N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 06 2016,10:37) | | Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 05 2016,20:13) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 05 2016,17:10) | | Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 05 2016,16:51) |
I doubt that anyone is thinking what you are thinking. That appears to be a local flood, albeit a very big one, caused in one watershed by an earthquake and a related landslide. |
Evidence indicates that it is possible for the Noah's (man saves the day) flood story to have morphed from the Chinese (man saves the day) flood legend. The possibility would at least have to be ruled out using physical evidence, before assuming that there is no link at all between the two. |
All the evidence indicates that Noah's flood and Noah's ark never happened, so it's going to be difficult to come up with any evidence linking them to another flood.
(Whether one myth in China could have been birthed from or given rise to or merged with another myth in the Middle East is another matter.) |
Links to other floods and legends already exist. For example:
| Quote | In 1948, a British pilot serving in Iraq acquired a clay tablet with an intriguing, 3,700 year-old inscription. The ancient writing tells the story of how the god Enki warns a Sumerian king named Atra-Hasis of a future flood that will destroy mankind; Enki gives him instructions for building a boat to save his family and livestock. If that sounds like a familiar tale, it’s because this was one of several ancient flood traditions that, centuries later, would inspire the biblical story of Noah. But the tablet’s inscription describes a boat very different from the traditional image of the Ark—it’s said to be circular and made of reeds. Is this nothing more than a fanciful myth? Or could such a reed boat have carried Atra-Hasis’ family of more than one hundred and his many animals? Join NOVA as a team of historians and expert boat builders investigates this fascinating flood legend and sets out to rebuild a tantalizing, ancient forerunner of the Ark.
www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/secrets-noahs-ark.html |
The above possibility seems more likely of a source than the Chinese legend, but it's still worth following up on by someone who is trying to find out where the Noah's Ark story originally came from.
| Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 05 2016,20:13) | | Earlier, were you talking about local hills & valleys in the Connecticut River Valley, or rift fill versus the ancient metamorphic rocks in which the rift formed? |
You are correct about the fill material having later tilted, but it's the uplift from underground magma that brought the older East Berlin formation to the surface. The tilt of the now collapsed plate(s) is greatest where the underground magma flow made a giant zit on the surface that was later eroded by glaciers. What is left is now Mt. Tom and its ranges. As a result Gaulin Tracksite is tilted to 12-13 degrees, while the tilt of the bedrock plates decrease as you travel east. |
Basically, no. Intrusion of magma does have some effects, but they are mostly small and local. Your area also has local complications from small folds and faults, and growth-fault geometry due to growth of the rift during deposition.
Nonetheless, the major control on your dips are the fact that your rift is a half-graben, on a curved low-angle detachment fault that climbs and curves upward from great depths in the west to reach the surface in the east. Because the fault surface is curved upward to the west, as the western crustal block that overlies the fault got detached and pulled to the west, the eastern edge of the western block (i.e., your rift valley strata) dropped down and became rotated into a steeper east-facing incline.
In any given location, the Triassic New Haven Arkose under all the volcanics has approximately the same dip as the East Berlin Formation above the volcanics, unless you are close up against the western border of the rift valley, local structural complications, or a local intrusion.
See cross-section F in http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc....357.htm
| Quote | | That's because uplift has a way of depositing deeply buried fossils on later formed mountains and their ranges. Finding pressed into stone fossils on a mountain is good evidence for uplift, not a global flood. |
That's a deeply confused pair of sentences (other than fossils not providing evidence for a global flood). Lithification of those beds undoubtedly happened more during burial than during uplift, partly because most lithification tends to happen fairly early during burial but also because your beds have probably not been significantly uplifted - your strata formed in a half-graben, not a compressive / collisional mountain belt, and things have been largely static along with minor trailing passive margin subsidence since the end of extension after the Atlantic Ocean opened.
Uplift does not "deposit" fossils on later formed mountains: wrong use of the term "deposit". The fossils were originally deposited and buried on playa lake mudflats and related environments on the floor of the rift valley, became lithified during burial, and were later uplifted and exposed by erosion. Your mountains (Mt Tom & Mt Holyoke and related ridges) are not formed by compressive uplift but by differential subsidence and subsequent differential erosion.
For clarification, the metamorphic rocks under all this and east and west of the rift valley did form due to compression during continental collision, but all that was over tens of millions of years before the rift valley started to form. You can get a little local compression due to local fault block rotation and under downwarp hinge-lines, etc., during extension, but relative to all the overall subsidence, not much.
|
