Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


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 1851 of 1896 (718128)
02-04-2014 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1850 by Dr Adequate
02-04-2014 5:58 PM


mountains
No, not enough force for that. The east coast is a passive margin, nothing about the sea-floor spreading at the Mid-Atlantic Ridge could buckle the Appalachians, which is why they are not in fact buckling.
NOW it's a passive margin, but when the separation began at the Atlantic ridge there was most probably some degree of jolting, what with the rising magma and the overcoming of the inertia that got the continents moving. I don't know if that jolting is what buckled the Appalachians or it was caused by the same violent jolting that raised the Rockies, and continued on across the continent in a milder form. I'd guess it was the initial jolt as the continents ripped apart. Since the main action was not a collision but a pulling away I wouldn't expect the same degree of violence as from a collision, but nevertheless some, perhaps an initial rebound effect before the whole shebang got moving along.
And of course they would not NOW be continuing to buckle, that was a one-time thing that made the mountains in the first place. It's been quieter since.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1850 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-04-2014 5:58 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1853 by edge, posted 02-04-2014 6:54 PM Faith has replied
 Message 1855 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-04-2014 7:32 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 1860 of 1896 (718152)
02-05-2014 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1852 by edge
02-04-2014 6:46 PM


So, your only real point is that all mountain ranges are the same age, right?
Roughly.
That wasn't the point. The point is that if Cretaceous rocks are deformed in one mountain range, but not in another, it suggests that they are of different ages.
Suggests to me merely that there was more deforming force at work in the one than in the other.
I don't suppose that your inability to understand the technical issues would make you pause at dismissing mainstream science, would it?
You're right about that. I don't consider Old Earth science to be reliable testable science, and the technical language only serves to make it inaccessible. The technical language is often Old Earth language anyway. Triassic this and Cretaceous that. Which is merely mystification.
As I said, this doesn't seem to keep you from insinuating that you know better than people who have studied these things for entire careers.
Of course not. But I make a distinction between physical knowledge or physical Geology, which I take seriously, and speculative imaginative interpretive historical Geology which is just a lot of hot air and open to my interpretations as well as anybody else's because interpretation is all it is anyway. In this area it's not a matter of greater knowledge, it's just a matter of greater immersion in the Old Earth assumptions or bias.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1852 by edge, posted 02-04-2014 6:46 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1871 by edge, posted 02-05-2014 10:04 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 1861 of 1896 (718153)
02-05-2014 6:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1853 by edge
02-04-2014 6:54 PM


Re: mountains
NOW it's a passive margin, but when the separation began at the Atlantic ridge there was most probably some degree of jolting, ...
So you admit that the Appalachians formed at an earlier time.
'
Not sure. The same initial movement would certainly have exerted force at the west coast end of the continent too, where subduction began and pushed up the Rockies. Could have been going on in the same time frme.
As I said, all evidence says that the Appalachians formed at a continental covergent boundary. The Mid-Ocean Ridge had nothing to do with it.
How odd. I thought the continents were separating from that ridge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1853 by edge, posted 02-04-2014 6:54 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1865 by RAZD, posted 02-05-2014 8:34 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 1867 by edge, posted 02-05-2014 9:48 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 1862 of 1896 (718154)
02-05-2014 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1854 by edge
02-04-2014 7:14 PM


Re: More evidence for Faith to ignore.
Well, it appears that time is the major factor. For instance, post-orogenic basins formed the Appalachians during the Triassic, whereas they formed in the Rockies in the Pennsylvanian (Carboniferous) and the Tertiary. Please explain.
Here's a typical piece of Old Earth mystification. "During the Triassic" is utterly meaningless to me. I associate all the names of eras with ROCKS. The idea that basins formed during the Triassic or during the Carboniferous and Tertiary is just gobbledygook, like saying a rock is a landscape, which is one of the most bizarre ideas of historical Geology. It provides nothing in the way of evidence one could even begin to picture in one's mind.
I always thought the Alps were very high mountains and the Appalachians very low mountains more like rolling hills.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1854 by edge, posted 02-04-2014 7:14 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1868 by edge, posted 02-05-2014 9:52 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 1879 by roxrkool, posted 02-05-2014 3:09 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 1863 of 1896 (718155)
02-05-2014 6:15 AM
Reply to: Message 1855 by Dr Adequate
02-04-2014 7:32 PM


Re: mountains
If you tear two things apart, they don't buckle up in the middle. Buckling is what happens when you push two things together.
That's why I suggested rebound.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1855 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-04-2014 7:32 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1872 by edge, posted 02-05-2014 10:10 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 1880 by ringo, posted 02-06-2014 12:00 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 1864 of 1896 (718156)
02-05-2014 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1856 by edge
02-04-2014 7:38 PM


Re: restatement
Your post conveys just about nothing to me so I can't respond to it, except to this part:
The forces are not from beneath. They are lateral, and the strain is concentrated in the weaker zone.
Lateral force buckled the lower strata. The buckling pushed upward against the strata above.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1856 by edge, posted 02-04-2014 7:38 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1870 by edge, posted 02-05-2014 9:57 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 1892 of 1896 (721606)
03-10-2014 4:07 AM


The basic argument: Grand Canyon
C ontrary to Percy’s usual misrepresentation of my argument, I certainly never claimed the Flood did not leave destruction everywhere, in fact I’ve often said, on this thread as well I believe, that one thing that convinces me of the Flood is the generally wrecked condition of the planet. He’s apparently confused my explanation of the neat flat horizontal strata as caused by the Flood with some idea of overall neatness, whereas overall the planet is a tumble-down wreck. Also, although the strata are widespread across the planet, they are not continuous by any means; there are tossed and tumbled areas galore (apart from the areas of buckled strata I mean), many that look like they had to have been caused by moving water. The wreckage caused by the Flood would include the carving of the Grand Canyon and the stairs of the Grand Staircase north of it, and of the ‘monuments of Monument Valley, by rushing water during the receding period of the Flood, also the Washington badlands which were carved by the later release of one of the post-Flood standing megalakes. Of course these effects are not confined to the western United States but they happen to be good examples.
As for the strata, although Percy ridicules the idea that a worldwide Flood would have created them, water IS known to sort sediments, and the truly absurd explanation is that of conventional science which imputes many millions of years to each slab of rock of one sediment and one only. That is the truly hard thing to explain, rock after rock after rock in an ascending column, all of different sediments, supposedly representing time periods of millions of years each.
It’s quite popular to ridicule Flood hypotheses as magic water. RAZD refers to the apparently magical way water behaves ... as if it had hands and an intelligence ... during the flood event. However, the conventional interpretation could be described as the magical way TIME behaves, in the formation of two billion years of neat flat horizontal strata of separate sediments. Millions of years supposedly define the existence of each of the clearly segregated sediments of the Geologic Column. One is supposed to have been laid down during one period of many millions of years, then suddenly we see in this supposed time record an abrupt change to another completely different sediment, defining time by slabs of different kinds of rock. This is of course rationalized by all kinds of sophstry.
Percy also continues his straw man argument that I believe rocks are formed by drying, which of course I never said. I was answering in terms of hardening rather than lithification. Drying does harden mud sufficiently to hold its shape, and the strata were strongly compacted from the weight above which would force water out of them. Lithification could also have occurred sooner than some claimed, but that’s another subject.
And yes I do believe that lateral tectonic force could buckle, move and erode deep strata without disturbing strata above, due in part to a slippage factor between different kinds of sediment. The rotation is vertical, not horizontal as the term seems to imply, it’s simply a lateral force that causes upward buckling. And the eroded material would have been pushed some distance, a quarter mile in the case of the quartzite boulder from the Shinumo layer that’s embedded in the Tapeats sandstone. I’m sure if you looked in the right place you could find a lot of rubble under the strata. In fact you might find some of it in the band of erosion between the unconformity and the layer above, and as part of the composition of the Vishnu schist.
RAZD also insists on his dam model when I’ve been talking about water pouring from overhead into cracks opened by tectonic movement, underneath either a standing lake or the Flood waters just as they started to recede. The water wasn’t necessarily terribly deep at that point.
This is all focused on the Grand Canyon but that’s the main part of my argument so although there were other topics on the thread this is the point of it.
There may be more to say, so I consider this a post under construction. [ABE: I was echoing RAZD who said basically the same thing, but Percy has admonished me, not RAZD, not to follow through with this.]
ABE: I accept Percy's explanation that he was not singling me out. And I hope he doesn't regard my inclusion of a link to my latest blog post as a "substantive" addition, as it is simply a restatement of the basic argument I tried to keep focused in this thread.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : To add last paragraph plus link

Replies to this message:
 Message 1893 by Admin, posted 03-10-2014 9:08 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 1895 by Admin, posted 03-10-2014 2:02 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024