|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 7/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did the Flood really happen? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yeah I should have gotten it sooner.
Referring to the whole diagram as not done by the flood. The Flood laid down the strata straight and flat, and even the standard interpretation should affirm that much. \\ Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
1, Smith didn't make a diagram of the lower strata did he?
Actually, I'm not sure who created the diagram, now that you mention it. Nevertheless, if one understands the symbology of the diagram, your argument is invalidated.
Those you are talking about I mean, that are below sea level.
I have no idea what you mean here. Sea level varies.
2. Did all the unconformities you are talking about occur during the time these strata were beneath sea level, or before that happened?
Practically by definition, large scale erosion occurs above sea level. Which does not connote a flood. What are you trying to say?
3. I know you ***** it's obvious but I don't get why you ***** Smith demolished anything I've said.
Because there are too many geological events occurring to fit into your scenario.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I just want to know if I'm supposed to think about the unconformities before the strata collapsed or afterward. So before.
Too many events for "my scenario" isn't possible. In my scenario the Flood laid down the strata straight and flat, and then all the rest happened, however many events there were.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: The evidence in the diagram. clearly shows that some strata were laid down on irregular surfaces. Why should the ‘standard interpretation disagree ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It's a fascinating discussion involving the Great Unconformity and Siccar Point, especially since I wondered where Siccar Point might fit in. But I have a feeling I'm not able to visualize it well enough from your description yet. I have a vicious virus that is eating up my computer for one thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Well I still subscribe to Steno. Maybe nobody else does.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
I just want to know if I'm supposed to ***** about the unconformities before the strata collapsed or afterward. So before.
Where does the diagram show the strata 'collapsing'? You are not making sense.
Too many events for "my scenario" isn't possible. In my scenario the Flood laid down the strata straight and flat, and then all the rest happened, however many events there were.
The diagram shows at least two tectonic events, three erosional events, several completed lithification processes. You account for none of them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
It's a fascinating discussion involving the Great Unconformity and Siccar Point, especially since I wondered where Siccar Point might fit in. But I have a feeling I'm not able to visualize it well enough from your description yet.
Take my word for it, Faith, you never will. Whatever you are here for, it certainly isn't to discuss or learn.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm here to explain it all by the Flood and subsequent events. And to do that I usually do need to learn.
However, right now this virus is becoming a big problem and I may have to leave anyway. My Norton program isn't picking it up and I can't reach them for some reason.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 167 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
That's not an answer.
What process transported that boulder by what action(s)?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
I believe an important point that is not being stressed enough is that "laying down" is a process that requires time. Each layer might be originally laid down straight and flat BUT that is only the very top layer. The top layer then gets eroded making it no longer flat.
Later a second layer is deposited on the no longer flat surface and built up over time until the very highest part of layer two is once again flat and straight. It too then gets eroded and becomes no longer straight and flat. The process continues to repeat. At sometime the whole existing section gets tilted or deformed so the whole existing section is no longer flat and erosion continues. The next layer once again fills the low spots and builds up until once again it is flat and straight at the upper surface. BUT... Each period of slowly building up a surface and slowly eroding and weathering away of a surface requires TIME and a sequential series of events. Unless Faith or someone else who thinks there was some Biblical flood can explain the flood model, method, mechanism, process or procedure that can perform all that is needed to create what actually exists withing a one year period of time, the idea of any Biblical Flood as a reality can simply be dismissed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
I believe an important point that is not being stressed enough is that "laying down" is a process that requires time. Each layer might be originally laid down straight and flat BUT that is only the very top layer. The top layer then gets eroded making it no longer flat.
Good points. ... Unless Faith or someone else who thinks there was some Biblical flood can explain the flood model, method, mechanism, process or procedure that can perform all that is needed to create what actually exists withing a one year period of time, the idea of any Biblical Flood as a reality can simply be dismissed. Original horizontality is a useful stratigraphic principle and even though we can think of some exceptions such as cross-bedding and fan deposits, it is a valid tool for geological interpretation. It does not however, address what happens during processes that follow deposition (such as lithification, deformation or erosion). What is confusing to me is how Faith attempts to use original horizontality as evidence for one period of deposition (the flood), one period of lithification, and one period of deformation (tectonic rifting and divergence). If she is talking about the discontinuity of formations, it really has nothing to do with original horizontality. She seems to understand this in some convoluted way, but ascribing it to horizontal layers 'being under water' is child-like thinking. The diagram is so information-rich that to distill it down to a just-so story that ignores information is a travesty.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: There’s no disagreement with Steno. Steno never said that sediment couldn’t be deposited over irregular surfaces. That would be daft. Irregular surfaces don’t magically repel sediment, the sediment just fills them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Faith writes: By the way,
...IIRC the large rock at the far left of the UK diagram is granite. What large rock at the far left? That large black mound on the left isn't a rock, it's a rise consisting of layers of strata that are miles and miles in extent. As in most geological diagrams the vertical dimension is exaggerated - the slopes of the sides of the rise are far, far less steep and the rise far less high than it seems from looking at the diagram. The diagram doesn't say, but the strata must be sedimentary and are not granite. Here's a closeup:
This closeup should make it clear to you that it isn't a rock. How is anything you see in that part of the diagram evidence of the Flood?
It's labeled Cambrian here but I think I've seen it labeled Precambrian. But what you thought was a rock is actually a sequence of sedimentary layers. The "Cambrian & Silurian" label in the diagram appears to indicates that these strata are Silurian underlain by Cambrian. Certainly if you go deep enough you'd likely find precambrian rock. What has this to do with evidence for the Flood?
If so, it is in the usual position in relation to the strata we find it in other places: it is not part of the strata, it's the bedrock the strata build on. By "it" one would think you still mean "the large rock at the far left of the UK diagram," but it makes no sense to call it "bedrock the strata build on", so I don't know what you're referring to. Please clarify.
In this case the way the whole thing was tectonically tilted it ended up at the far left... Does "it" still refer to "the large rock at the far left of the UK diagram?" If so, what do you mean by "it ended up at the far left?" I assume you don't mean it moved laterally, so please explain.
...with all the strata that are always found, in the same order they are always found, following on from left to right, or from bottom to top as they were originally laid down in the Flood. This is a pretty confusing sentence. What are "all the strata that are always found?" Do you only mean the common types of strata like sandstone and limestone and so forth? What do you mean by "in the same order they are always found," since strata are found in a wide variety of orders? Please clarify.
They were tectonically broken, disturbed to a great degree. Do you mean the strata that dead ends at the bottom of the strata with the little circles in it, as shown here. I've positioned where the strata starts at the lower left and then continues upward to the right to dead end at the layer with the little circles in it:
If that is the section of the diagram you mean then it isn't "tectonically broken." That would be a fault with the rest of the strata shifted up or down by some amount, which we don't see. Instead we see the strata dead ending at the strata with the little circles. The rest of that strata cannot have disappeared into thin air. What happened to it?
I find it hard to picture how they fell into their current position, but they are now on their side whereas they were originally stacked upright. This isn't very clear. How do strata fall into a position? Are you just referring to tectonic tilting? And why do you think they are on their side? Is this another way of describing a direction of tilting, and if so what direction of tilting is that? All the diagram seems to show is that generally the left side was uplifted or the right side subsided or some combination.
ANYWAY, that's a granite rock and it's not part of the geological column. You still have the definition of geological column wrong. Granite is definitely part of the geological column. Igneous rock, metamorphic rock, dikes, sills, etc., they're all part of the geologic column. --Percy Edited by Percy, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
You seemed to understand what Faith was referring to about a granite rock, so I was hoping you could point me to what that was. In Message 393 Faith said:
Faith in Message 393 writes: ...IIRC the large rock at the far left of the UK diagram is granite...... ANYWAY, that's a granite rock and it's not part of the geological column. You responded to that last line like this:
edge writes: If this is your point, why all of the verbiage above? But no, basement rocks should be included in any geological column if they are present. But I don't see a rock that the diagram indicates as granite or as a basement rock on the left side of the diagram. I blew up that section of the diagram for Faith, here it is again. I'm just wondering where the granite rock Faith referred to is:
--Percy Edited by Percy, : Provide better quality image.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024