Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Continuation of Flood Discussion
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 121 of 1304 (731379)
05-09-2014 5:20 AM


Re: complexity of geology
The cross section of the GC-GS area that shows NO tectonic activity between the Great Unconformity and the cutting of the canyon but even beyond that the whole Grand Staircase stack.
First of all, the cross-section is grossly simplified.
Of course, but not in any way that affects the point I'm making.
But in addition to that, the region underwent a series of uplifts throughout the Paleozoic and Tertiary times. The fact that the region acted as a block does not mean that it was not affected by tectonism.
The REGION is one thing, the separate layers is another. I'm talking about the separate layers between the Tapeats and the Claron, which certainly cover the Paleozoic and Tertiary, remain so neatly parallel if the region really did undergo several risings. Clearly the rising of the land created higher and lower areas, yet the individual layers remain parallel to each other. This is the evidence I've been using that the tectonic activity had to have occurred after the layers were all in place. You are talking about uplifts occurring during periods when the layers were still being laid down, which at least would have distorted the block that was already in place if only as gently as is seen in the diagram, so you have to account for the fact that layers that were deposited after that tectonic activity are parallel with the layers that were already there. Had there already been some distortion of the region, some parts higher, some parts lower, new layers should have been deposited more deeply in the lower areas and more thinly where the block rises, or in fact it would have butted up against any rises. And if this went on a number of times you have to explain this for all those different periods of tectonic activity followed by deposition. But all those layers are depicted as very neatly parallel, and no geological draftsman is going to draw them parallel if they weren't.
Note the Bright Angel Fault. It is a break in brittle rocks of all Paleozoic rocks, which has been exploited by erosion during canyon formation. This means that it preceded the canyon, but also occurred well after the Great Unconformity. This refutes your statement.
You will have to show me this as I don't know which one is the Bright Angel on the diagram. The one at the base of the GC perhaps? The two major fault lines I see illustrated on that diagram clearly cut through all the layers after they were all in place and if the one you are referring to is at the base of the GC that surely cut through all of them as well and probably through the mile of strata that was originally above the canyon as well. Don't see evidence for its occurring after the Great Unconformity, but perhaps this isn't what you are referring to anyway.
I explain the Great Unconformity as occurring at the same time as the rest.
The rest of what?
All the other evidences of tectonic activity, AND volcanic activity, which I'm saying came after all the strata were laid down.
I can go into detail about any of this but it's been argued to death already so let's not.
Well, noting your past failures to explain it, I can understand why you would want to avoid the topic.
People have failed to understand it, though I understand it just fine myself. And why don't you just accept something I say once in a while? I really just didn't want to get into something that has already been argued to death on other threads, which would only pull this one off topic.
As for your scenario I'd only suggest that the "many" sea transgressions and regressions most likely reflect mega-tsunami depositions in the transgressing and regressing phases of the Flood, ...
The problem being developing tsunamis (for which there is no evidence of) in a sea without coastlines.
But as I said, there would have been coastlines, a rather continuously rising coastline and then as the waters receded a rather continuously falling coastline, probably not absolutely continuous but in phases. No lack of coastlines however.
... but remember I haven't had a chance to think this through.
Clearly you haven't thought it through.
Franklly, considering that I was forced into it I think I did a decent job of visualizing what probably happened.
But since I've already thought along these lines with respect to how the layers were deposited I just have to get it coordinated with the model.
I'm sure that thinking about things will solve all of the problems you have.
Perhaps it will provide some new perspectives at least.
So the "many" events of your scenario come down to one extended event with the oscillations of tidal waves and high and low tides in my scenario, and the associated tectonic activity also gets collapsed into a shorter time frame.
They do?
IN MY FLOOD SCENARIO, if that wasn't clear. Yes, you have many many events, but the Flood scenario collapses it all into one major event with many parts or oscillations or smaller events or phases, or however that should be put.
So, the long regressive phases that resulted in the coal deposits of Utah were simple low-tides or tsunamis?
So you are sure they resulted from "long regressive phases?" IN that case, on the Flood model perhaps the besty explanation would be that they resulted from the regressive period of the Flood and whatever phases occurred during that period, including tides and huge tsunami type waves. Coal deposits were the result of buried plants weren't they? So the most likely Flood scenario would involve whatever movements of water carried huge loads of plants and laid them down. Sure, maybe low or high tides, maybe a very long wave like a tsunami. Depends on how far that layer extends I suppose.
Then you should explain to us how we see plant accumulations with rooted trees and stream sediments running through the coal fields with volcanic ash deposits and grass roots showing in the sediments.
Why would there be a problem for the Flood with that sort of phenomena? Perhaps it suggests that the land wasn't completely scoured but rooted trees stayed in place? No big deal if so.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 122 of 1304 (731380)
05-09-2014 8:29 AM


Re: The point is not whether God is behind it but whether it is miraculous
Faith writes:
You already corrected me about this which is what I was pointing out to Percy. Percy wasn't following the conversation and thought I was the one who said bedrock could be eroded, to which he objected, so it was your point he was objecting to, not mine.
...
Again, you already corrected me about this, it's Percy who is now insisting that bedrock doesn't get eroded. Perhaps he can tell you where cobbles and boulders come from.
You're very confused. If I am really now "insisting that bedrock doesn't get eroded," then why in Message 114 did I say the opposite:
Percy in Message 114 writes:
But Edge was certainly not wrong to say that bedrock can be eroded. Of course it can be eroded. It's rock and exposed rock erodes.
I then went on to express amazement at your inability to think analytically about geology:
Percy continuing in Message 112 writes:
How can you flip-flop so easily from accepting Edge's statement that bedrock erodes to accepting what you thought was me stating that bedrock doesn't erode? Do you have no ability to assess the truth or falsity of anything based on evidence and reasoning? This is telling you that you have no talent for figuring anything out about geology. Or much else, apparently.
It doesn't get much clearer than that, Faith. If you'd like to see where your understanding of the discussion went awry, start at this from my Message 107:
Percy in Message 107 writes:
If some of the sedimentary layers of the geologic column were composed of eroded bedrock then we would find sedimentary layers of eroded bedrock in the geologic column. But we don't. Care to try making something up that makes sense next time?
You misinterpreted this as a statement that bedrock doesn't erode, but that's obviously not what the statement says. What it says is that we find no sedimentary layers composed of eroded bedrock. At the Grand Canyon do you see any layers called the Coconino Bedrock or the the Hermit Bedrock or the Muav Bedrock? No, of course not, what you see are the Coconino Sandstone, the Hermit Shale and the Muav Limestone. The layers of the geologic column are made up mostly of sandstone, shale and limestone. Eroded bedrock is not a significant component.
But that doesn't mean bedrock doesn't erode. Of course it erodes. It's a rock and exposed rock erodes. The reason bedrock isn't a significant component of sedimentary layers is because most bedrock exists far, far down in the geologic column and is not exposed to erosion.
It seems as if none of the many mistakes you make are large enough to shake your confidence in your ability to figure things out. You just keep blundering your way through one field after another blathering nonsense while seemingly unaffected by your demonstrated inability to get even the most basic facts right.
As I think I've already said here, there would have been a long period during which the water was transgressing and another long period where it was regressing, five months regression, the transgression is a little harder to calculate.
If you're saying there was one transgression and one regression during the flood, how do you account for the order of the layers at the Grand Canyon which clearly indicate multiple transgressions and regressions?
Even if you change your scenario again, this time to have multiple transgressions and regressions, that still can't account for the geologic layers. The composition of the layers themselves tells us they were deposited slowly over many millions of years, and a "mega-tsunami" across land would not leave marine layers because the material it deposited would come from what it swept up when it hit land. In the open sea even giant tsunamis pass beneath ships without notice. It is only when they strike land that they rise up and begin scouring away material. So geologic layers comprised chiefly of marine deposits could not have come from "mega-tsunamis".
Evidence of such tsunamis? Enormous lengths of sediment deposition seems to require something like that.
Are you even reading this thread? Here, again, is the excerpt from Distinguishing Tsunami from Storm Deposits in the Geologic Record that I posted in Message 118:
Tsunami deposits are generally less than 25 cm thick, extend hundreds of meters inland from the beach, and have an overall tendency to drape the preexisting landscape. They commonly consist of a single, homogeneous bed that grades from coarser grained at the bottom to finer grained at the top, or a bed with only a few thin layers. Mud clasts or thin layers of mud within the deposit are strong evidence of tsunami origin. Twig orientation or other indicators of return (seaward) flow during deposition of the sediment are also diagnostic of tsunami deposits. Tsunami deposits thicken and then thin landward, with a maximum deposit thickness typically more than 50 m inland from the beach because a zone of erosion commonly is present near the beach.
Tsunamis leave characteristic evidence behind. If tsunamis were responsible for the geologic column then their characteristic evidence would be everywhere. What the evidence actually says is slow deposition over millions of years.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
Edited by Percy, : Fix message number.

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 123 of 1304 (731381)
05-09-2014 8:33 AM


Re: The point is not whether God is behind it but whether it is miraculous
Tsunamis leave very huge, characteristic evidence behind. That's how we can distinguish tsunaimis from, say deserts. Deserts also leave characteristic evidence behind.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

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


Message 124 of 1304 (731382)
05-09-2014 8:56 AM


I'm talking about tsunami sized waves that covered huge distances, even in some cases whole continents. There is no other word for that than tsunami, although I don't assume those waves would be much like the tsunamis we see today, which for one thing would be much smaller.
Waves deposit sand on beaches, I'm thinking of huge waves that also deposit sand.
However, the transgressing and regressing water would be depositing sediments as that model reflects anyway, so I'm guessing the waves would be phases in these longer risings and fallings of the sea, that could account for the more mixed strata.
Thanks to that model I am now thinking in terms of transgressing and regressing sea water, but there have to be phases during that as well.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 125 of 1304 (731383)
05-09-2014 9:01 AM


I'm talking about tsunami sized waves that covered huge distances, even in some cases whole continents. There is no other word for that than tsunami, although I don't assume those waves would be much like the tsunamis we see today, which for one thing would be much smaller.
I've never, ever, seen anything funnier in my entire life.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

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


Message 126 of 1304 (731384)
05-09-2014 9:06 AM


Re: The point is not whether God is behind it but whether it is miraculous
Percy you are the one who is confused, and desperately confused and I don't have the interest in trying to sort it all out. You referred to a Message 112 which is my message when you ap;parently meant your 114 where you make the statement about edge saying bedrock can be eroded. But you also accused me of assuming we'd find eroded bedrock in sedimentary layers, and that you haven't corrected, and that's totally wrong because I'm the one who assumed it couldn't be eroded, which edge corrected.
I do not want to discuss things with you, you get everything wrong and blame it on me. Please go away.

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


Message 127 of 1304 (731385)
05-09-2014 9:08 AM


Then you give me a word for a wave that covers most of a continent if you don't like the term tsunami for that.
Or give me a scenario for transgressing or regressing sea water covering a whole continent within five months, what it would deposit etc.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 128 of 1304 (731386)
05-09-2014 9:09 AM


I've never, ever, seen anything funnier in my entire life.
Funny? What it illustrates is the utter contempt she has for others. Nothing is too stupid to post. Nothing stated as fact need be checked, and no point can ever be refuted so thoroughly that it cannot be resurrected later.
Funny.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 1304 (731387)
05-09-2014 9:12 AM


Or give me a scenario for transgressing or regressing sea water covering a whole continent within five months, what it would deposit etc.
Isn't that your job? Nobody really cares what you call the wave. It is your physics that has people disgusted.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

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


Message 130 of 1304 (731388)
05-09-2014 9:12 AM


I'm trying to explain how rising (or falling) sea water could have deposited layers across most of a continent in a period of about five months, and these are pretty good guesses for that scenario. Perhaps you can come up with better ones, I'm all ears.

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


Message 131 of 1304 (731389)
05-09-2014 9:15 AM


Surely someone who appreciates *Science* can be neutral enough to be willing to think about an opposing idea. No? There's nothing wrong with the physics of anything I've said, but boy do you love slinging any old accusation you can think up.

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 132 of 1304 (731390)
05-09-2014 9:16 AM


Faith writes:
Then you give me a word for a wave that covers most of a continent if you don't like the term tsunami for that.
My pleasure. Delusion.

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


Message 133 of 1304 (731391)
05-09-2014 9:18 AM


In other words you can't even bring yourself to imagine what a worldwide Flood might do. Such as cover whole continents with very long waves during its rise or fall. Ah well, only to be expected.

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 134 of 1304 (731392)
05-09-2014 9:18 AM


Surely someone who appreciates *Science* can be neutral enough to be willing to think about an opposing idea.
We have thought about what you claim and it does not work. Real layers exist because they form and harden and thus are relatively undisturbed during the process that forms a layer on top of them.
You are trying to form layers without allowing any formation time between them. That is the problem with trying to form huge numbers of layers in a few months. Is that clear enough for you?
ABE:
And then we have to get the right fossils in the layers and explain a bunch of biology I do not understand well.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 135 of 1304 (731393)
05-09-2014 9:25 AM


I'm trying to explain how rising (or falling) sea water could have deposited layers across most of a continent in a period of about five months, and these are pretty good guesses for that scenario.
Actually, while I have given an answer to this question, I have failed to acknowledge the difference between your asking a question and simply making up crap and flinging it at us and then ignoring all rebuttals.
This is infinitely preferable. But sorry, I don't have an answer for you. If I were in this position, I'd invoke the same kind of power that parted the Red Sea or that created the universe in one week.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024