member Posts: 2285 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: 08-19-2004 Member Rating: 7.2
|
|
|
Message 1227 of 2370 (860855)
08-12-2019 4:05 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1226 by Faith
08-12-2019 3:13 PM
|
|
Re: Basics Faith, basics.
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 ya know, anyway, it does sort of seem to me that the time factor should smooth out both surfaces.
and why would you assume that both locations would experience the same erosion? To make an analogy you're assuming that all the cars in the US and England are traveling at the same speed and always have and always will.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1226 by Faith, posted 08-12-2019 3:13 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 1228 by Faith, posted 08-12-2019 4:07 PM | | DrJones* has replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 1228 of 2370 (860856)
08-12-2019 4:07 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1227 by DrJones*
08-12-2019 4:05 PM
|
|
Re: Basics Faith, basics.
Cuz the way the strata look suggests something that happened all at the same time, not separately to the separate strata, rather after all the strata were laid down, and since all the time periods are represented in both cases, or at least the overall span of them is represented, whatever happened happened globally at the same time. Didn't I already say that? I don't accept this whole theory about erosion though, but since it involves millions of years erosion would have to have leveled both areas, and not take anywhere near that amount of time to do it either. Even on the standard interpretation we're talking global timing right? The time periods don't exist in just one part of the world separately, they exist all over the world at the same time. All the strata would have been deposited in the same time frame. Or there would be no point to the whole idea of the time periods. However, the evidence for that timing is also good evidence for a single event, i.e. the Flood. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1227 by DrJones*, posted 08-12-2019 4:05 PM | | DrJones* has replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 1229 of 2370 (860859)
08-12-2019 4:26 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1222 by Percy
08-12-2019 12:59 PM
|
|
Re: How Geologic Processes Create a Horizontal Sequence on the Surface
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. The top of the tent would break open from the upward push of the mountain/rock, the left side would fall into the ocean, the right would fall down until the broken off upper parts are what we see spread out above the surface and the rest fall beneath the surface and get distorted as we see them. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1222 by Percy, posted 08-12-2019 12:59 PM | | Percy has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 1240 by Percy, posted 08-13-2019 7:16 PM | | Faith has replied |
|
DrJones*
Member Posts: 2285 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: 08-19-2004 Member Rating: 7.2
|
|
|
Message 1230 of 2370 (860869)
08-12-2019 5:42 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1228 by Faith
08-12-2019 4:07 PM
|
|
Re: Basics Faith, basics.
but since it involves millions of years erosion would have to have leveled both areas, and not take anywhere near that amount of time to do it either.
show your math.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1228 by Faith, posted 08-12-2019 4:07 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 1231 by Faith, posted 08-12-2019 9:04 PM | | DrJones* has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2
