Off Topic Posts aka Rabbit Trail Thread - Mostly YEC Geology

The upper layers are rigid ENOUGH, and I've explained a number of times already how it happened without more rigidity above than in the part that buckled. I've thought this through, stop making up silly objections to it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What ? Your assumed water layer ? That's not going to help against an upward force.

WHAT "water layer?" What are you making up now?

You're the one who keeps talking about everything being wet as if it's relevant, and about slippage between the strata. But what is the explanation if it's not that ?

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.

They might "look the same age" to you, but the plain fact that there are no crabs fossilized in trilobite-bearing Devonian rocks, and no ray-finned fish in eurypterid-bearing Ordovician ones should give you a hint that there are, in fact, different ages involved. Even the fossil record of trilobites, with many, many forms never co-occuring with each other, ought to give you that hint.

So what is this difference in texture that you're talking about? Have you even examined the texture of the rocks in question? And how does a difference in texture cause slippage, especially given the pressure from above?And I still want to know your explanation of why the upper layer isn't deformed if it is no more rigid than the lower levels that have buckled.

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

No, it doesn't make sense. Different textures don't repel each other.

quote:

---

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

---

Well there can't be any abrasion at the start of the process, so we can ignore that.The force from above will increase with depth while the force from below will be essentially constant, so that can't work (upward motion requires that the upward force is greater than the downward force, not less). And it won't stop deformation anyway. Not to mention that it would be a rather surprising coincidence if the balance point happened at the point where noticeably different strata meet.Unless you are invoking a water layer there shouldn't be anything special a out the dampness at that point.So I guess you're just left with your speculations about texture.

quote:

---

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

---

But it only resists buckling because of it's rigidity. If rigidity is NOT the explanation then Lyell's illustration tells us nothing about what the answer could be.

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

My intuition says that it's nonsense.

quote:

---

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.

---

I don't think that that will work, and to the extent it does, it'll be because the cloths themselves can't be deformed.

quote:

---

What are you calling the "start of the process?"

---

The point where the lateral pressure starts to deform the rock.

quote:

---

I include the dampness as a factor and the pressure between the weight from above and the force from beneath.

---

And I've already explained why none of these is very helpful.

quote:

---

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.

---

Then replace the book with something with the rigidity of a layer of cloth - like another layer of cloth - and see how well that works. Or just spend a seco d to think about it and realise that it won't - and that the book doesn't buckle because it is rigid, just as I said.

quote:

---

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.

---

Which means that I am correct to point out that it does NOT tell us how it could happen unless the upper layer is rigid enough to resist buckling.

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.

Alright, then explain why upward buckling can happen where the upward force is LESS then the downward pressure, but not where it is equal....

As far as anybody knows, it looks like it was modified by a series of people as it was handed down from generation to generation. It's unlikely that a single original author could be traced. Neither do you. The difference between your opinion and mine is that mine is based on scholarly research and I don't even particularly care whether it's true or not. It just seems like it probably is. That seems like a possible interpretation. But you just said, "We know as a fact that there was an evolution of homonids all the way from australopithicus to homosapiens," so you seem to agree that Genesis is wrong about homo sapiens being a special creation. I suppose that's barely plausible. Is there a shred of evidence to back up any of it?But why go through all of those gymnactics when the much more likely conclusion is that the Bible is just factually wrong? Why is it so important to reduce the Bible to a mere news item?Edited by ringo, : Spellelling

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.