limestone deposits

[Loudmouth]

In a rock formation, layers are said to build when new sediment forms on top of an already existing layer. As a result, the higher up the layer, the younger the sediment.

We are talking about a vertical sequence, not a horizontal sequence. The layers still stay in the same order in a vertical line.

As an analogy, let's say you have a layered cake with chocolate on the bottom layer, strawberry in the middle, and vanilla on the top. Cut the cake in half. Put one half on the counter and the other half on the floor. Did this reverse the layers?

For a real life example, here is an illustration of the Grand Staircase (the geologic formation that includes the Grand Canyon). You will notice that the right side bulges upward (ie uplift) but the layers are not reversed at any point.

What you describes reverses the supposed age of layers. Already existing layers are replaced as new layers push up under it.

New layers......form under older ones.

What are you talking about? How does a river deposit sediment below the ground? New sediments form on the surface, no matter how high the old sediments have been uplifted.

 

[shinbits]

Baggins, hold up.........


I didn't read your link.


My bad. I understand what you're saying, I agree with the process, and how the ages are still the same.

 

[TasManOfGod]

The limestones started off on the bottom of a shallow sea, they were buried under 100s of meters of other sediment and lithified then the whole area was uplifted a mile into the sky, the layers of rock above the limestones were eroded away and voila, limestones a mile up, that's nothing, there are limestones on top of Everest 5 miles up, they got there through a massive plate collision between the Indian and the Asian plates.

And the poor kids at school believe it too

 

[urbanxy]

In a rock formation, layers are said to build when new sediment forms on top of an already existing layer. As a result, the higher up the layer, the younger the sediment.

What you describes reverses the supposed age of layers. Already existing layers are replaced as new layers push up under it.

New layers......form under older ones...

The first part is correct. After the area is uplifted, the top (youngest in this scenario) layer is removed by erosion revealing the limestone underneath. There are no new layers pushing from below.

.

 

[Baggins]

In a rock formation, layers are said to build when new sediment forms on top of an already existing layer. As a result, the higher up the layer, the younger the sediment.

What you describes reverses the supposed age of layers. Already existing layers are replaced as new layers push up under it.

New layers......form under older ones.


This can't be explained any simpler.

From a logical standpoint, what you describe falsifies geologic rock ages.


Again, a flood is not only simpler, but more logically sound.

Shinbits I am coming to the conclusion that you are in fact a bit thick, sorry to be so blunt, but this is all very simple stuff, they teach it to 11 and 12 year olds in science classes, if you can't grasp it I can see no other explanation other than you don't have the mental acuity to assimilate this information.

The layers "pushing up" are the older layers not new ones, did you look at the link I posted, did any of it penetrate your cranium?

I see from your above post that you have now "got" the picture, good.

 

[Baggins]

And the poor kids at school believe it too

So do the rich kids

The only ones who don't are the dumb kids

 

[TheInstant]

And the poor kids at school believe it too

Is there any reason why they should not?

 

[TasManOfGod]

Is there any reason why they should not?

Well it just did not happen that way That is why they should not be told as if it was truth.

 

[Baggins]

Well it just did not happen that way That is why they should not be told as if it was truth.

How would you know, you appear to have had no scientific education whatsoever. I assume they do have science classes in Australia so I can only assume that you were picking your nose with your brain in neutral or doing some extra praying, because you sure weren't paying attention.

And yet you somehow think that you are an authority on these matters and your point of view carries an equal weight as that of a trained scientist, well maybe in your "mind" but thankfully not in the real world.

 

[Asimov]

Baggins, just a question. This uplifting at the Dover area would be caused by subduction, would it not?

 

[Baggins]

Baggins, just a question. This uplifting at the Dover area would be caused by subduction, would it not?

No because there are no subduction zones near the UK it is on a passive continental margin.

The chalks at dover are part of gentle syncline anticline pair across Southern England, if you look at a geological map you will see three areas of chalk around london, two to the south ( the North and south downs )with an anticline in between ( the weald ), and one area to the north ( this chilterns ) that forms a syncline with the north downs with the London basin at its heart.

I think this gentle folding is paret of the same orogeny ( mountain building episode ) that formed the Alps i.e. the collision of the African plate into the Eurasian plate and the closing of the Tethys Ocean ( leaving behind the Med sea ).

This last bit all off the top of my head so I am prepared to believe that I may be proved wrong by someone who looks into it. I shall check over the 24 hrs when I get the time to make sure the bits about the formation of the folds is correct, the stuff about the anticline sncline pair is factual and obvious if you look at a geological map, or even a topgraphical map will show the hills I am talking about.

 

[Asimov]

No because there are no subduction zones near the UK it is on a passive continental margin.

The chalks at dover are part of gentle syncline anticline pair across Southern England, if you look at a geological map you will see three areas of chalk around london, two to the south ( the North and south downs )with an anticline in between ( the weald ), and one area to the north ( this chilterns ) that forms a syncline with the north downs with the London basin at its heart.

That's a big fold....

 

[shinbits]

As Baggins mentioned before, the reasoning for why limestone is found that high---that it was in shallow water, sediments got piled on top it, then an uplift, then erosion of the layers above it---it can seem somewhat far fetched, though as he said, correct knowledge of how tectonics works can meek it seem less so.


But in your honest opinions, is the flood really much harder to believe?

This'll be my last post on this thread, then shinbits has some links to read. (thanks Bag!)

 

[notto]

As Baggins mentioned before, the reasoning for why limestone is found that high---that it was in shallow water, sediments got piled on top it, then an uplift, then erosion of the layers above it---it can seem somewhat far fetched, though as he said, correct knowledge of how tectonics works can meek it seem less so.

We can directly measure and see uplift happening. What is far fetched about it?

But in your honest opinions, is the flood really much harder to believe?

Considering it is falsified by the nature of limestone deposit, the geologic column in general, and the trace fossils we find everywhere, yes, absolutely.

There is no physical evidence in geology that is consistent with a worldwide global flood of approximately one year. Not one thing that real geologists find is consistent or points to the conclusion that the flood happened. The same evidence that showed early Christian geologists that the flood story was not valid is still around. Once an idea is falsified by physical evidence, it isn't coming back. So yes, it is hard to believe.

 

[shinbits]

We can directly measure and see uplift happening. What is far fetched about it?

The other factors combined.

"What other factors?"


Re-read the post.

 

[notto]

The other factors combined.

"What other factors?"


Re-read the post.

What is far fetched about it? It can be explained with observable and measurable mechanisms that we can see directly working in the natural world every day.

There is nothing far fetched about it .

 

[dlamberth]

As Baggins mentioned before, the reasoning for why limestone is found that high---that it was in shallow water, sediments got piled on top it, then an uplift, then erosion of the layers above it---it can seem somewhat far fetched, though as he said, correct knowledge of how tectonics works can meek it seem less so.

A lot of really cool stuff happens as the earth is shoved this way and that way. Then on top of that, being a water planet, water plays a major part in eroding stuff away exposing what's underneath.

But in your honest opinions, is the flood really much harder to believe?

When we can go out into the field and watch geology happening and there is noting showing the flood happened, yes, the flood really is much harder to believe. Thus far, evan as hard as you believe in it, you have not demonstrated that the flood ever happened.

.

 

[Baggins]

That's a big fold....

Amazing isn't it.

I love looking at geological maps and topographical maps because they tell a story of millions of years of the earths history, it's all there if you learn to read it, deposition, erosion, mountain building, quiessence, desesrts, warm shallow seas, it's like a book written on the face of the earth.

Why somebody would believe the bible above what is actually written on the earth is beyond me. TEs seem to have a much better idea, the bible was written by men trying describe god's creation, but you can actually read the creation first hand if you learn how to.

 

[Valkhorn]

But in your honest opinions, is the flood really much harder to believe?

Of course it is, especially considering that there is no evidence for a global flood, not enough water to do it, and the only thing that points to one are fundamentalist creationists - who are prone to ignoring facts and lying.

 

[Jet Black]

As Baggins mentioned before, the reasoning for why limestone is found that high---that it was in shallow water, sediments got piled on top it, then an uplift, then erosion of the layers above it---it can seem somewhat far fetched, though as he said, correct knowledge of how tectonics works can meek it seem less so.


But in your honest opinions, is the flood really much harder to believe?

yes, unfortunately I find it very hard to believe that terrestrial animals would be walking round on the surface of the sea underneath a very deep turbid/still flood while desert deposits were being laid around them at extremely high rates, and massive amounts of cocolithophores were breeding at icredible rates in still water with an extremely high turnover of materials, and the cocoliths themselves were shooting towards the floor of the sea at rates well over a hundred times faster than they should be able to, even in the calmest of water. That this raging flood that was depositing trillions of tonnes of sand was capable of, at the same time, preserving things like birds nests, footprints and beehives.