Off Topic Posts aka Rabbit Trail Thread - Mostly YEC Geology

You aren't finding evidence of the Flood because you're looking with a microscope when you just need to stand up and look around, as I believe I've said to you before. The evidence for the Flood IS everywhere and most particularly in strata and fossils wherever you find them. Archaeology studies events that occurred since the Flood, settlements and so on built on and in the very evidence for the Flood you say you can't find.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, that is what it did, Coragyps.

I don't get what you're saying at all. What is your point? How does it affect the situation I've been describing?

I figure that the buckling stops at the point of equilibrium, where the upper and lower forces are more or less equal, and I say "more or less" because I think the slippage factor allows for less counterresistance from the weight above and affects the point of equilibrium correspondingly. There should always be such a point of equilibrium, however, the point of balance between the forces. More pressure from above / less from below would locate the point of equilibrium at a lower level, and less from above / more from below would locate it higher in the stack. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I suspect that it would hold up even better if ALL the data were readily available and clearly distinguishable from the interpretive baggage of evolutionism that always gets dragged along with it, but in any case the simple FACT of the existence of the strata and their fossil contents is great evidence for the Flood even if there is the puzzle of the ordering of the fossils.The separation of the fossils into groups is NOT a problem for the Flood, in fact that ought to be recognized as a problem for evolution much more than for the Flood, since why should creatures just *happen to* die and get buried in groups, and for the most part separately from all other kinds of creatures supposedly living in that "time era"? Whereas we know ocean water has layers and currents and waves that do transport things and would transport animal groups together because they are normally found together in life. But the ordering SEEMS to be a problem. SEEMS. There is nothing Biblical about the idea that fossils were just whims of God. Obviously they were once living things, and that had to be recognized finally. Similar to the unbiblical biological ideas Darwin dealt with in his Origin of Species, that God created certain creatures to fit their environment AFTER He rested from all acts of creation according to scripture. If creationists had not abandoned scripture maybe the nonsense of evolution and an old earth would never have had to be invented. It is evidence for the simple reason that such a huge amount of death of all living things is exactly what such a Flood would have done and what scripture tells us was the purpose of it. To deny this obvious fact is just to be unnecessarily obstructionist. I agree that trying to pick out which rocks were deposited in the Flood is ridiculous. Either the Flood created the entire geological column or it didn't. ALL the strata and their fossil contents had to be created by the same process. That's why I object to some creationist explanations. They tend to accept that the "basement" strata of the Grand Canyon were formed before the Flood for instance and the Flood strata built on top of them. That's why I make such a big deal out of showing that those tilted strata can be explained by force from beneath after the Flood had laid down the entire colulmn. There's no logical reason to exclude any of the strata from the Flood explanation.As I say above Flood geology has a much better explanation for the GROUPING of the fossils than evolution does. And the reason that old earth sciences are "successful" is simply that there are no checks on them since you can't replicate the past PLUS the effect of prejudiced opinion and the rampant bias-blindness against any alternative explanation. I haven't said it doesn't also work for evolution, just that it IS evidence for the Flood, that the same evidence can be interpreted for the Flood that you use for evolution, and in some cases it applies a lot better to the Flood than to evolution. The groupings again. All those nautiloids for example studied by Steve Austin in the Grand Canyon that obviously died in a mass killing, nautiloids of all ages and sizes showing they did not die normal deaths.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Analogy.Mallet strikes balance that sends ball up column. Ball will go up column only as far as the force applied by the mallet, all the way to the top of the column if the force is strong enough, not as high if not, being resisted by gravity at whatever point is the balance point between the force and gravity.Atom bomb set off underground doesn't reach the surface if it's deep enough, being resisted by the weight of the earth above, although it raises the surface in the process. Balance point has to do with depth/weight of earth above versus force of bomb. Not deep enough the explosion will erupt through the earth above. Etc.Surely you can think of more examples yourself.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But I don't need that kind of evidence. The Bible says there was a worldwide Flood, and there is this incredible depth of strata found scattered over the entire world, of the sort that had to be laid down by water, just chock full of dead things, which is what the Flood was intended to accomplish, and that is excellent evidence for what the Bible describes. Takes a very strange stubbornness to refuse to acknowledge this simple fact.

That's just weird, Paul, it's a good analogy. Bomb blast doesn't breach the surface but does raise the surface. That's similar to what happened in the Grand Canyon. In both the examples I gave there is a point at which the underground force is expended. That's the "balance point," that's the point at which it is effectively resisted by the counterforce, in one case gravity, in the other mostly the weight of the earth above.The force beneath the Grand Canyon likewise had a point at which it was spent, the point at which the forces of resistance put a stop to it. It was spent or dissipated before it reached the level at which it would have caused deformation of those strata such as it caused below that level. The "balance point," which is your term by the way, is the point at which the force is dissipated, where it meets the force of the upper weight, or to put it another way, the point at which its own energy has been expended. I can only say this so many different ways. I don't understand why you are having such a problem with this. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's the simplification that ought to convey the point.

I think what makes the division between the greywacke and the sandstone above is the different textures, the slippage factor. I think that contributed quite a bit to the balance point. It could have been higher or lower but wherever there is such a slippage factor it would stop there instead of continuing. The slippage factor allows the lower force to play out longer without affecting the layer itself. The lower folded strata slide for some distance beneath the upper, using up whatever energy is still present.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's enough at the right level, when the force is just about expended anyway and the slippage makes up the difference. That's the point at which the force is no longer enough to deform the strata above as long as there is the slippage, but enough for any remaining energy to be taken up by the slippage. As I keep saying it COULD be higher or lower, but in the particular case in question this was the level it chose. That's awfully vague. Force WHAT strata together?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

THE RIGHT LEVEL IS WHATEVER LEVEL AT WHICH THE FORCE IS JUST ABOUT EXPENDED. DUH!!!! i keep saying it could be higher or lower, it depends on how much force there is from beneath relative to the resistance factors. If there weren't the slippage factor it probably WOULD go on up into the upper standstone but I think the slippage factor is what caused it to dissipate in sliding instead. I assume there was originally a very high stack above that level. It COULD have gone higher into that stack but it just HAPPENED that there was the right amount of force to displace the greywacked and then get expended in the slippage.REMEMBER, the greywacke is FOLDED and tilted and that facilitates sliding instead of simply impacting too. Then see above.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Paul I've reached the point where I want to throttle you for wilful stupidity. Best to end this discussion.

First off, it's not likely either rock was that thick to begin with, and it would also have been in layers. Not sure if it matters but that's my first thought. Lyell did an analysis of the layers at Siccar Point and some drawings that show that the greywacke was FOLDED, and that the abrasion of the upper folds left the appearance of vertical layers having been upended but they'd really been folded. A whole long stack of layers couldn't just be upended, they'd have to break first and the way they got broken was by first being folded. With that explanation of how they acquired their final appearance, proceed: OK Inside or outside the square? I picture inside, not sure why. How did you arrive at whichever it is? The greywacke would have slid under the upper sandstone in my scenario, perhaps some distance, but then the folding/tilting would possibly have decreased its length. Again not sure if it matters.Sounds like you've left a big gap to the north into which I would expect the upper sandstone to collapse or drape itself if quite malleable. What line? And why would you expect a canyon to form at that spot? If the sandstone has collapsed into the space you seem to have left where the greywacke had formerly been it would be. Otherwise I don't see the schist rising up to meet the sandstone which is what you SEEM to be saying but probably aren't. What would cause a canyon to form? And where exactly did it form? Now you're back at the tilted greywacke and no longer the twelve mile gap? How did the upper sandstone get tilted in that area? So far I don't see the similarity. For one thing in the Grand Canyon the upper sandstone is NOT tilted, it's level. The greywacke was layered, not just a thick slab, as Siccar Point shows, and some section of the layers folded - not sure a whole half mile thickness of layers would fold like that -- with the resultant look of being tilted, which could have decreased its width/length by some appreciable amount (depends on how deep it is in its tilted form compared to its original half mile thickness). The upper folds would have been sheared off in the abrasive contact with the upper sandstone and at both Siccar Point and the interface between the Grand Unconformity and the upper layer of sandstone in the Grand Canyon there is a fairly large band of eroded material which contains chunks of the lower rock embedded in the finer grained sand of the upper sandstone. That's where a lot of it went. Maybe all of it. There might also be an area of rubble at some point along the path it slid. But except for that abrasion the greywacke is still all there, just accordioned you could say, beneath the sandstone. Did my best. Now please do your best to understand what I'm saying and correct for any misunderstandings of what you intended since it wasn't all clear.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.

Did you read my answer to you? I explained all that.The lower strata are not "tilted" because you CAN'T tilt a hundred mile long stack of layers. If they only buckled in that one spot then you should find the same layers still intact farther down. According to Lyell tilted strata are really FOLDED and the upper folds eroded away and if a long section was buckled then you shoujld find the same effect for the whole length. The so-called "ends" of the strata didn't just disappear, they were FOLDED OVER, and the folded part in contact with the upper layer was eroded and formed the erosion layer you find in those locations and beyond the illustrated area they were either reduced to rubble where there used to be strata or they exist as tilted strata all along that same path in the same condition as the illustrated part.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.