Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,234 Year: 5,491/9,624 Month: 516/323 Week: 13/143 Day: 3/10 Hour: 1/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Motley Flood Thread (formerly Historical Science Mystification of Public)
Member (Idle past 1140 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008

Message 361 of 877 (834381)
06-04-2018 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 352 by Faith
06-04-2018 9:42 AM

Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done with
Hi Faith,
I'm having a lot of trouble understanding you here. You say
What I'm saying is that the strata in all the columns everywhere, even the most incomplete ones as far as the time scale goes, are always found in blocks of originally horizontal strata, eroded as blocks, deformed as blocks, except for the angular unconformities which put two blocks at different angles to each other.
So, there is no sign of strata being deformed by tectonic movement, and then new strata laid on top, except where there are signs of strata being deformed by tectonic movement, and then new strata laid on top. I guess that's true, but surely it demonstrates that you're wrong. Angular unconformities exist; so there is evidence of new sedimentary layers forming after older ones have moved about. The model is falsified.
Now, I'm wondering if your thinking is being muddled by being wedded to the idea that signs of tectonic movement all represent one catastrophic event - since you talk about some formations in England not being disturbed by the breakup of Pangaea. But the idea that all tectonic activity is the result of one big catastrophic event is a requirement of your model, not anyone else's. There's no reason to assume this, and it seems unreasonable on the face, since we know tectonic activity is ongoing today. I'm aware you think this all started post-Flood, but that's something that needs to be established.
Incidentally, you mention that England's rocks go all the way back to the Cambrian, and so represent the full geological column. There are rocks much older than the Cambrian, however. The Cambrian is estimated to have been about 540-485 million years ago, while the Earth is believed to be about 4,500 million years old. Britain probably lies on rocks dating back about 3,000 million years, but they are not exposed anywhere in England.
That the strata were all laid down one on top of another without being eroded or deformed until they were all laid down. That suggests there were no time gaps between layers. abe: I mean VISIBLE time gaps, spaces where erosion should have occurred and didnt'; I'm not talking about the supposed missing layers or unconformities. /abe
This is a very strange condition. You're not accepting unconformities as evidence of time gaps. I do understand that in your 'model' there are no big time gaps; but what would a visible time gap actually be? Assuming, for a minute, that the standard old earth model is correct; in what way would you expect missing layers to be visibly different? I have no idea what "spaces where erosion should have occurred and didn't" is supposed to mean.
Edited by caffeine, : sentences that stop halfway through - I should learn to reread before posting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by Faith, posted 06-04-2018 9:42 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 363 by Faith, posted 06-04-2018 5:32 PM caffeine has replied

Member (Idle past 1140 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008

Message 399 of 877 (834461)
06-06-2018 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 363 by Faith
06-04-2018 5:32 PM

Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done with
That is difficult enough to prove, maybe even impossible to prove for the many truncated columns/ time scales, though I've made some inroads there with cross sections in my opinion, but anyway this is why I point to the two examples where it is obviously true:
The Grand Canyon-Grand Staircase area where the whole range of time periods is represented from Precambrian to Recent, except for the Silurian, the strata all laid down without any real sign of erosion or tectonic deformation until they were all in place, at which time we get the major erosion that carved both the canyon and the staircase.
Here's the usual cross section where I first noticed this fact:
I don't really see how you can make an argument that there is no sign of tectonic disturbance prior to all sedimentary strata being in place by looking at only two examples. If every other pile of rocks in the world looks difference, this isn't much of a basis on which to make statements about the entire globe.
But I see a bigger problem with your examples. Smith's diagram is a very schematic (and old) representation of a huge area. I don't know a great deal about what the geology of southern England really looks like, but I wouldn't assume this is accurate enough to use as the basis for grand sweeping statements about the world's geology. You said later in a reply to Percy that it doesn't matter if Smith left bits out of his diagram, but of course it does. If the bits left out are full of strata at irregular angles to one another then your entire point is falsified.
But more to the point, the other diagram contains a big problem for your argument - it includes an angular unconformity! The bit at the bottom right just next to the grand canyon shows strata that have clearly been tilted independently to those above.
I know you believe you have your own interpretation of this. That interpretation makes no sense to me, but that's not the point. One of your preferred examples to demonstrate the claim that there is no sign anywhere of strata being deformed and tilted independently of the strata above them contains exactly that. The evidence clearly does exist, so I am baffled how you can present the absence of such evidence as the central support for your position.
It's not even a requirement of mine, it's the conclusion I came to fairly recently after pondering the order of events as I've been seeing it on these various cross sections. And the point about the cross section of England is that it alone demonstrates that the standard timing of the splitting of the continents can't be correct because there is no disturbance in the laying down of the strata at the Jurassic period, it just continues up through Recent time without a hitch, and THEN they all are suddenly deformed into their tilted form. So that's one EVIDENCE for the timing of the splitting of the continents after all the strata were laid down. As is the erosion of the Grand Staircase-Grand Canyon area after all the strata were laid down.
This doesn't follow at all. If I understand correct, you're saying that the splitting apart of Pangaea should be accompanied by signs of massive tectonic upheaval, with sedimentary layers being tilted all over the place. But why?
In standard geology, the splitting apart of continents is not a sudden, catastrophic upheaval that churns the seas and shatters the land. Continental drift is a slow, gradual process. Continents are splitting apart today. The Great Rift Valley running through Ethiopia and Kenya is a live example of the African continental plate splitting in two - over the next ten millions the Horn of Africa is expected to break away. This is not causing rocks across Africa to tilt on their ends.
I'd expect to see visible erosion between layers, in the contact lines, and in fact very irregular contacts to the point of gullies and dips that cut into lower strata to some depth, all kinds of deformation and erosion that simply is not there.
But such signs are all over the place.
A lot of the photos I found in a quick search I opted not to use, because it's very hard to distinguish separate layers of rocks. But then that's the point really. Areas where rocks form clear, distinct and separate layers are great for photographs; but they're not really representatives of how most rocks I've seen in real life look.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by Faith, posted 06-04-2018 5:32 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 416 by Faith, posted 06-06-2018 5:12 PM caffeine has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024