Non-marine sediments

Tranquility Base writes:

---

Percy, it's the incredible consistency of message across the multiple authors that is evience of the Bible's divine origin.

---

If consistency of message is evidence of the divine then the Hindus have you at a disadvantage. First and foremost you have the "Great Divide" between the vengeful God of the Old Testament and the loving God of the New. Then you've got the simple Biblical contradictions that abound everywhere and are a focus of much apologetic energy. You don't even have consistency between Genesis 1 and 2, the very foundation of YECism.The Bible is indeed an inspiring work from which we can all draw joy and comfort, but the message of the Bible isn't how to view the universe but rather how to accept the saving grace of our Lord Jesus Christ in order to live good and Christian lives and please God. In this respect the Biblical authors were often transcendent, but they quite self-evidently by their own words knew nothing of how the world came to be.

---

And the sciptures are even marred.

---

With regard to origins, right you are!--Percy

^ Percy, the "Great Divide" is very well explained in Psalms and Malachi. From the OT the Jews should have expected a new convenant of the heart rather than the harsh law covenant. I have no problems with Genesis 1 and 2 as explained previously.2 Pet 3 very clearly explains how the world would come to doubt creation, the flood and the second coming. It stops just short of naming Lyell and Darwin () but does mention that the deception used would be 'the creation continues on as it has since the foundation of the world'. That is uniformitarianism in anyone's language. Mainstream science got it wrong because the world has not just 'continued on' as it has always from its creation. A global flood can ruin your whole day.

As I said, the contradictions have all been the focus of much apologetic energy, and if you choose to accept the rationalizations then that's fine for you, but believers never have any trouble accepting them. The apologetics are not usually composed to convert the non-believers but to comfort the believers. Of course you accept them.The problem for you is how to convince people to your point of view without requiring that they first become evangelical Christians. For that you'll need evidence that looks the same to everyone regardless of religious filter or absence thereof.--Percy

If all I can achieve is to show people the reasons that some PhDed mainstream scientists believe in literal creaiton and the flood I'm happy. I'll leave it up to the individual who is seeking God to decide if that is for them. I'm really not trying to prove anything.

Moose et al: I'm reading a mainstream Physical Geology text by Verhoogen et al*. He has a good section on sedimentology and cyclothems. It turns out that cyclothems ( = coal containing cycles of strata) of course contain good examples of vast non-marine strata.Cyclothems alternate between(i) non-marine (ie fresh water) continental deposits
(ii) coal and
(iii) marine depositsand cycle like this up to 100 times in vast areas of Nth America and Europe.Verhoogen points out that the marine and non-marine beds stretch over half of the North American continent from Kansas to Pennsylvania. Coal is deposited in 3 vast US state sized coal bed basins. The text even claims that some thicker coal seams traverse the entire distance from KN to PA.But my point here is that the non-marine sheets of sedimentary rock underneath each coal seam is also correlated across these sorts of distances.

quote:

---

"With the exception of the sandstones, the beds show remarkable continuity, particularly in the Ilinois and Midcontinent Basins." Verhoogen et al (1970) *

---

The freshwater limestones and shales traverse these continental distances. These are vast non-marine flood plains. It is from these vast beds that one gets correlated paleocurrents, not old river beds.The floating mat model via alternating non-marine and marine surges explains the data far better than the mainstream models:(i) The vast sheets of non-marine strata
(ii) The low relief
(iii) The correlated paleocurrents
(iv) The vast sheets of coal
(v) The non-coincidental marine innundations* p438-449 J. Verhoogen et al (1970) The earth. An introduction to physical geology. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, NY

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-20-2002]

Have book, will review.Moose

Your quote from Verhoogen et al (1970), p.442

quote:

---

With the exception of the sandstones, the beds show remarkable continuity, particularly in the Illinois and Midcontinent Basins.

---

Quoting TB:

quote:

---

The freshwater limestones and shales traverse these continental distances. These are vast non-marine flood plains. It is from these vast beds that one gets correlated paleocurrents, not old river beds.

---

Going back a page in the book (p.441):

quote:

---

A typical cyclothem in Illinois (see Figure 8-30) has sandstone and shale at the base, overlain by discontinuous layers of fresh-water limestone, which is overlain in turn by a coal bed. A meter or less of hard flinty clay beneath the coal, called underclay, is interpreted to be the soil beneath the coal-swamp vegetation. The coal is overlain by gray shale with a marine invertebrate fauna and scattered plant fossils (apparently floating vegetation). which grades upward into a variable alternating sequence of marine limestone, black marine shale, and gray marine shale. This marine sequence is overlain in turn by the basal sandstone and shale of the next cyclothem.

---

Repeating TB's quote of Verhoogen et all (p. 442):

quote:

---

With the exception of the sandstones, the beds show remarkable continuity, particularly in the Illinois and Mid continent Basins.

---

Also in the book is (p. 442-443):

quote:

---

The sandstone, on the other hand, occurs mainly in sinuous lenticular bodies, a few hundred meters to a few kilometers wide, and a few meters to 40 meters thick, although some of the sandstone is in thin sheets. The distribution of sandstone in Illinois has been mapped through study of data from thousands of wells, Typical results of this study are shown in Figure 8-32, which shows the sandstone bodies cutting out underlying beds and draped by and overlying bed. The lenticular sandstone bodies are interpreted as channel fillings - The bed load of streams flowing southwest from sources in eastern Canada, Pennsylvania, and New England, toward the sea in the southwestern United states. This interpretation is in agreement with the cross-bedding, which shows that the currents that transported and deposited the sandstone were flowing southwest

---

They go on, to further discuss the significance and origins of these sandstones.Repeating TB:

quote:

---

The freshwater limestones and shales traverse these continental distances. These are vast non-marine flood plains. It is from these vast beds that one gets correlated paleocurrents, not old river beds.

---

Verhoogen et all seem to indicate that it is the marine limestones and shales that are the most consistent, widespread deposits. Also, the only paleocurrents mentioned are in the fluvial sandstones. And they do show the consistent directions you are talking about. Anything to do with paleocurrents in the marine rocks remains an unsubstantiated rumour (spelling for Joz).Source of book quotations
J. Verhoogen et al (1970) The earth. An introduction to physical geology. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, NYAside from all that, you now seem to be concentrating you dubious "flood" evidence into being a relatively restricted part of the geologic column (Mississippian and Pennsylvanian at most?). That leaves the preCambrian, and a substantial part of the Paleozoic, being found below the "flood" horizon. And the Paleozoic Permian, all of the Mesozoic, and all of the Cenozoic above the "flood" horizon. None of this "non-flood" sediment, and all their fossil content, has any explanation in your young earth framework.Mooseps: TB, you might want to go back and (re?)read chapters 1 and 4 of the book. They are "The Earth as a Whole" and "Time and Geology"."UNIFORMITARIANISM RULES!"------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

MooseThanks for reading up Verhoogen.When Verhoogen et al state that 'apart from the sandstones the layers are incredibly extensive' this clearly means that the other cyclothem layers, including freshwater limestones and shales are extensive. We already know this because if you dig up a cyclothem anywhere it will approximately have the cyclothem pattern including freshwater limestones and shales and obviously with or without freshwater sandstone.I agree the paelocurrent SW measurements are from the sandstones. Regardless of the fact that they occur in bands it is clear that they are correlated half way across the continent. If you want to assume they are parallel rivers feel free but I think you must be using Mark's Occam's razor for shaving if that is the case. It is clear that cyclothem coal seams sit on top of non-marine strata that are correlated half way across the continent. The bands of sandstone were brought in rapidly, preusumably the fresh water limestone and shale formed as things settled down. And of course this whole thing is continuous and correlated across the continent with the coal and the upper marine layers.I am not assigning the flood to these layers only but rather a phase of the flood.It is clear that there exist vast non-marine beds some of which at least demonstrate correlated paleocurrents and some of which demonstrate vast sheet like extents across significant proportions of your continent. I suggest that these layers formed catastrophically and that this works in nicely with floating mat coal formation being in these cycles. The low relief across sub-continental areas is good evidence of this also.PS - I read substantial parts of Ch1 and 4 last night. It's a nice book. I've read these sections from half a dozen books now but the more I read the more it sinks in.

Tranquility Base writes:

---

If all I can achieve is to show people the reasons that some PhDed mainstream scientists believe in literal creaiton and the flood I'm happy.

---

You earned your PhD by doing good science, not by what you're doing now. How many times did you cite the Bible in your thesis, TB?If anyone wants an example of a good scientist gone bad we don't need you for that because there are famous examples out there. The most recent would probably be Fleishman and Pons, but the most famous would I guess be Fred Hoyle. He could have won the Nobel Prize in physics, but by the time the importance of his work on star evolution became apparent he had already become an embarrassment for his advocacy of the steady-state model of the universe. And he wasn't an embarrassment because he was wrong, because we weren't sure of that at the time. but because his interpretation of the evidence then available was so obviously strained and tortured. And in that respect you are playing according to Hoyle.

Tranquility base in Message 22 of thread Coal 'coincidentally correlated' with marine innundations:

---

I've enjoyed the discussion too Percy although it would be more pleasant if you stopped treating us like flat earthers!

---

If you don't like being treated like a flat-earther then stop acting like one. If the evidence really adds up to a world-wide flood it needs no help from the Bible. Imagine the greater glory to God if after objectively following the evidence not only without Biblical guidance but even in complete ignorance of it you were to find that what really happened is already in Genesis. If there is evidence of a world-wide flood out there then atheists, Buddhists, Hindus and Moslems should be able to find it as easily as evangelicals.I don't know if you've checked out the Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood thread, but over there wmscott is touting his own theory of the flood. It, too, is Biblically based, but it conflicts with your theory on just about any point you happen to name. In his introductory post he said, "There have been many Scientific Creationist books over the years that have tried to prove the flood, but they have all failed because they ignore basic scientific facts and twist everything in a vain attempt to support their impossible theories and end up only deluding themselves." Pretty accurate characterization.You and wmscott and dozens and dozens of others like you have been going round and round getting nowhere for decades. The fashionable Creationist theory changes with time, but no consistent progress along a single theoretical line is ever made. No YEC theory gains widespread acceptance among other YECs, and each theory dies with its primary advocate. No progress of a scientific nature can be made without following the evidence.By the way, just to mention something else that I'm sure will trouble you as little as all the other contrary evidence, while God was twiddling with natural laws here on earth to for some reason provide false radiometric and magnetic data, it didn't affect the rest of the universe at all that we can tell. Light arriving from stars 5000 light years away reveals that physical laws then were the same as now.Anyway, you want to be treated like the PhD scientist that you keep reminding us you are? Act like one.--Percy

Percy, I love science but I have come to the conclusion that there is more to this universe than science. Not out of a lack of success of science but becasue of positive experiences in Christ and of the Bible.You read my recent posts in this thread. I think the data does talk flood. The 'just so' stories trying to explain near continental sized correlated non-marine strata via gradualism are poor science.I've read a bit of wmscott's thread and I intend to read it more carefully. The standard YEC approach is gaining a very good consensus recently based on some healthy differnces over the last 20 years.The starlight and radiometriuc issues have to be looked at together. It's early days on this stuff.I'm here to show that PhDed scientists can(i) trust the sciptures
(ii) scientifically look at origins
(iii) admit when data is against them
(iv) demonstrate that a lot of the data is on the creationist sideI'm also here to learn.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-20-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Percy, I love science but I have come to the conclusion that there is more to this universe than science. Not out of a lack of success of science but becasue of positive experiences in Christ and of the Bible.

---

No, I think this was a premise for you and not a conclusion.

quote:

---

You read my recent posts in this thread. I think the data does talk flood. The 'just so' stories trying to explain near continental sized correlated non-marine strata via gradualism are poor science.

---

For someone who knows as little about the subject as you have demonstrated, that is a very bold assertion. Now, if you want to talk about 'just so' stories, I have a few for you. See there was this flood that deposited the entire geological column even thought there was no source for the sediments; and there were no mountain ranges at the time even though we see mountains in various degrees of erosion today. And I don't have an explanation for why flowering plants don't show up until late in the geological history, but my scenario is better than anything that people who have studied the subject for a hundred years can come up with...

quote:

---

I've read a bit of wmscott's thread and I intend to read it more carefully.

---

I'm not sure that it would be a good use of your time.

quote:

---

The standard YEC approach is gaining a very good consensus recently based on some healthy differnces over the last 20 years.

---

Yes, it is. Among non scientists.

quote:

---

...

​

I'm here to show that PhDed scientists can

​

(i) trust the sciptures
(ii) scientifically look at origins
(iii) admit when data is against them
(iv) demonstrate that a lot of the data is on the creationist side

---

I trust the scriptures to tell me how to live. Not how I came to life. Many scientist believe the same. So far you have not shown number 4. Please get us some data.

quote:

---

I'm also here to learn.

---

I seriously doubt this.

EdgeMy positive experiences in Christ, the church and of the Bible gradually gave me confidence in Genesis.Yes I agree that our story has 'just so' elements too. But I still think the majority of the gross features and the details of the geological record are more compatible with the flood.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
My positive experiences in Christ, the church and of the Bible gradually gave me confidence in Genesis.

​

Yes I agree that our story has 'just so' elements too. But I still think the majority of the gross features and the details of the geological record are more compatible with the flood.

---

Okay, give us whatever you think is the best single piece of evidence that your scenario is correct. Then, tell us how mainstream geology does not explain this facet of the natural evidence. If your positive evidence for your scenario is significantly different from this subject of this thread, please start another thread.

Tranquility Base writes:

---

Percy, I love science but I have come to the conclusion that there is more to this universe than science. Not out of a lack of success of science but becasue of positive experiences in Christ and of the Bible.

---

How are positive experiences in matters of faith indicative of any accuracy or reliability in matters of science? Do you consult the Bible when fixing your car? You continue to restate your initial premises without engaging the discussion. You have no comments on this, or on the Hindu viewpoint, or on God's testimony in nature versus God's testimony as supposedly recorded by men in the Bible?You imagine a God-induced world-wide flood complete with speeding continents, rapidly oscillating magnetic fields, radiometric element sorting, and sorting of biological remains with rapid transformation into fossils. But God could have intervened in any number of ways, including creating the layers instantly just as we find them. Once you propose a theory that requires an omnipotent God's intercession then there are no limits to the ways he could have interceded. For example, while God could have changed physical laws to create the appearance of age in radiometric materials without leaving any evidence behind, he could as easily have created the radiometric materials in the layers just as we find them through simple miracle without manipulating physical laws affecting radiometric decay and also without leaving any evidence behind. With no evidence to take you in either direction, any choices you make are personal preference and certainly not scientific.There is no scientific theory which uses the Bible as a reference. What leads you to believe the situation will be different for you. You actually believe that because of the positive power of Christ in your life, a completely spiritual and non-scientific influence, that therefore your particular interpretation of Genesis must be correct and that the evidence to support it must be out there somewhere? Why?

---

You read my recent posts in this thread. I think the data does talk flood. The 'just so' stories trying to explain near continental sized correlated non-marine strata via gradualism are poor science.

---

I think you need to read this thread again, especially the exchange with Wehappyfew beginning at post #10. Wehappyfew mentioned many, many points, but to take just one, paleosols complete with evidence of streams, burrows, footprints, etc, interspersed among the layers are more than sufficient all by themselves to falsify your view.

---

The starlight and radiometriuc issues have to be looked at together. It's early days on this stuff.

---

No it is not early days. ICR was founded in the 1950s, and Henry Morris wrote The Genesis Flood a little before. In that time we've discovered tons of subatomic particles, resolved the neutrino paradox, discovered evidence verifying the Big Bang, greatly expanded the known fossil record, verified plate tectonics, discovered that the earth's magnetic field oscillates, determined the size and age of the universe, wiped out smallpox, developed computers, gone to the moon, sent probes to the far reaches of the solar system, I could go on and on.What has Creationism done during the same period? You've done about as much as those searching for evidence of ESP, telekinesis and pyramid power. Your view has developed as much coherency and evidence over the past half-century as those who believe an alien spacecraft crashed near Roswell, New Mexico, or as those searching for the lost city of Atlantis.

---

I'm here to show that PhDed scientists can...

---

I sometimes wonder if you keep reminding us that you're a PhD scientist because you realize no one would ever suspect it from what you say.But my deeper concern is your apparent belief that it's okay to use your scientific credentials as a lever. If you're arguments have merit then they don't need your sheepskin for a prop, just as real evidence needs no help from the Bible.And of what use is it anyway if you persuade someone not through the cogency of your arguments but simply because you once did enough science to earn a PhD? Someone persuaded in this manner certainly wouldn't be able to reproduce your arguments on their own. And do you use this approach all the time? Do you get in the kitchen and say, "I'm a PhD scientist, so you can trust me when I say you have to add a pinch of thyme." Or, "I'm a PhD scientist, so I know what I'm talking about when I tell you the shortest way to the interstate is via Route 6."

---

(ii) scientifically look at origins

---

But you're not scientifically looking at origins, because you're including revelation as interpreted by a particular religious sect, an interpretation not even widely shared among members of the sect, and which is also opposed by the views of sects of other religions.

---

(iv) demonstrate that a lot of the data is on the creationist side

---

If I ignore the law of gravity then I have data that the cow did indeed jump over the moon. And even with all the data you ignore under the excuse of "We'll have to look at that someday", you're interpretations are still tortured, at worst requiring actual manipulation of physical laws. All you're demonstrating is that some PhD scientists don't know how to interpret data or formulate theory.You're job here isn't to be calm, composed and courageous in the face of severe criticism, but to actually respond meaningfully to what is being said. So far your posts here are just a lengthy exercise in self-deception. You have to take our feedback, which is mostly evidence, understand it, falsify it or incorporate it into your viewpoint, then return with new arguments designed to persuade where the old arguments failed. To merely keep stating, "I still see a global flood in the evidence," is an admirable demonstration of stick-to-itiveness, but of little else.--Percy

EdgeThe single best evidence for the flood? And I only get one shot? . . . Hmmm . . .We could do
(i) Continental marine beds
(ii) Non-marine beds
(iii) Global correlation of coal and chalk 'ages'.We've talked about all of these. In totality I find the evidence from (i) to (iii) above supports the flood more than it doesn't.Since this is a non-marine thread why not discuss the non-marine component of North American cyclothems? Have you read Verhoogen? These non-marine beds are correlated across half of your continent and are coincidentally associated with both coal formation and marine innundation.