|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did the Flood really happen? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Everything we see is on the island. I don’t believe there has been substantial horizontal movement, and I don’t see any evidence of it.
quote: Most of the strata have portions above the current sea level. I’m sure that there has been uplift and subsidence, but the latter would be impossible to reconstruct from the diagram. ABE the Cretaceous strata seems to be entirely above it, or almost so, and the Tertiary definitely is. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
I know the Flood would have done things standard Geology doesn't imagine and I've imagined it with that in mind, as opposed to the usual attempt to pretend it's just like a local flood or that all the phenomena such as coral transport could be explained on the basis of the usual observations.
So still, you give us nothing to work with but your own overheated imagination.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
OK I will repeat it because obviously it's a brand-new idea that nbody wants to consider: The strata we see both on the surface of the island and beneath it, which are all one geological column spread out from left to right across the island both above and below, cannot be the way it was originally laid down, since they would have been laid down one on top of the other from bottom to top. They are now left to right, Cambrian to Holocene, but they would originally have been Cambrian on the bottom to Holocene on the top and all the strata beneath the island which are extensions of those on the surface, would have made up a complete geological column sitting ON the sea level line instead of below it.
I have a feeling nobody has ever noticed this and doesn't want to have to think about it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
I don't think anybody but you has noticed that the world is round. You should mention it to them. I have a feeling nobody has ever noticed this and doesn't want to have to think about it.All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
So still, you give us nothing to work with but your own overheated imagination. Well, at the moment I would really like someone to address the situation I keep bringing up and just restated in Message 648 that as far as I've noticed has not been addressed: that the strata as we see them in that diagram of the British Isles are NOT where they would have been laid down originally, but on top of the island, and all the strata that are now on top of the island would be stacked up vertically rather than as we now see them, and all their extensions that are now beneath the island would be ON the sea level line, ON the island. OK? The discussion seems to have proceeded as if it is assumed that the strata have always been where we find them on that illustration. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: There are very few short tilted strata, pretty much all around the Devonian. Maybe some surface deposits above the coal around the Carboniferous, and there is a shortish stretch that looks Cambrian. They certainly weren’t tilted when they were laid down, I don’t see any reason to assume horizontal movement.
quote: I am well aware of how the strata are laid down, although I suppose it suits you to pretend otherwise. But I do not see any broken-off ends.
quote: Probably, so far as horizontal movement goes. Definitely in their relation to the other strata (principle of superposition) and if you mean anything else you will have to be clearer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
OK I will repeat it because obviously it's a brand-new idea that nbody wants to consider: The strata we see both on the surface of the island and beneath it, which are all one geological column spread out from left to right across the island both above and below, cannot be the way it was originally laid down, since they would have been laid down one on top of the other from bottom to top. They are now left to right, Cambrian to Holocene, but they would originally have been Cambrian on the bottom to Holocene on the top and all the strata beneath the island which are extensions of those on the surface, would have made up a complete geological column sitting ON the sea level line instead of below it.
Nothing to think about considering that so little thinking went into this idea in the first place.I have a feeling nobody has ever noticed this and doesn't want to have to think about it. All you are describing is a regional package of rocks that has been tilted and then eroded. No special processes or evidence necessary.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
... that the strata as we see them in that diagram of the British Isles are NOT where they would have been laid down originally, but on top of the island, ...
That was the 'top' of the island at the time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
They were not merely tilted, they are now side by side whereas they would originally have been one on top of the other. Speaking of the parts of the strata we see ON the island.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I see, THAT's how you explain it. So sea level rose up to the current sea level line? And how do you explain the fact that the strata that are currently ON the island are arranged from left to right rather than stacked one on top of the other as is the usual situation with a geological column?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Faith, we are well aware that the strata have been tilted. However it is not at all clear that all of them - especially the later strata - ever covered the whole island. There is no Cretaceous rock shown West (left) of Cambridge, for instance. Maybe the Cretaceous strata once extended further, but I doubt that it got all the way to the Welsh coast.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
There are very few short tilted strata, pretty much all around the Devonian. Maybe some surface deposits above the coal around the Carboniferous, and there is a shortish stretch that looks Cambrian. Gosh, I see a whole lot of short pieces of strata all tilted toward the left, arranged (sorry you hate the more literary "marching") from left to right across the whole island. Perhaps this is a little clearer on Smith's own diagram but I think it's clear enough on the other too.
I don't think I said anything about "horizontal movement." Anyway I gather you still don't get what I'm trying to describe. Yes the principle of superposition is violated in their current position one after the other from left to right. Superposition would describe the usual situation of one on top of the other, which is not what we see here but was surely their original position when they were laid down. Stand the presently horizontal sequence upright on the Cambrian piece and that should recapitulate the original position. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Maybe the previous post will help. I can hope anyway. I'm not talking about the tilt, I'm talking about how a geological column is never laid down on its side, it is stacked vertically, but this one is on it's side, marching, as it were, from left to right ACROSS the island when it would originally have been stacked UP vertically.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: The better diagram shows that a large majority continue East (Right) beneath the island
For instance the dotted layer just to the left of the Carboniferous (the black coal) continued until it is under the Cretaceous- hardly short.
quote: You talk about the strata having moved but you don’t give any idea of how you think they moved. If you won’t specify I have to deal with all the possibilities.
quote: Since none of them are truly vertical - and most are closer to horizontal - superposition still applies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: That is the tilt.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024