For instance, several of the formations show grading of sedimentary grains with coarser conglomerates at the base.
... but you instead describe formations that have coarser sediments at the bottom than at the top. What symbols in the diagram indicate this, and aren't formations with the fine sediments at the top and the coarser at the bottom more representative of deposition by water that became gradually less active over time than of slow deposition over thousands of years in a fairly consistent environment?
By 'coarser', I assume you mean conglomerate deposits rather than sandstone?
I must have misunderstood what you said originally, but I'm still not sure. When you said "grading of sedimentary grains with coarser conglomerates at the base" I thought you meant a stratum that graded gradually from fine-grained at the top to coarse sediments at the bottom, which sounds like what would happen if very active water with a heavy sediment load suddenly became still.
But now I think you might have meant something different, but I'm not sure what. What does "grading of sedimentary grains" mean if not grading from fine to coarse with increasing depth?
This is an interesting feature of the diagram. The small circle patterns represent gravels or cobbles or boulder deposits above each one of the erosional unconformities.
Notice that, if you connect the small circles with a line, they form a pattern that cuts across the upper layers above the unconformity. They form a horizon that parallels the unconformity rather than lying within each younger layer
Here's a closeup of one of those layers running through roughly the center of the image:
This is getting complicated, at least for me. If you look on the left side of the diagram and count the boundary lines between stratum up from the bottom, then I'm looking at the stratum between the 2nd and 3rd line up. That stratum runs right into the basement rock, not pinching out or anything like that. The whole thickness of that stratum just dead ends at the basement rock. So do others. How does that happen?
These might be called 'lag deposits' that form on top of the unconformity as it is being buried. They are fragments of the rocks beneath the unconformity included in the layers above it. They are 'locally derived'.
I see the circles representing the conglomerate at the base. It is continuously there across the top of the boundary to the basement rock. Here's the full diagram:
I think you're saying that the conglomerate got there by erosion from the basement rock, and that much of it might be there by lag erosion (is that a term), water or wind flow strong enough to carry away smaller grains away but not larger/heavier conglomerate. Do we know the story in any more detail? What caused the basement rock to break up into so much conglomerate?
The stratum at the base of the left side of the diagram all end at that basement rock. Could they all be marine deposits of a rising sea? Wouldn't that mean that the deposits should show evidence of Walther's Law, perhaps with the rising water going into or out of the diagram?
Here's a closeup of the layer with multiple lines of circles:
In that layer that has one, two or three rows of circles in a line (the number depends on thickness), does that mean there are "gravels or cobbles or boulder deposits" arranged in sublayers of the stratum? Are the "gravels or cobbles or boulder deposits" also conglomerates? And finer sediments are mixed in, called the matrix, I guess? Are the dashes between circles meaningful, maybe referring to the matrix? Is the composition of the stratum uniform, because if the "gravels or cobbles or boulder deposits" are what you mean by conglomerates then the conglomerates in this layer do not reside at the base of the stratum.
Are the large number of fine diagonal lines throughout the diagram meaningful?
Since there's a layer with little dots labeled Lower Greensand, I assume that little dots mean sandstone.
Do you see? They are part of the overlying sequence but form a pattern within a pattern that looks like a separate layer parallel to the unconformity. Look at almost any picture of the Great Unconformity in the Grand Canyon and you can see this feature. The Siccar Point unconformity also shows cobbles of the underlying rock just above the unconformity surface. This is very common and is cleverly shown in the section.
So looking this up I see that cobbles are a type of conglomerate.
I feel more knowledgeable in the sense of learning something by rote rather than through understanding, that I need to get a better feel for this.
By river I assume you mean one where the water is flowing. Sediments do not fall out of active water, such as that in a flowing river.
These things have been illustrated here before, flume experiments...
I addressed the Bertault flume experiments in the very message you're replying to. I said that they deposited sediments at a steep angle, not horizontally. This is queued up at the exact right spot in case you don't remember:
...and even the incident where a whole stack of sediment layers was laid down all at once by a flooding river.
What flooding river? If you have evidence that multiple distinct sedimentary layers can be laid down simultaneously, something you've never before claimed about the flood, then please present it.
And river deltas do layer sediments, and I assume the water is flowing at that point.
The energy level of the water from the river drops when it reaches the sea and with increasing distance from shore. This has been known like forever. How is this evidence for your flood?
There is also, again, the fact that a flow from Mt. St. Helens laid down a whole stack of strata simultaneously.
Mount St. Helens did not lay down a whole stack of distinct strata simultaneously, but how is a volcano evidence for your flood?
I know you want evidence and it is out there and really should be found and produced here but I'm a bad person, as you know, and not up to it.
You're here to make the case for your views, which requires evidence and rationale, not just taking up space with empty claims.
The flume experiments simply demonstrate that water DOES deposit sedimentary layers.
See previous message about the flume experiments, which deposited diagonal layers, not horizontal.
There are many ways water layers sediments. Precipitation is one.
Is precipitation out of solution something you're proposing for your Flood? What is the evidence that any significant portion of the Earth's sedimentary layers were due to precipitation out of solution?
The point is that it's WATER WATER WATER that accomplishes this feat, and the Flood provided a LOT OF WATER.
"Water did it" explains nothing. You're supposedly here to show that the Flood really happened. Show us the evidence so we can see for ourselves.
Again, this is just your assertion. If you can have rapid microevolution a hundred years, why not macroevolution in millions of years.
The point I was making was that according to the fossil record we got mammals in a lot less time than we got an enormous variety of trilobites that didn't evolve into anything other than trilobites over hundreds of millions of years. I find this to be an interesting evidence for simple mechanical deposition of the creatures and a strong suggestion that the evolutionary interpretation is wrong.
Mammals are a class. Trilobites are a class. The spans of time are not that different. Trilobites became extinct after a run of about 275 million years. Mammals originated about 300 million years ago. There is no indication of either the Trilobite or Mammal class evolving into anything else.
But you're drifting off-topic, which was the fossil record of increasing difference from modern forms with increasing depth in the geological record. How is this evidence for the Flood?
You have not established that the fossil record is only a couple thousand years at most.
I believe i established that with the GC/GS cross section years ago, and repeated many times since. The evidence is there that the whole area shown on that cross section had to have occurred in a very short period. And I believe the cross section of the UK which has been under discussion here is support for that conclusion.
You are again claiming to have presented evidence that you did not. Just as you're doing here, you said some words that made no sense and withstood not the slightest scrutiny. This is a new thread. If you have a case to make supporting your premise that the Flood really happened, then you should make it now.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : "300 years" => "300 million years"
SO what it was pyroclasitic, it was a liquid flow. Water is a liquid you know, would behave similarly as a flow.
A pyroclastic flow doesn't deposit multiple distinct layers simultaneously as you claimed. It also isn't clear why you're claiming thiss since you've never said the Flood did that. Please explain why you think a pyroclastic flow is evidence for your Flood.
Here's a pyroclastic flow from Mount St. Helens. Please point out the multiple distinct layers that were deposited simultaneously:
So, imagination is not good or useful? The problem you have is that we see different environments today that have different organisms and sediment types. Why would the past be any different?
You are trying to reconstruct such environments from a sedimentary ROCK with a few fossils of creatures of a particular kind buried within it.
We're not reconstructing environments just by looking at strata. We're looking at sandstone strata and seeing that they have the same composition in lithified form as sand deposits along coastal areas today. We're looking at shale and mudstone strata and seeing that they have the same composition in lithified form as sediments being deposited today off the coast of seas and lakes. We're looking at limestone strata and seeing that they have the same composition in lithified form as sediments being deposited today in warm shallow seas like the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico.
You ASSUME the rock represents a time period in which those fossil creatures lived, and that raises the question how that whole time period got squished down into a rock.
This isn't an assumption, just obvious logic, and you believe the same thing, that all fossilized life became entombed in strata during the time period when it lived, just like we do. Where you differ is in believing that all life lived at the same time and became buried at the same time.
Can you describe where in this diagram that strata built upon granite is indicated:
Where the "Cambrian" and "Silurian" strata are shown starting on it and hanging down from there to become the lowest portion of the strata beneath the island.
That doesn't answer the question. You claimed that the diagram *emphasizes* the strata that built on the granite. Where does the diagram perform this *emphasis*. Cambrian and Silurian are indicators of age, not of granite. Here's a closeup of that part of the diagram:
Please describe where in this closeup you see that it is indicating that there is granite. I'm not saying there isn't granite anywhere in the area covered by the diagram. I'm saying that nowhere in the diagram do I see it saying anything at all about granite, and I'm asking you that if you see the diagram saying that there is granite somewhere then please tell me where the diagram is saying that.
Also, the Snowdon strata that descend to the right are not "hanging down". They are completely supported by basement rock.
And I might as well repeat here what I already tried to describe to PaulK (I think): From something he said I came to think the mountain was probably raised up by the same tectonic force that caused all the rest of the strata to "collapse" as I put it,...
I think everyone's still pretty uncertain what you mean by "collapse." My guess is that you're saying that at one time the strata stretched flat and horizontal across Wales and England, that there was uplift with Snowdon in the west being uplifted much more than Harwich in the east causing a tilt downward toward the east (the right), and so the strata just fell off to the right, in effect, "collapsed." Where is the evidence in the diagram or anywhere else that there was ever any such a "collapse?" Did you check the floor of the English Channel between England, Belgium and the Netherlands, or did the collapse stop right at the eastern shore?
...from their original position stacked above what is now the mountain, so that what is now the left to right positioning of the usual order from Cambrian to Holocene was originally vertically stacked on top of the mountain before it was a mountain but would have been basement rock like those beneath the Tapeats in the Grand Canyon area.
Basement rock is the wrong term for the sedimentary strata of Snowdon.
Anyway I gather the strata as they are now seen on that illustration are assumed to have been laid down that way, meaning laid down just as we see them on the illustration? Is that correct? So that what I keep saying about how they "collapsed" into that position is not recognized at all?
You should really try reading what people write, especially when they've written it so often. Here it is yet again.
No, no one believes "the strata as they are now seen on that illustration are assumed to have been laid down that way." Just as we've said many times already, the strata reflect episodes of deposition, uplift, subsidence, sea level rise and fall, and erosion. Deposition tends toward the horizontal, just as Steno said. Deposition over long periods creates deeply buried strata that are subjected to the compressive forces responsible for lithification. Tectonic forces uplift and tilt strata. Uplifted regions become exposed to erosion. Rising sea levels and/or subsidence can submerge previously exposed and eroded regions where they'll experience additional deposition, creating an unconformity, possibly angular if the region was tilted before being eroded. These are basic geological principles that we've been explaining to you for nearly 20 years. They can all be observed taking place all around the world today (except for lithification, I suppose). Where can we go to observe the kind of "collapse" you think happened?
Re: once again now: the strata would originally NOT have been where the diagram has them
Faith writes:
The strata we see both on the surface of the island and beneath it, which are all one geological column spread out from left to right across the island both above and below, cannot be the way it was originally laid down, since they would have been laid down one on top of the other from bottom to top. They are now left to right,...
If you take these sedimentary layers A (on the bottom) through H (at the top):
H ----------------------------------------------
G ----------------------------------------------
F ----------------------------------------------
E ----------------------------------------------
D ----------------------------------------------
C ----------------------------------------------
B ----------------------------------------------
A ----------------------------------------------
And then you tilt them upward on the left and erode the tops off like this:
A B C D E F G H
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
Then the formerly vertical ordering will, at the surface, appear to be left to right. That's all you're seeing.
Re: once again now: the strata would originally NOT have been where the diagram has them
JonF writes:
I think you're forgetting that the vertical scale is greatly exaggerated to show the relationships more clearly. In the real world the angles of those layers are nowhere near as steep as in the drawings.
A key question is what is the degree of exaggeration of the vertical scale in this diagram. In other words, how tilted are these strata in reality. I think it's possible to figure out:
The elevation of Northampton is 220 feet above sea level. On the diagram that is 57 pixels on my computer. So 57 pixels is 220 feet or .041 milles, which is 0.00072 miles/pixel. The distance across the horizontal extent of the diagram is 2614 pixels or 200 miles, while is 0.077 miles/pixel. Dividing one by the other we find that the vertical scale is exaggerated by 107 times. This tells us that the deepest part of the diagram (beneath Wolverhampton) is only .32 miles deep or 1700 feet.
It's easy to scale the image so it shows what the cross section actually looks like at true scale. It's as flat as a pancake (click on the image to expand, it helps a little). Yes, that little white bar is the true-scale cross section:
Even if "collapse" were a thing in geology, the tilt could never have been steep enough for the stack of strata to fall over.
I'd like to know what Edge thinks, because some data is inconsistent with such a slight degree of tilt. For example, if you look at Siccar Point you can see that the tilt there is very apparent and much more than in my true-scale cross section:
Another issue is that the elevation of Snowdon and Northampton are inconsistent. If Northamton's elevation of 220 feet is 57 pixels then Snowdon's height of 186 pixels is only 770 feet, and we know that Snowdon is actually 3500 feet, which is a significant discrepancy. This tells me that the cross section not only has different scales for the horizontal and vertical (which is standard for geological cross sections) but that the vertical scale is widely inconsistent from one place to another (which is very much non-standard).
So I'm suspicious. It's all well and good to come up with a precise calculation of the true tilt, but meaningless if it doesn't match reality.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Add another example of discrepancy at the end.
You already conceded this isn't true, that the lower boundary of sedimentary deposits will follow the contours of the surface they're deposited upon.
The lower boundary, yes, at the very bottom of the stack, but the top of each will be straight and horizontal.
Sedimentary deposits will follow the contours of any surface they're deposited upon, not just basement rock. For example, if submerged strata are uplifted unevenly so that they tilt, then subsequent sedimentation will be upon a tilted surface, not a horizontal one. Repeating what I've said several times in the past, deposition tends toward the horizontal because lower elevations tend to fill in faster, so as sediments are deposited more deeply the tilt at the top will gradually become more and more horizontal.
NONJE OF THE STRATA WERE DEPOSITED IN THEIR PRESENT POSITION as illustrated on the diagram.
The record of uplift and subsidence and of rising and falling sea levels is clear in the geologic record. There is no record of significant lateral movement of strata (miles, which is the type of distance you're talking about) in the geologic record. If you think you've found evidence of such large lateral movements then please let us know. The only known example of significant lateral movement of strata is on the sea floor where strata reside on what is essentially a conveyor that eventually carries them to a subduction zone.
The strata on the island is those above the straight line which is sea level.
I think the count must be above 10 now, that you've been informed that current sea level is meaningless to anything you're saying about strata. If you think otherwise then please explain and discuss. Please don't just keep repeating the error.
They are all tilted upward toward the left like slices of bread. They are broken off at the top. They were obviously not deposited in that position.
Yes, that is correct, the strata were not originally deposited in their current tilted orientation. We've said many times that strata are in general deposited fairly horizontally. When tilted and uplifted to become exposed to the elements then they gradually erode away. It isn't brokenness you're seeing on the exposed surfaces of the strata, just the effects of erosion.
The strata beneath the sea level line are continuations of the shortened tilted strata above the line. They were obviously not deposited there, just as the strata above were not deposited in their illustrated position, because strata are deposited horizontally and stacked vertically.
There is no indication of lateral movement of the strata, and especially no indication that the now-tilted strata are not continuous from above sea level to below sea level. Current sea level, as you've now been informed countless times, is not relevant. If you think otherwise then please explain why instead of just repeating your error. Maybe you're right about what seem obvious errors to us, but you can't just keep asserting them sans evidence. You have to show how they are true by bringing forward evidence and a valid interpretive context that shows that they're true.
These are neither.
The strata in the diagram are neither horizontal nor stacked vertically because they've been uplifted unevenly so as to tilt. It's just tilt you're seeing, nothing more.
In their original position the lower strata would have been spread out horizontally...
When you say "spread out horizontally" I hope you only mean that marine sediments deposit roughly evenly over an area. If you mean something different like sediments being deposited in one place and then spread out horizontally from there to other places, then please explain why you think this, and why it is relevant to your Flood.
...across the island and the whole stack with the short strata at the far left would be upright from Cambrian up to Holocene.
Please stop using the term "upright." It makes it sound like you're standing the strata on end. "Upright" is not a synonym for horizontal. If you mean horizontal or flat and straight then please say horizontal or flat and straight, or if you mean something else then say that. Just please stop saying "upright."
Sorry if my language is hard to understand. That is why I would like to be able to sketch it. In fact I'm wondering if I drew it on paper, a few drawings at least and then scanned them into my computer if those could be somehow transferred to the forum. I'm not even sure what program to scan them TO in order to make that possible, AND I'm still afraid to turn on my computer because the virus had already eaten up a lot of material and I don't even know if I'll have time to load the malwarebytes program. BUT if I can and do, is there some way I could draw what i have in mind and scan it in so it would get onto the forum?
Scan in your sketches in an image format like JPEG or PNG, then upload them to an image website. Other people will have to tell you which website to upload to, I don't use any myself (I see that JonF uses imgur.com, but I don't know any details about it, though I see it does use drag/drop for images). Once the image is there you can reference it from your messages.
About the virus, do you know how to boot your computer in safe mode? How do you know it is a virus? What do you see happening that tells you something is deleting files?
I'm only going to address your virus and scanning issues in this message.
It doesn't sound like you have a virus on your computer. Certainly you didn't mention any files being deleted. It sounds like your browser has been hijacked. I don't think your problem is serious, and you don't have to keep your computer shut down. For future occasions when you think your computer has a virus, just shut it down. Don't start unplugging wires, that's not necessary.
Plug back in all the wires you unplugged and turn your computer on. Once it's up, open your browser and try to visit Malwarebytes Cybersecurity for Home and Business | Anti-Malware & Antivirus. Click on their free download. When it's downloaded then run it by clicking on the "Scan Now" button (as this is a new installation it might ask some setup questions, I don't remember - answer them as best you can). Once it completes (you may possibly be asked to reboot) see if your browser is working. Please let me know if you need more details for any of these steps. If your browser still doesn't work properly then let me know and we'll go on to the next step.
About scanning in your sketches, you said my "schematic system" didn't work for you. I didn't mention any "schematic system". I also thought your computer was down and you couldn't use your scanner. It might be helpful if you clarified what it was you did.
About the actual scanning, I just said you should scan your sketches in as images , i.e., as JPEGs, PNGs or GIFs. That's as opposed to PDFs, which is often an option for scanners. Then the images should be uploaded to an image hosting site of your choice. It will give you a URL to use for each image.
The discussion cannot go well if you say wildly exaggerated things like you "disagree with everything" I said. For example, it is not true that you disagree that "sedimentary deposits will follow the contours of any surface they're deposited upon," and we know you don't disagree because I can point you to messages where you agreed with that. Saying that you disagree with everything is not only unhelpful, it gives people no idea what things you do disagree with. Please be specific about what you disagree with and why.
...that's why I repeat things but I'll stop.
Repeating what you already said in response to a rebuttal is both unhelpful and a form of passive aggression. Please stop repeating yourself and respond to what was actually said. Imagine what someone would think of Person A in this conversation:
Person A:
The sky is red.
Person B:
Anyone can see the sky is clearly blue.
Person A:
The sky is red.
Person B:
These other people agree with me that the sky is blue.
Person A:
The sky is red.
Person B:
This spectrum analyzer says the sky is blue.
Person A:
The sky is red.
Person B:
The reason the sky is blue is because the atmosphere absorbs other frequencies of light, leaving only blue.
Person A:
The sky is red.
Person B:
Here are two pieces of glass, one tinted green the other blue. If you look through the green filter you see black because no light cannot get through because none of the light from the sky is red. If you look through the blue filter you can see plenty of light because the light from the sky is blue.
Person A:
The sky is red.
Don't be Person A.
That may mean I have to stop posting altogether on this subject.
If you are constitutionally unable to engage in constructive discussion, if all you can do is repeatedly parrot the same words, then that would be a wise decision.
The more I see of the interpretations of Historical Geology the less sense it makes to me.
Brainwashed people in cults often say how little sense the world makes. These frequent interjections of what you're feeling are not helpful to the discussion, and I think they distract you from the topic.
The thing about your insistence that sedimentary deposits follow unstraight contours is that in the geological columns they are all clearly either straight or originally straight and those in the UK diagram are unusual and were clearly not deposited in their current position.
Why are you saying this as if everyone here is arguing that the strata in the UK cross section were originally deposited just as we see them today? No one is arguing for that or has ever argued for that. Multiple people have described multiple times what happened geologically, sometimes briefly, sometimes at greater length. For instance, PaulK recently said, "They have been tilted, obviously. Their extent has likely been reduced by erosion." Edge has enumerated the things that have happened to this strata, as have I.
I use "upright" for vertical, not horizontal, but I'll use "vertical" since there is a problem with "upright."
Both "vertical" and "upright" are misleading. If you mean "a stack of horizontal strata" then say that. Saying that strata are upright or vertical is very misleading.
Re: once again now: the strata would originally NOT have been where the diagram has them
Faith writes:
Percy writes:
H ----------------------------------------------
G ----------------------------------------------
F ----------------------------------------------
E ----------------------------------------------
D ----------------------------------------------
C ----------------------------------------------
B ----------------------------------------------
A ----------------------------------------------
And then you tilt them upward on the left and erode the tops off like this:
A B C D E F G H
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
Actually that's pretty much what I have been describing,...
Okay, good so far.
The tilting as you see it would be enough to cause some of the disturbances we see in the strata that are beneath the island.
But you've been looking at a diagram which is exaggerated in the vertical direction. The layers are not at anywhere near so steep an angle. They're closer to this, and even less tilted than this (sorry if this isn't neatly contained in the message pane - the "scale" function makes it difficult to position scaled text):
So why would you expect to see "disturbances" with this small amount of tilting. As Edge said about Siccar Point, the tilting there is greater than across the part of England represented in that cross section. Here's Siccar Point. Note the small degree of tilting and realize that the tilting in that cross section is even less:
And what you've shown here ought to make it clear that the strata beneath the island got there due to the tilting and were not there originally, as edge seems to be seeing it.
I don't know why you're having trouble understanding Edge, but he is saying nothing of the kind, the opposite in fact. Go back and read his messages again.
The tilting would have thrust the righthand side of the strata beneath the sea level line and the upheaval itself would account for a lot of the distortion we see there.
I can't make sense out of most of this, but whatever distortion you're looking at, remember that it is greatly exaggerated.
In fact since the tilting would have been caused by the one tectonic upheaval to which I ascribe all the disturbances everywhere, including in the Grand Canyon, it would account for the Great Unconformity everywhere it is found, and for Siccar Point too.
There is clearly more than one mountain building event recorded in the strata of the cross section.
I was going to sketch the tilting as caused by the raising of the mountain, Snowdon, on the west side of the island, which I see as originally the basement rock beneath the strata above. Its raising would have pushed up the strata there, causing it to tilt to the right. It would also have broken off the strata on the west side which accounts for the broken off tops of those along the surface of the island. Not erosion, breaking.
Erosion is happening as we speak. We can see the products of erosion everywhere. There are no signs of pieces of broken off strata anywhere. If you want evidence for the Flood you're going to have to find them.
Re: once again now: the strata would originally NOT have been where the diagram has them
Faith writes:
As it rises the strata above tilt both to the west and to the east, breaking right over the mountain's top.
Let me try to capture what it sounds like you're describing. I'm pretty sure it isn't what you mean, but then you can correct it so we can see what you're talking it.
So my best guess is that you're imagining something like this:
™ Version 4.2
