Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8945 total)
405 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, PaulK, vimesey (4 members, 401 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,807 Year: 20,843/19,786 Month: 1,240/2,023 Week: 191/557 Day: 2/76 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did the Flood really happen?
Percy
Member
Posts: 18992
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 1201 of 1256 (860597)
08-08-2019 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1156 by PaulK
08-07-2019 3:46 PM


Re: Basics Faith, basics.
PaulK writes:

There is nothing special about the sea floor that exempts it from the same forces that raise the land. Indeed, there are quite large areas of sea floor that once were land (the Black Sea, much of the Mediterranean, at least parts of the North Sea, just to name those I’m familiar with)

Moose comments on this in Message 1174, and I see that you already responded. We've been saying "sea floor" and not distinguishing where. As Moose reminds us, there's sea floor on the continental margins atop the continental crust (less dense and as upliftable as any other part of the continent), and then there's sea floor atop the oceanic crust (more dense and not likely to be uplifted). We've been discussing sea floor on the continental margins.

But there *is* an interesting uplift issue concerning the Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf was originally continent that was stretched and then subsided as Pangaea split aprt, so it seems that the crust beneath it must be continental (less dense) and also thinner because of the stretching and subsiding. Seems like the entire Gulf should be upliftable.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1156 by PaulK, posted 08-07-2019 3:46 PM PaulK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1206 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-09-2019 12:43 AM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18992
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 1202 of 1256 (860599)
08-08-2019 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1157 by Faith
08-07-2019 3:46 PM


Re: Basics Faith, basics.
Faith writes:

I've shown several times now how great amounts of deposition occurred after uplift in the UK cross section.

That makes absolutely no sense.

Given the amount of information you've ignored, that is not surprising. I see you respond again on this issue (originally from my Message 1145) further on in the thread in Message 1169, so I'll wait until I get there to respond.

And obviously the Grand Canyon Supergroup was tilted and eroded before the overlying strata were deposited.

There's nothing obvious about it, strata don't deposit neatly over a mounded surface, the idea is preposterous, it is far more defensible that the tilting of the Supergroup pushed up the stack of strata, causing that mound over it.

But now you're contradicting yourself again. In Message 1047 you said that that "the whole stack...is affected all at once and in the same way, not separate layers independently of one another." Now you're saying that the Supergroup was affected independently of other layers. Opposite positions cannot both be right. You're wrong one way or the other.

You were correct when you said strata of a column cannot deform independently of one another.

Ba da boom.

Better would be to find some facts and marshal them into some coherent arguments.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1157 by Faith, posted 08-07-2019 3:46 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18992
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 1203 of 1256 (860600)
08-08-2019 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1179 by Faith
08-08-2019 11:25 AM


Re: Geological Column/ Time Scale is Over and Done With
Faith writes:

Why don't your stop your misrepresentations? Try honesty for a change.

Why don't you stop falsely accusing me?

You said, "I have given plenty of evidence," and that's not true. You're allergic to evidence.

I have no idea what you mean about my making myself the topic. I suspect it's the result of people attacking me personally for my arguments so I respond in kind.

What I actually said in this case was, "I again suggest you don't make claims about yourself because while there are rules against becoming personal participants can of course address and rebut and offer their views on any claims you make." You claimed you've provided plenty of evidence when you haven't, so I pointed out that that wasn't an accurate representation.

I believe I HAVE shown evidence enough to persuade others at least that there is something to the Flood claims,...

You're not even discussing evidence for the Flood, let alone presenting any. You're assuming the Flood and then making up tall tales about it.

...but it hasn't happened and I've stopped caring, long long ago.

It hasn't happened because evidence must be connected to argument.

All I can do is continue to see how the same evidence shows up elsewhere, as that I found in the Grand Canyon area does seem to be present in the UK cross section.

Angular unconformities are present in both the UK and Grand Canyon cross sections, and they arise through uplift/sea-level-fall, followed by erosion, followed by subsidence/sea-level-rise, followed by deposition. Your explanation of independent tilting of the Supergroup is self evidently impossible, and you haven't yet provided any explanation for the angular unconformities in the UK cross section. "Water did it" says nothing more than that you don't know.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Typo, slight clarity improvement.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1179 by Faith, posted 08-08-2019 11:25 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1208 by Faith, posted 08-09-2019 8:21 AM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18992
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 1204 of 1256 (860601)
08-08-2019 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1180 by Faith
08-08-2019 11:28 AM


Re: Geological Column/ Time Scale is Over and Done With
Faith writes:

The Bible is the source of my thinking on this subject so it IS a scientific text on this subject.

The Hobbit isn't a scientific text, either.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1180 by Faith, posted 08-08-2019 11:28 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3775
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1205 of 1256 (860603)
08-09-2019 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1176 by PaulK
08-08-2019 7:53 AM


Re: Let's call the subtitle "isostasy"
Not that I think that the higher density is sufficient in itself (as the existence of oceanic ridges would suggest)

Actually, an at least partial reason for the height of the mid-oceanic ridges is that the relatively hot rock at the spreading center is slightly less dense than the cooler rock further from the spreading center. Less dense floats higher.

quote:
At the spreading center on a mid-ocean ridge the depth of the seafloor is approximately 2,600 meters (8,500 ft).[1][2] On the ridge flanks the depth of the seafloor (or the height of a location on a mid-ocean ridge above a base-level) is closely correlated with its age (age of the lithosphere where depth is measured). The age-depth relation can be modeled by the cooling of a lithosphere plate[3][4] or mantle half-space.[5] A good approximation is that the depth of the seafloor at a location on a spreading mid-ocean ridge proportional to the square root of the age of the seafloor.[5] The overall shape of ridges results from Pratt isostacy: close to the ridge axis there is hot, low-density mantle supporting the oceanic crust. As the oceanic plate cools, away from the ridge axis, the oceanic mantle lithosphere (the colder, denser part of the mantle that, together with the crust, comprises the oceanic plates) thickens and the density increases. Thus older seafloor is underlain by denser material and is deeper.[3][4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-ocean_ridge#Morphology

Links and much more reading at source page.

May want to also look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guyot

All this is pretty irrelevant to continental deposition and deformation considerations. But someones got to put something interesting into the topic.

Moose

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Clean up formatting a bit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1176 by PaulK, posted 08-08-2019 7:53 AM PaulK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1207 by AZPaul3, posted 08-09-2019 2:10 AM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3775
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1206 of 1256 (860605)
08-09-2019 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1201 by Percy
08-08-2019 6:53 PM


Gulf of Mexico geology
The Gulf was originally continent that was stretched and then subsided as Pangaea split aprt, so it seems that the crust beneath it must be continental (less dense) and also thinner because of the stretching and subsiding. Seems like the entire Gulf should be upliftable.

...

quote:
During the Late Jurassic, continued rifting widened the Gulf of Mexico and progressed to the point that sea-floor spreading and formation of oceanic crust occurred.

...
quote:
Increasingly, the Gulf of Mexico is regarded as a backarc basin behind the Jurassic Nazas Arc of Mexico.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Mexico#Geology

quote:
Back-arc basins are geologic basins, submarine features associated with island arcs and subduction zones. They are found at some convergent plate boundaries, presently concentrated in the western Pacific Ocean. Most of them result from tensional forces caused by oceanic trench rollback (the oceanic trench is wandering in the seafloor direction) and the collapse of the edge of the continent. The arc crust is under extension or rifting as a result of the sinking of the subducting slab. Back-arc basins were initially a surprising result for plate tectonics theorists, who expected convergent boundaries to be zones of compression, rather than major extension. However, they are now recognized as consistent with this model in explaining how the interior of Earth loses heat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-arc_basin

Another interesting tidbit (or two) I encountered:

quote:
Western and central Cuba are a deformed orogen, that came about due to the collision of an island arc in the Cretaceous with the Florida-Bahamas platform. As a result, the Cuban ophiolite zone became obducted and a northward verging fold and thrust belt formed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_Cuba

quote:
An ophiolite is a section of the Earth's oceanic crust and the underlying upper mantle that has been uplifted and exposed above sea level and often emplaced onto continental crustal rocks. Ophis is Greek for "snake", and lite (from Greek lithos) means "stone", after the green-color rocks that make up many ophiolites.

Their great significance relates to their occurrence within mountain belts such as the Alps and the Himalayas, where they document the existence of former ocean basins that have now been consumed by subduction. This insight was one of the founding pillars of plate tectonics, and ophiolites have always played a central role in plate tectonic theory and the interpretation of ancient mountain belts.


My "bolding".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiolite

Tectonics seem to be pretty damn complicated.

I seem to be turning into a geo-LamarkNewAge. Oh Flying Spaghetti Monster, save me!

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1201 by Percy, posted 08-08-2019 6:53 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1220 by Percy, posted 08-11-2019 7:50 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4757
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 1207 of 1256 (860606)
08-09-2019 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1205 by Minnemooseus
08-09-2019 12:11 AM


Re: Let's call the subtitle "isostasy"
Less dense floats higher.

How then does Faith keep her brains above the solid iron core?

Non-topic snark hidden.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : What cha think.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1205 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-09-2019 12:11 AM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33718
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1208 of 1256 (860612)
08-09-2019 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1203 by Percy
08-08-2019 8:37 PM


To Finish Your Diagram
I don't know if you overlooked it or what, but I did go back and finish Message 1169 as well as I can to explain what's needed to complete your diagram: how the strata changed their position from their original vertical stack to their current position in which the time periods are not vertically stacked but laid out horizontally across the surface of the island. You illustrated the original stack of strata as tilting into the position in which they finally end up, but never finished it by showing that the tilted strata are what we see arranged from left to right across the island, with the greater part of them beneath the island. If you still don't get it, it's the best I can do and I'm leaving this discussion.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1203 by Percy, posted 08-08-2019 8:37 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1221 by Percy, posted 08-11-2019 8:23 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18992
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 1209 of 1256 (860677)
08-09-2019 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1169 by Faith
08-07-2019 6:47 PM


Re: Basics Faith, basics.
You mixed up some of the quoting, but I was able to straighten it out. I fixed a few typos, too.

Faith writes:

I've already given enough description in Message 1134 for you to draw the diagram.

Your Message 1134 was about something else, not about the diagram we're working on. My last post about it was Message 1010. If you can reply to that I can continue with the diagramming.

It's all there but your acceptance of the standard Geological interpretation prevents you from seeing it:

Again, please leave me out of this. Please just make the case for your position.

Faith writes:

...about how the originally horizontal strata had to fall into their current position, which would not have taken hundreds of millions of years.

Sure, falling can happen rapidly. Where do you see evidence of anything having fallen in that diagram.

I see that evidence in the fact that the depicted strata are not in the same position they would have been in when originally deposited.

We all agree that the strata are not in the same state as when originally deposited, but where do you see any evidence of falling?

In the meantime, here's the diagram again with the three areas of tectonism/erosion/deposition circled. How does the Flood account for this:

I interpret that diagram to show one tectonic disturbance that turned the original horizontal strata on their side...

Where do you see evidence of strata being turned on their side?

...and removed them to their current location with part above the sea level line and the rest beneath it.

When you say "removed them to their current location," removed from where, and what are you looking at in the diagram that tells you from where?

If you understood geologic diagrams you would understand that this one shows three tectonic sequences:

I see how Geology arrives at that if it is assumed it all occurred in the strata in their current position as depicted on the cross section, but this doesn't take into account that those strata are not in the position in which they were originally deposited and an explanation is needed for that fact, and that raises the question of exactly when those identified unconformities occurred.

The strata have experienced both uplift/sea-level-fall and subsidence/sea-level-rise (interpret the slash as and/or), so their elevation has certainly changed over time, but their position laterally has not (except as a unit by riding on a tectonic plate). If you think they have, then please identify the part of diagram that indicates this to you and explain why. Keep in mind that this diagram is highly exaggerated vertically:

The actual height of Snowdon and of the rest of the cross section is more like this. There are no great heights for anything to fall from:



  Snowdon                                                                  Harwich

The strata also experienced erosion, meaning that parts of the strata have been exposed to the forces of nature (wind, rain, flowing water, ice, cooling/heating and anything else nature can do to an exposed surface) and have disappeared, carried away as small particles to be deposited somewhere else as sediment.

Percy writes:

Faith writes:

You give the Old Earth interpretation,...

No, I follow the evidence, which shows three tectonic sequences, and I provided them for you.

But your evidence assumes the Old Earth point of view,...

Facts and evidence do not make assumptions. You've been ignoring mountains of evidence while providing none of your own. You instead make up baseless scenarios and call them evidence.

...because it is just as possible to interpret all three as having occurred at the same time.

Please explain how without breaking any laws of physics.

HOWEVER, the main problem here is that the strata have obviously changed their position since their original deposition, which I've explained as their having "fallen" from that original,...

You need to explain what you mean by "fallen," especially since you've placed it between quotes.

...at least tilted from it,...

Of course they've been tilted. And folded, too. This happens when one part of a stratum experiences more uplift or subsidence than another part, or when sideways compressive pressures cause folding. Sea level rise/fall cannot tilt or deform strata.

...which I further tried to explain by postulating that the mountain probably rose beneath the original block of horizontal strata, broke it and caused the two broken of parts to tilt in opposite directions, the right part becoming what we see on the cross section.

Remember the vertical exaggeration of the UK cross section. Look again at the actual height of Snowdon all the way on the west side of the island. How would Snowdon's tiny uplift cause rock to break in the dramatic way that you describe?



  Snowdon                                                                  Harwich

...which only shows that you don't get what I'm trying to describe for you to illustrate it,...

Please continue describing your vision. I will draw what you describe. I just have to make sense of it first.

I've been doing my best and have done it again above.

I'm afraid that what you wrote above doesn't tell me anything. I still don't know what "fallen" means, but you did offer tilt as an alternative, and I think everyone agrees that the strata have been variously tilted and folded, and have experienced uplift/sea-level-fall, subsidence/sea-level-rise, erosion and deposition. There are a few pieces of information I need to continue the diagramming, and you quoted where I asked about that:

...about how the originally horizontal strata had to fall into their current position,...

Fall into what? What created the empty space into which they fell? Removing the horizontal strata from the diagram does create empty space, but you must describe where the horizontal strata went. They can't just disappear into thin air. It is this that I'm waiting for you to describe.

I don't understand how it could have happened either given the scarcity of information on the cross section,...

If you don't understand how it could have happened, why are you insisting on a very specific way it could have happened, as you go on to describe:

I conclude that they fell into their current position from the fact that they are IN a position they couldn't have been in when originally laid down.

If they fell then either a) something elevated them to a height from which they could fall; or b) something created a space beneath them into which they could fall. Do you see any evidence of past elevation or empty spaces?

And your depiction of the change in orientation when the original straight horizontal strata are tilted so that the order of their time periods is now spread from right to left across the island is exactly what I had in mind.

This sounds like a reference to a diagram from another message, my Message 1132 (I think it appeared in other messages too):

quote:
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 is tilt followed by erosion.


But you responded in Message 1134 with, "But it's no explanation at all...etc..." Are you now saying you accept this as the explanation for the horizontal distribution of strata?

So I was postulating that what caused the strata to tilt could have been the rising of the mountain beneath it.

Some geologic event uplifting Snowdon could not have affected the entire island. The entire island was subjected to geologic forces that caused uplift and subsidence, and to rising and falling sea levels. In other words, Snowdon wasn't the cause of what happened to all the strata in the UK cross section but was just one tiny piece of an entire island at the mercy of much larger geological forces. It was these forces that caused the island to be uplifted in the west more than in the east. But much more than just that happened, and a great deal of it is recorded in that cross section.

You seem to have no explanation whatever but an explanation is definitely needed.

This is a perplexing thing to say. I've been very specific about what happened.

How did the strata as we see them on the cross section get turned on their side?

The diagram shows tilted strata. It doesn't show strata on their side. Where are you looking in the diagram that you think shows strata on their side?

Since the strata beneath the island are simply part of the strata on top of the island it is clear that the whole block of strata, both the short ends of it on the island AND the distorted strata beneath the island, were originally that straight flat block of strata you've been drawing at the top of those posts about it.

Basically yes, but remember that sea level is an arbitrary line that changes over time and is not relevant to the geology. When you say "beneath the island" I think you mean beneath sea level, because all the strata beneath the surface are "beneath the island." But there are no "short ends" of strata. The strata extend from the surface down at a slight angle into the Earth continuously through the sea level line and deeper. For the strata there is no "part above sea level" that is separate from the "part below sea level". Each stratum is continuous, unless it encounters unconformities.

Based on edge's information you are circling areas in that block of strata beneath the island that are unconformities, and the assumption seems to be that they occurred while the block of strata were in the position they are in on the cross section.

That would be incorrect. Explaining unconformities again, they occur when strata are exposed at the surface and are subjected to erosion, with possibly many many feet, even miles, of material being removed, before subsidence/sea-level-rise causes deposition to resume. This means that the unconformities in the cross section could not have formed while deeply buried. They had to have been exposed at the surface at some point, then later buried beneath additional deposits when the area experienced subsidence/sea-level-rise.

But if that whole block was originally the nice straight horizontal block you keep presenting as the first phase before the tilting,...

Don't confuse the sequence of diagrams I'm creating under your direction with what actually happened to create the UK cross section. I can create a sequence of diagrams for that, if you think it would help. It isn't the view of geology that the layers of the cross section were at one time all present in a single column of flat horizontal strata. Several episodes of uplift/sea-level-fall followed by erosion followed by subsidence/sea-level-rise follow by more deposition occurred, and tectonic forces were in operation all during this.

...this raises the question whether those disturbances now identified as unconformities perhaps occurred at the same time in one tectonic event as the strata "fell" into their current position from their previous form as straight horizontal strata.

You're going to have to provide a definition for "fell". What do you mean by "fell," and what are you looking at in the diagram that has the appearance of something having "fallen," and how is that even possible anyway since things that fall have to have space beneath them to fall into. If you mean subsidence then say subsidence.

You have to account for the change in position from their original deposition as you've drawn it on many posts to their current disturbed condition beneath the island with their top parts ON the island all tilted in one direction etc etc etc.

The sequence of diagrams was just intended to show what you were trying to describe happened at Snowdon with the uplift of strata and the falling away and all that. Character graphics isn't really up to the task of showing the rest of the island with all the details of the deformed strata and the unconformities and so forth. Well, actually, it's doable, but it would take a very long time.

Just a guess: are you perhaps thinking of a sliding or sloughing off of strata from the slopes of Snowdon?

No, I've been postulating that Snowdon pushed up under the original horizontal strata and broke them in two, each side tilting and falling, one to the left and one to the right, the right side forming the whole situation we see on the cross section now. But I see that some of the strata seem to have draped themselves over Snowdon so something like what you suggest may be part of the picture.

According to the diagram Snowdon is all strata, though there may be basement rock at the base. Here's the closeup again:





...which would not have taken hundreds of millions of years.

Sure, falling can happen rapidly. Where do you see evidence of anything having fallen in that diagram.

In the fact that the strata as now presented on the diagram are not in the position they would have been in when originally deposited. They are now on their side, the time periods running from West to East rather than stacked up vertically one on top of another.

This is the second time in this message you've quoted and responded to this. The first time was at the very beginning of your message. Anyway what do you mean the strata are not in their original position? If you only mean they're tilted up or uplifted or subsided then we agree. If you mean something else, like that the strata have moved laterally in some way, then you need to be specific about what portion of the diagram is telling you this and why.

Also please explain what you mean by the strata being on their side, and where specifically in the diagram do you see strata on their side?

About the west to east strata sequence on the surface, that is a result of tilting and erosion, as has been explained several times.

Again these unconformities would have been caused tectonically after the strata were laid down,...

Tectonic forces that uplift, subside, tilt, fold and/or deform strata cannot cause angular unconformities. It takes tilting and/or folding, then uplift/sea-level-fall, then erosion, then subsidence/sea-level-rise, then deposition.

...and since it appears that something changed their position from their original horizontal position to this current position on their side,...

Again, you need to explain this "on their side" thing. If "on their side" is a type of tilting, then when you say "something changed their position," it was tectonic forces.

...with the part beneath the island...

Again, all of every stratum except where it meets the surface is "beneath the island." I'm guessing that once again you mean the portions of strata below sea level. Once more, sea level has no relevance. If you think it does then please explain how.

...being pushed from west to east,...

Where in the diagram do you observe the effect of any west to east push?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1169 by Faith, posted 08-07-2019 6:47 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18992
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 1210 of 1256 (860679)
08-09-2019 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1186 by Faith
08-08-2019 12:27 PM


How Geologic Processes Create a Horizontal Sequence on the Surface
My message had a single focus, and your reply ignored it. My message explained how tilt and erosion can turn a vertical sequence of strata into a horizontal one. I first showed the diagram I introduced earlier in the thread:


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 I showed how this could have happened to the tilted strata at the Grand Canyon had they been eroded. They look like this today:





But if they experience erosion then they could end up looking like this:






Bright Tapeats
Angel |
Temple Muav | |
Butte | | |
Redwall | | | |
Supai | | | | |
Hermit | | | | | |
Coconino | | | | | | |
Toroweap | | | | | | | |
Kaibab | | | | | | | | |
Moenkopi | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
v v v v v v v v v v v



Note how the vertical sequence of strata have become a horizontal sequence, just as in the UK cross section. If a visual comparison is difficult because the tilt is opposite to the UK cross section, then here's the same image but mirrored:






Tapeats Bright
| Angel
| | Mauv Temple
| | | Butte
| | | | Redwall
| | | | | Supai
| | | | | | Hermit
| | | | | | | Coconino
| | | | | | | | Toroweap
| | | | | | | | | Kaibab
| | | | | | | | | | Moenkopi
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
v v v v v v v v v v v



And here's the UK cross section for comparison. It's the same thing, with tilted layers eroded down to produce a horizontal sequence on the surface:

Now do you understand that what you're seeing in the UK cross section is not a falling over of strata from Snowdon all the way to Harwich?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1186 by Faith, posted 08-08-2019 12:27 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1211 by Faith, posted 08-09-2019 7:02 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 1212 by Faith, posted 08-09-2019 11:15 PM Percy has responded
 Message 1216 by Faith, posted 08-10-2019 7:52 AM Percy has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33718
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1211 of 1256 (860680)
08-09-2019 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1210 by Percy
08-09-2019 6:25 PM


Re: How Geologic Processes Create a Horizontal Sequence on the Surface
What caused the strata to tilt?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1210 by Percy, posted 08-09-2019 6:25 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 1213 by Coragyps, posted 08-09-2019 11:30 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33718
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1212 of 1256 (860686)
08-09-2019 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1210 by Percy
08-09-2019 6:25 PM


Re: How Geologic Processes Create a Horizontal Sequence on the Surface
I still want an answer to the question about the tilt, but I also want to point out that your idea about how the tilted strata on the British island are just eroded curved strata is nonsensical. Aren't you guys always saying that erosion will level out a surface? Anyway in this case you aren't going to get those separately delineated short pieces of strata with their flattened tops.

Oh well. I haven't been having much success with my drawings, which should explain what I mean about how the strata must have fallen into their current position, but if I get them done maybe I'll figure out how to post them. If not, since we are clearly not communicating AT ALL, either you to me or me to you, as I said I don't have any reason to continue with this discussion.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1210 by Percy, posted 08-09-2019 6:25 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1222 by Percy, posted 08-12-2019 12:59 PM Faith has responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5407
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 1213 of 1256 (860687)
08-09-2019 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1211 by Faith
08-09-2019 7:02 PM


Re: How Geologic Processes Create a Horizontal Sequence on the Surface
For the 715th time: uplift due to tectonic forces.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1211 by Faith, posted 08-09-2019 7:02 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1214 by Faith, posted 08-09-2019 11:56 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33718
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1214 of 1256 (860688)
08-09-2019 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1213 by Coragyps
08-09-2019 11:30 PM


Re: How Geologic Processes Create a Horizontal Sequence on the Surface
Uplift due to tectonic forces. OK, so the strata were originally stacked straight and horizontal across the island, and vertically from Cambrian to Holocene?

Then uplift caused the whole thing to tilt so that they were arranged across the island horizontally from Cambrian to Holocene, with most of the strata now beneath the island and quite distorted.

Yes?

ABE: Hm, but that wouldn't look at all like the example Percy was pointing to in the Grand Canyon cross section.

Question: What caused the uplift? (it's more or less the same question I just asked)

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1213 by Coragyps, posted 08-09-2019 11:30 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1215 by PaulK, posted 08-10-2019 2:11 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1223 by Percy, posted 08-12-2019 1:25 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15570
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 1215 of 1256 (860694)
08-10-2019 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1214 by Faith
08-09-2019 11:56 PM


Re: How Geologic Processes Create a Horizontal Sequence on the Surface
quote:
OK, so the strata were originally stacked straight and horizontal across the island, and vertically from Cambrian to Holocene?

That was never the case. Some tilting occurred before all the strata were deposited and not all the strata completely covered the island. These things can be seen in the diagram - and they have been mentioned before.

quote:
Then uplift caused the whole thing to tilt so that they were arranged across the island horizontally from Cambrian to Holocene, with most of the strata now beneath the island and quite distorted.

Much of the “distortion” below the surface happened before all the strata were deposited.

quote:
ABE: Hm, but that wouldn't look at all like the example Percy was pointing to in the Grand Canyon cross section.

The parts that Percy is pointing out are close enough. The fact that earlier events complicate the diagram of Britain isn’t relevant.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1214 by Faith, posted 08-09-2019 11:56 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019