Off Topic Posts aka Rabbit Trail Thread - Mostly YEC Geology

They were still DAMP at least, still MALLEABLE, capable of stretching, or the lower layers wouldn't buckle at all, ALL of them were still wet to that degree, both upper and lower, all of them, there was not some "water layer."But the SLIPPAGE is about the difference in TEXTURE between the two different kinds of rock more than it is the dampness although I'm sure the dampness contributes to the effect. When the force is applied from beneath the lower layers buckle, the force being resisted at some point in the stack where the weight above about equals the pressure from below, at which point the lower buckling strata slide UNDER the upper stack.The abrasion between the two breaks off pieces of the folded lower strata which get mixed with the abraded sand from the underside of the horizontal sandstone layer above (At both Siccar Point and the based of the Grand Canyon it was sandstone above and a harder rock beneath, greywacke in the case of Siccar Point, but it probably doesn't have to be harder, just a different texture).This is no WATER layer, this is just wet sediments, and they couldn't be SLOPPY wet, they had to be at least partially hardened from the weight of the stack. HOW wet I don't know, it depends on whether they were still standing in the Flood waters when the underground force occurred or the waters had at least partially or wholly receded. In that case the canyon would have been carved out by the draining lakes above that area rather than the remaining Flood water itself. I tend to think it was the receding Flood waters that carved the canyon and all the formations of the Southwest. Huge quantities of wet sediment were washed away by the water for one thing.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I just know they're different and it makes sense they'd have a somewhat repellent effect on each other for that reason at least under pressure. I suspect I can prove it if I have to but I have enough going on just getting anybody to picture the basic scenario. The underside of the lowest upper horizontal layer was abraded and formed the belt of erosion with the chunks from the buckled lower layer, and the whole stack was lifted up. But it just had to be the different textures and the dampness and the force from beneath about equaling the weight from above that permitted slippage under the stack rather than further deformation above that point. If the book in Lyell's illustration represents a very deep stack of wet sediments, and his folded cloth represents different wet sediments, the upper represents enough of a resistence to the buckling from beneath. Wish I could design an experiment to prove this. Different textures of clay might do it.

I believe it's intuitively obvious but I realize I'd have to prove it. And I suspect this sort of phenomenon is most likely to occur between particular different rocks, possibly always with damp sandstone above.In fact I just got an idea for an experiment, following Lyell's illustration, using a deep stack of different kinds of folded cloth without a book overhead, and exerting lateral pressure to a lower portion of the stack, trying it at different levels, also from underneath if I can figure out how to do that with mere cloth. That might require the clay model. What are you calling the "start of the process?" I keep defining this as the point where the upper weight is about equal to the force from beneath, whatever that happens to be, taking into account the slippage factor which I think is particularly important. I figure there must be different levels at which this could occur, with different kinds of rock involved, having to do with differences in force/weight/slippage etc. I include the dampness as a factor and the pressure between the weight from above and the force from beneath. No it resists buckling because of (1) the slippage factor plus (2) its great weight being about equal to the force applied from beneath, enough force to lift the whole stack however, and (3) possibly also the dampness of both sections. And (4) it certainly does have rigidity, ENOUGH rigidity, just as far as I can figure not more than the lower strata that are buckling. Of course I figure all this is testable if the right kind of experiment can be constructed. Lyell's illustration tells us that you can get buckling of lower strata beneath upper strata, period, which is the important thing for showing that an angular unconformity could be formed after all the strata were in place.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I think my intuition is better than yours and there's really not much else to say here. I think you are wrong that the upper layers have to be more rigid than the lower, I think the factors I've given work just fine, and there's nothing more to say at this point, I just have to figure out a way to test some of these things. I do think they are intuitively on the mark.

Just rediscovered this post so thought I'd answer it finally. Well I KNOW it's the word of God. Many things contribute to that knowledge that I don't think I could easily spell out although they include such mundane things as that I simply believe the Bible writers are credible witnesses. Since what they witness includes the supernatural works of God and Jesus Christ, that's good evidence OF God, and since that much is true I also believe the statements in scripture that point to its writers being inspired by God. But it doesn't necessarily all come together in that order and there's lots more than that, seems to me every day I learn new things that confirm the Bible is God's word.I also believe it does reflect reality, perfectly, and for the most part that is verified by observation and experience. Where it isn't I simply know that God's creation and God's word can't contradict each other and since God is infallible and human thought is fallible, it's a no-brainer which one has to yield to the other, starting with my own thoughts when something in scripture is beyond my understanding. It's a sad thing that so many put their own minds above God's. I think that is a very strong illusion, not reality at all, just an illusion that has a grip on many. Well, the Bible doesn't say such absurd things, overall it confirms observation and experience of the world. The conflicts come in with these speculative sciences about the past. Once you know God's word IS God's word, you know those are wrong. It would be nice to be able to prove it, and I think a lot of creationism has been proved, but also He doesn't seem to want to give us too much of that sort of evidence, because we are not to "walk by sight" meaning things we know, but "by faith." God has set things up so that we are to BELIEVE Him over our own thoughts. Those who do that, find that there is a lot more to reality bthan we ever dreamed. "Repent and believe" says scripture. "Believe and be saved" says scripture. "Faith is the evidence of things unseen" says scripture. "All these things have been written that ye might BELIEVE..." says scripture.That's the rules. That way lies salvation, that way lies blessings beyond imagination. That's the ONLY way to Reality.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

OK, let me put it this way. Once my mind has been convinced that the Bible is the word of God, then the word of God becomes the authority over my mind. You are certain that the earth is older than 6000 years, you said that with strong absolute certainty. I've committed myself to the word of God with at least that same degree of certainty. And again, once that commitment is made, God's word and God Himself become the authority over me. Simply because He IS God and His word IS His word. Unfortunately apparently you've done the same thing with the false idea of the old earth, let it rule over you. Well, as Bob Dylan said, ya gotta serve somebody. We've made our choices. I strenuously object to this common accusation that Christians and creationists oppose "SCIENCE." I do NOT oppose real science, I oppose CERTAIN PARTICULAR "sciences." I DO make the distinction between REAL science and the speculative untestable unprovable "sciences" of the past, old earthism and evolutionism, whether anybody else wants to recognize that distinction or not. It's a completely real and important distinction to me and to Christians in general. TRUE science produces useful things and NO CHRISTIAN opposes true science. I've done all the testing required to have arrived at my conclusion. Having arrived the word of God judges ME, I do not judge God and His word. I thought it was animal matter that made petroleum, plant matter makes coal. I doubt it would take as long as you think it does. Hundreds, at most a couple thousand years should be sufficient but very possibly much less, even within a human lifetime with the application of enough pressure in airtight conditions. Either coal or petroleum. Of course you'd have to round up some dead animals, or just try plants. We aren't going to be able to make enough to get rich on but perhaps enough to demonstrate that you CAN make the stuff. The pre-Flood world was LOADED with vegetable matter, beyond our ability to imagine. Animals too. Extraordinary fecundity. Press some of whatever you can gather together between huge heavy rocks -- about a ton each. Pack a bunch of mud around your organic matter too. And wait a while. Shouldn't take anywhere near as long as you think. Give it ten years. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Good one, CS. In that case it's a moral issue and has nothing to do with the scientific question i was addressing.

Standard Biblical reasoning says the pre-Flood world was extraordinarily fertile and lush. Actually since we interpret the fossil record to reflect that world there's your evidence.

That's a typical revisionist lie. Genesis was NOT transmitted by oral tradition, it was WRITTEN by Moses and probably some scribes in his time. Check how your sources for such nonsense arrive at it: they literally MAKE IT UP.

I have never once said a disconformity is not visible. Thanks a bunch for using initials in your devious cryptic fashion. I had no idea what you were referring to. That I've explained from the beginning, that's the WHOLE THING I've been explaining, how the bottom layers got tilted after all the layers were in place. They were abraded by the horizontal slide under the upper horizontal strata, which caused the band of erosion there. But see the illustrations in Lyell. The lower strata BUCKLE, they FOLD, and it is the folded-over parts that were abraded. That isn't the ENDS of the strata you are talking about, it's where the folded strata were broken off in the upheaval.And thanks again for your cryptic style of noncommunication. I'm talking about erosion between layers and you're talking about dis and un conformities. As I said try speaking ordinary English and stop trying to trip me up with your devious games. Also stop accusing me of lying, it's you who are making the conversation impossible. \I'm not talking about disconformities and your constant sabotage of communication makes you not worth talking to.I've had enough of this, thanks anyway. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's evidence of what lived before the Flood in Creationist SCIENCE. Of course you want to pretend we don't exist. Sorry, we do. It's evidence.

Sorry, the fossil record demonstrates the enormously lush world of both plants and animals that existed before the Flood. That's evidence, and that's scientific evidence for a paradigm that opposes yours. Your attempt to define us out of existence is duly noted.

The fossil record is excellent evidence, real evidence, for the Biblical picture of the pre-Flood world. Period.

Sorry back, the Flood is supported by the fossil record, that IS evidence for the Flood, you can't just pretend it doesn't exist just because you interpret it differentlyThe old creationist notions about the flood were idiotic, Coyote, they needed to be overthrown. Mainlhy they weren't BIBLICAL. And they did not have the picture of the flood we now have. They had all those stupid ideas about looking for the flood at some depth or layer or other, as some now still unfortunately do. That's idiotic. A worldwide Flood would have left evidence everywhere and evidence for the Flood IS everywhere. The Flood created the entire geological column with all its fossil contents. Again, that IS evidence for the Flood even if you have a different interpretation.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

How very devious and clever of you to turn it back on me after all your clever devious refusal to communicate so that it might be possible for me to get across to you what I've been explaining over and over and over again. No, you aren't interested in my ideas or you would have avoided your cryptic language and initials and that sort of thing. Well, I've explained it all many many times, so I conclude you just don't want to know about it despite your devious claim that you do.Cheers.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.