Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why the Flood Never Happened
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 151 of 1896 (713611)
12-14-2013 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Dr Adequate
12-14-2013 7:41 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
I said the tectonic distortion in all cases occurred AFTER ALL THE STRATA WERE IN PLACE. Your pictures prove nothing except that there WAS tectonic distortion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-14-2013 7:41 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-14-2013 8:00 PM Faith has not replied

  
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 2997 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


(1)
Message 152 of 1896 (713613)
12-14-2013 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Faith
12-14-2013 7:12 PM


Re: How did you determine this?
Deal with the answer you got. You're evading.
The evasion and subterfuges to avoid my points are amazing. One would almost think you all KNOW I'm right but just refuse to acknowledge it.
This is too funny. Are you a hypocrite or do you just lack self-awareness? You've spent quite a while now trying to avoid at all costs responding to a variety of points made here.
DEAL WITH MY ARGUMENTS. They make yours irrelevant.
Thanks for the caps, now you've swayed me. First, others here are posting the issues with your point almost as fast as you're handwaving them away. Second, you can keep calling my points irrelevant, but that doesn't make them so. I have pointed out more than one glaring logical inconsistency as well as at least one physical impossibility. Just to be clear, do you really think that defying the laws of physics is irrelevant or are you denying that your theory defies the laws of physics? In either case you're wrong, but I just wanted to be clear.
It's just physically impossible for the column of strata to be sometimes under water and sometimes exposed at the surface
Here you seem to be indicating that you think physical impossibilities represent a pretty major issue for a theory. So why is it only a minor issue in the context of your theory? Plus the above assertion is so demonstrably wrong that I'm going to give you the chance to explain what you were really trying to say. I think you are trying to convince me that alternating layers of aqueous and aeolian deposits are a problem for the Old Earth model by assuring me that it is impossible for the for a depositional surface to be underwater at one time and above water at another. Because we can observe sea level changes today and see the sort of sedimentary sequence they produce, we know that Earth has undergone a series of marine transgressions and regressions. This is another one of those inconvenient facts that proves the Flood didn't happen. Like the 34 degree angle of repose, it is an issue you can only deal with by proving that the laws of physics that govern the creation of these sedimentary structures were different in the past than they have always been observed to be. Like I said before, how many physical impossibilities does it take for you to consider it a problem with your story? But as I said, I'm assuming that you must have misspoken so I await your clarification.
Edited by Atheos canadensis, : added shtuff
Edited by Atheos canadensis, : spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Faith, posted 12-14-2013 7:12 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 153 of 1896 (713614)
12-14-2013 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Faith
12-14-2013 7:42 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
I usually give you credit for at least being able to understand what a person is saying. The best I can say now is that I was wrong, because the only alternative is to figure you are intentionally lying.
I understand that you said this:
Faith writes:
the horizontality is an issue because it demonstrates the lack of disturbance to the individual layers over their millions of years, no tectonic distortion
... and this:
Faith writes:
You pick a picture that demonstrates the tectonic distortion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Faith, posted 12-14-2013 7:42 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Faith, posted 12-14-2013 9:52 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 154 of 1896 (713615)
12-14-2013 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Dr Adequate
12-14-2013 7:43 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Yes, but it's bollocks. How often are things with the word "Bible" on them true?
But it's not bollocks because it says "Bible" on it. I just wanted an explanation as to why these layers look like they are interbedded.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-14-2013 7:43 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-14-2013 8:37 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(1)
Message 155 of 1896 (713616)
12-14-2013 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Faith
12-14-2013 7:15 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Faith writes:
And gthe idea that there wre successive risings and falling of land or water is phhyiscally impossible.
No it isn't.
The flood is physically impossible the way you describe it (none of which is in the Bible).

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Faith, posted 12-14-2013 7:15 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Faith, posted 12-14-2013 11:59 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 156 of 1896 (713617)
12-14-2013 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Faith
12-14-2013 7:43 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
I said the tectonic distortion in all cases occurred AFTER ALL THE STRATA WERE IN PLACE. Your pictures prove nothing except that there WAS tectonic distortion.
But you admit that there was tectonic distortion. Good. This means that claiming there wasn't any is not a good argument against real time-frames.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Faith, posted 12-14-2013 7:43 PM Faith has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(3)
Message 157 of 1896 (713618)
12-14-2013 8:04 PM


Useless speculation
Most of this entire thread is useless because of one simple fact:
At 4,350 years ago we are dealing with soils, not rocks; sediments, not geological strata.
Faith can hand-wave the dating all she wishes, but that doesn't change reality. If there was a global flood 4,350 years ago it would have been visible in soils that are 4,350 years old! One of the first things I learned in grad school (in archaeology) is that "If you want to find a 10,000 year old site, look in 10,000 year old dirt."
I know it is amusing to see Faith struggle to fit her beliefs into the Grand Canyon's geological column, about which she knows little but believes a great deal, but the bottom line is that if there was a global flood at 4,350 years ago, as claimed, the Grand Canyon had nothing to do with it.
You want to see some floods, look at the Channeled Scablands of southern and eastern Washington. Here is an excellent site!
Channeled Scabland Eastern Washington Ice Age Floods Lake Missoula
The Scablands were created as a series of ice dams in western Montana formed and broke at the end of the last glacial period. These floods scoured a quarter of the state on their way to the ocean, but the important thing is the various floods left a lot of evidence behind. Experts can track the extent of the floods, and can even get pretty good dates on them.
What is important here in the Channeled Scablands is 1) we can see the effects of localized floods at the end of the last glacial period in pretty good detail, but 2) we can't see evidence of a flood that is claimed to be worldwide and a third of the age.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by RAZD, posted 12-14-2013 10:39 PM Coyote has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 158 of 1896 (713619)
12-14-2013 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by herebedragons
12-14-2013 7:57 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
But it's not bollocks because it says "Bible" on it. I just wanted an explanation as to why these layers look like they are interbedded.
The red of the Redwall Limestone isn't actually the color of the limestone. If you took a hammer and chipped a bit off, it would look gray --- like limestone does. The red is iron oxides which have been carried down by water and deposited on the surface of the rock. Obviously there's nothing to stop the water running further down and staining bits of the Muav Limestone below. So you can't tell one from the other by looking at the color, you have to either look at the fossils or look for the unconformity between them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by herebedragons, posted 12-14-2013 7:57 PM herebedragons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Faith, posted 12-15-2013 2:51 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 159 of 1896 (713621)
12-14-2013 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Dr Adequate
12-14-2013 7:52 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
I said "INDIVIDUAL LAYERS." The tectonic distortion occurred to blocks of layers at once AFTER ALL THE LAYERS WERE LAID DOWN. The individual layers within the stack were not INDIVIDUALLY disturbed in their own time frame.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-14-2013 7:52 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-14-2013 11:43 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 160 of 1896 (713622)
12-14-2013 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Dr Adequate
12-14-2013 7:38 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Those pictures actually demonstrate my point. They show the horizontality of the original layers, which remain parallel, also proving their original horizontality. even where the entire stack has been tilted or otherwise affected by tectonic force. They do not show disturbance to individual layers during the time of the deposition of each layer. The stack as a whole was clearly laid down neatly and THEN affected by disruptive forces.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-14-2013 7:38 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-14-2013 11:44 PM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 161 of 1896 (713626)
12-14-2013 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Coyote
12-14-2013 8:04 PM


Re: Useless speculation indeed
Most of this entire thread is useless because of one simple fact:
At 4,350 years ago we are dealing with soils, not rocks; sediments, not geological strata.
Faith can hand-wave the dating all she wishes, but that doesn't change reality. If there was a global flood 4,350 years ago it would have been visible in soils that are 4,350 years old! One of the first things I learned in grad school (in archaeology) is that "If you want to find a 10,000 year old site, look in 10,000 year old dirt." ...
AND we know that at 4,350 years ago there was no world wide flood, because there are currently 3 if not more Bristlecone pines alive today (or alive in 1965 when cut down to count rings) that are older than that.
One is over 5,063 years old and possibly quite a bit older due to erosion of the windward side of the tree.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Coyote, posted 12-14-2013 8:04 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Coyote, posted 12-14-2013 10:53 PM RAZD has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(4)
Message 162 of 1896 (713630)
12-14-2013 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by RAZD
12-14-2013 10:39 PM


Re: Useless speculation indeed
True, and the earliest Egyptian pyramids and the initial use of Stonehenge are also earlier than the 4,350 year ago date.
As are probably hundreds of thousands of archaeological sites and a lot of other things that show no evidence of massive water damage.
There are a lot of reasons why the claim of a global flood ca. 4,350 years is falsified.
All of these, of course, led to the drastic need to find an earlier date for the flood, anywhere from 8,000-10,000 years ago, to the K-T boundary (66 million years ago), or even the P-T boundary (252 million years ago).
But when you're making it all up ad hoc, what's a few hundred millions years here or there?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by RAZD, posted 12-14-2013 10:39 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by RAZD, posted 12-14-2013 11:03 PM Coyote has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 163 of 1896 (713632)
12-14-2013 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Coyote
12-14-2013 10:53 PM


Re: Useless speculation indeed
and the need to cram extra rings into dendrochronologies and extra varves into lake sediments.
I'd love to see how mindspawn explains Cariaco basin with spring tides ... and then there are the ice cores ... so much fun so much time ...
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Coyote, posted 12-14-2013 10:53 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Faith, posted 12-14-2013 11:57 PM RAZD has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 164 of 1896 (713635)
12-14-2013 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Percy
12-14-2013 11:28 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Well, that's very interesting since most of the layers consist of the kind of fine-grained sediments that cannot result from a flood.
I'm now referring to how the diagram proves that the Old Earth doesn't explain the structures in that region, not arguing the Flood.
Yes, that's correct, the layers above the Kaibab at the Grand Canyon were eroded away. I won't quote the rest of what you say, just let me ask why you think you need anything more than uplift and erosion? Is it because you need the erosion to be very rapid, so you imagine that volcanoes and tectonic forces somehow caused the overlying strata to become "cracked and broken up" so that they could be eroded and carried away quickly? Don't you think all this cracking and breaking up would have left evidence behind?
Don't you think that several thousand cubic miles of sediment eroded away within the last couple thousand years would have ended up somewhere where we'd notice so that you could point to it and say, "See, there's all the material from the sedimentary layers that used to lie above the Kaibab!"
I don't think what I think because I feel I NEED it, I looked at the diagrams of the canyon and observed the relationship between various elements and came to the conclusion I came to. Volcano as cause of uplift both there and at the north end of the Grand Staircase, obvious breaking of chunks of strata in GS area, etc. etc./
I'd look for the evidence in the rubble that piled up at the southwest end of the canyon, all over southern California and into the Gulf of California, but by the time it got there it wojuld probably have been completely dissolved in the rushing water anyway and not even be found as chunks, just jumbled sediments. I've looked up gthe geology of that area and only have the impression that it doesn't have clearcut features like exposed strata which suggests maybe it IS composed of a jumble of sediments that just became the surface of the land.
But if you want evidence for cracking and breaking in the GC area look at the Grand Staircase itself which was formed by the same cracking and breaking in the same time frame. I'd expect the remains of that to be somewhere to the west of the Grand Staircase as well, anothre area where jumbled up sediments can be found.
Again, why do you think "horizontality and flatness" indicate flood? The majority of layers are marine, and huge expanses of marine basins are flat.
And why do you think "lack of disturbance to the individual layers" is contrary to slow deposition over millions of years? Why do you even think the layers are undisturbed, since they contain evidence of volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, floods, folding, intrusions and faults?
I've already answered this of course but hey why not again and again and again. Lack of disturbance is an argument against the idea of EXPOSURE AT THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH FOR HUGE LONG PERIODS, which would erode and otherwise disturb the horizontality to the point it could be seen from great distances, but no such disturbances in the individual layers ARE seen at all in the strata from a distance, it's all regular and parallel EXCEPT where it's been disturbed AFTERWARD, and then the disturbance affects the ENTIRE STACK, noty the individual layers individually. All the disturbances occur AFTER the stack was in place. That throws HUGE doubt on your OE theory.
Why do you think a stack of sedimentary layers being distorted together is contrary to slow deposition when the layers originally formed millions of years before?
The idea is that it's odd that such distortions and disturbances didn't occur to the layers DURING those millions of years when they were forming. SOME of them are assumed to have been at the surface for very long periods which SHOULD have disturbed gthem greatly if that were true, to the poinmt of the disturbance being quite visible from a long distance as I keep saying, and since that didn't happen over all those millions of years during which they were supposedly at the surface for long periods, that calls the OE theory seriously into question.
I've assumed the malleability which is shown in the distortion of strata in groups reflects the expectable condition of dampness right after the Flood, but it isn't crucial to my argument.
That's good, because it's wrong. Soaking a rock doesn't make it malleable.
I dcan't believe you said that. You can't be serious. I'm talking about SEDIMENTS that were laid down, not ROCKl. They BECAME rock subsequently. Right after they were laid down, even highly compressed from the stack above, they would still be WET THROUGH for some time.
But some of my argument have been formed in response to arguments at EvC and others here HAVE argued that hardened rock is NOT pliable. Clearly the rock WAS pliable in order to conform to the slopes as indicated in the diagrams, and toward the end of the AFlood or right after it would still have been wet too. But I must say, recognizing how cracks form in the ground with earthquakes and any kind of upheaval, and I'm just talking about hard ground, not actual rock, the idea that the strata could have conformed to the slopes after it had turned to rock is highly unlikely.
Besides, if the Kaibab was deeply buried long enough after the flood for you to believe it became rock, then that was so long after the flood that your special kind of rock that is malleable when wet would have dried out and would no longer be malleable. So you can just forget your "wet rock is malleable" argument. The facts are that rock is pliable on a scale of miles, and when heated it is pliable on a scale of feet. You don't need any special malleable rock to cause a stack of sedimentary layers to bend without fracturing.
I'm quite sure you are wrong about that. Shale is not going to bend without breaking over miles of distance, nor is limestone or sandstone. However, have it your way for now. There is no heat involved here, so if rock bends over miles and the strata were already rock, fine, they all bent over the slopes, it really doesn't matter, but others DO contradict you about that.
\
HOWEVER, I didn't say the Kaibab was already rock when it was scoured off, just that it was hardened enough to remain in place, which would have been due to the weight of the stack that had compressed it from above before it all eroded away, and squeezed out a lot of its water content. It would have dried slowly after that and then been quite hard. Even if not true rock for quite some time, if ever.
The rest of your argument seems to be that over the course of millions of years each newly forming sedimentary layer would experience its own unique set of bendings and distortions, and that they therefore couldn't form a neat stack of layers. This goes back to my question about the snow at the beginning of this message. If the top layer became bent and distorted into a series of ups and downs, why wouldn't the next layer deposited atop it conform to it just like snow?
It would, but the ups and downs filled in by the snow would be visible at a great distance. That is, the neat parallel horizontality that we in fact see in so many places in the GC would have been destroyed.
Now comes that picture others here have been discussing:
Faith writes:
you would see individually distorted contact lines between layers, and you would see irregular thicknesses over short lengths as deposition of new sediments would have had to fill in the irregularities of the lower disturbed layer.
I don't know why you asked me the question about snow since right here that's what I described, the filling in of irregularities in a lower distorted layer. Clearly there is some big misunderstanding going on here and I don't know how to correct the problem. But you answer:
We *do* find these things in layers. Here's a picture of the interbedding at the Grand Canyon taken from a Bible website:
That is NOT a picture of what I've been saying would occur to any g8iven layer if it was at the surface for any great period of time. This is a picture of something that happened to a block of layers AFTER they were all in place, not to an individual layer.
Interbedding occurs where you have a disturbance that affects the contact between the layers, abrades them, erodes them etc., where the layers were as usual, as I keep saying, disturbed as a stack and not individually. And that's what this picture demonstrates. There appears to be a lot of faulting, displacement of the layers by tectonic action. That would mingle the sediments. It's exactly what I was describing about the "band of erosion" between the Great Unconformity and the horizontal layer above it, whose name I keep forgetting -- the Muav as in the picture perhaps. Anyway, the sediments of BOTH layers are mingled together. That is interbedding, right, and that's what has happened here too. Some kind of disturbance caused abrasion between the Muav and the Redwall which caused the interbedded area mingling the sediments of both, ahd further disturbance faulted the area and shifted the layers vertically in relation to each other.
So the picture actually supports what I've been saying. First notice the horizontality in all the layers, most noticeable in the interbedded area and higher in the Redwall, that would be the original form of the deposits. Then notice that all the disturbances occurred to all the layers as a block, not to them individually. This is the pattern all over the canyon and it demonstrates that the layers could not have been millions of years old IF they are assumed ever to have been exposed at the surface for any great length of time which would have distorted them individually. The fact that the whole stack was tectonically affected at once after all the strata were in place argues against OE theory.
Perhaps you're expecting such things to be conspicuously common, but large regions of sea floors are far from plate boundaries (where the most significant disturbances occur) and simply collect sediments for millennium after millennium, and most of the layers of the Grand Canyon formed on quiet sea floors.
First, again, that picture is NOT what I was describing would have to be the case if individual layers had been exposed at the surface for huge spans of time.
Also the sea-floor theory of its formation was obviously concocted to explain it in OE terms, nothing that could possibly have been derived from reasoned observation. The main problem I have with the sea floor explanation is the Rube Goldbergish complicated-contraption- type explanation of risings and fallings of either the land or the water to explain different conditions of different strata as you think necessary. Not only is that physically impossible but if anything like it had ever occurred you wouldn't have ANY sections of the strata that survived intact. The only thing that makes sense is that the whole thing WAS laid down in water. The FLood.
I need to do this post in two segments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Percy, posted 12-14-2013 11:28 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 165 of 1896 (713636)
12-14-2013 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Percy
12-14-2013 11:28 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Volcanoes are a geologic expression of lava welling up from the interior and cannot affect buried layers. They're a result of the tectonic and magma forces, not a driving force of layer deformation. Magma pressuring the terrain up into a volcano would not have much if any bending effect on layers it passes through, and especially not on deeply buried layers miles away. If you're looking for something to drive the bending of layers you probably need to look to tectonic forces.
This totally misunderstand what I'm trying to say. "magma pressuring the terrain up into a volcano" makes NO sense. Magma passing through the layers makes dikes and sills and those lines of intrusion and has NOTHING to do with what I'm talking about. And what ARFE you talking about "deeply burtied layers miles away?"
THIS IS TH IDEA: The volcanic release formed a magma bubble beneath the canyon and I actually saw that illustrated somewhere years ago on a canyon diagram but haven't been able to find it again. Which becomes a pluton. The extrusion of the magma creates pressure by displacement which along with the heat made the granite and the schist and the quartzite, forced the strata to tilt into the Great Uncobnformtiyt. THAT's the idea, not some idea of "layer deformation: but the displacement of space beneath the canyon. HOWEVER, I usually include tectonic action along with that description if only because that triggers the release of volcanic magma. At BOTH the GC and the GS there is a volcano associated with the uplift. Seems to me they're likely related but tectonic action is fine with me: same result. Uplift, displaced strata, great unconformity in GC, uplift and unconformity to north of GS, broken upper strata that have eroded away, canyons cut etc etc etc.
Take a look at the diagram again, this time taking note of the fact that the Grand Canyon and Zion Canyon are around a hundred miles apart:
The point is that the UPLIFT caused gthe breaking of the strata and this happened at both the GC and the GS, and this uplift is what distorted the lay of th4e whole land, ALONG WITH the shaking caused by the tectonic movement AND the volcanoes, all together breaking up the higher strata.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Percy, posted 12-14-2013 11:28 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Percy, posted 12-15-2013 1:01 PM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024