Non-marine sediments

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Joe, if you don't think inundations of continents by the sea and vast non-marine beds are at least potentially consistent with a tectonically induced global flood then I think you are plain biased.

---

The problem is that these are consistent with almost any scenario. Why do you think they point only toward a global flood. Especially when you have non-marine beds through out the section. The point is that there is plenty of evidence that you ignore. That would make you biased.

quote:

---

So I would call vast marine layered beds on land with rapid paleocurrent signatures 'first order' evidence of the flood.

---

First of all you have not produced such data. Second, why is it not evidence for mainstream geological thinking?

quote:

---

That's the fundamental point that makes this discussion difficult - you probably wont agree with that that is first order evidence for the flood.

---

Correct. Because it isn't!

Will do Moose - I read the 1972 edition almost from cover to cover. These guys descibe this work literally as 'surprising' and 'shocking' at least in the 1970s. I have no idea how it has been incorporated to now become mundane!

Edge, I'll agree that a priori this first order data is consisent with gradualism (although not the paleocurrents IMO). A posteri I agree we should be able to rule out one or other of the models ultimately. You think the flood was ruled out a long time ago. I disagree because it is such a different paradigm. I truly believe that the data has been shoehorned into gradualism precisely for the reason that it was considered the only possibility.I will ignore no data I read about or am offerred.It is the paleocurrent evidence (which I will repost) of the epeiric seas makes this 'first order' evidence of the flood as opposed to gradualism.

Tranquility base writes to Joe Meert:

---

You think the flood was ruled out a long time ago. I disagree because it is such a different paradigm. I truly believe that the data has been shoehorned into gradualism precisely for the reason that it was considered the only possibility.

---

You're rewriting a history that I believe has already been described for you. It was originally believed that the construction of the modern earth was a result of the great flood, but when naturalists began investigating geologic processes in the late 18th and early 19th century the evidence they uncovered clearly indicated two things: a) a worldwide flood could not explain most geologic formations; b) the earth is far more ancient then the Bible hints at.Some first order effects are increasing differences from modern forms with increasing depth, and increasing radiometric age determinations with increasing depth. A second order effect is evidence in some layers that they once existed at or near a surface (based upon evidence of things like footprints, burrows, streams, etc).Your motivation for changing the current model is not a large quantity of anomalous data, because none of the geologic data of layer formation, non-marine or otherwise, indicates flood causation. In fact, the vast proportion of it is sedimentary layers deposited slowly over long periods of time. How could a flood yield an appearance so alien to what flood's normally produce? You need to present a model that sounds at least superficially plausible.--Percy

Percy, I have read probably six or seven accounts of the 19th century 'great geological controversy'. I'm fully aware that there was a debate between 'diluvialists' and uniformitarians which was won by Hutton and Lyell and pretty much ended in around 1840 (?) when Sedgwick converted to the 'dark' side . And I'm fully aware of the earlier Neptunian controversy.What I am saying is that, from my historical readings, I have not come across any creationist geologist that sopke of anything remotely resembling modern flood geology. I would be pleasantly surprised if anyone could find evidence of such a teaching. The diluvialists who were scientists seemed to get hung up on layering, canyons and evidence of surges. I have very recently read that the contemporary career flood geoogists agree with me on this assesment.So I stand by my point that the geologists of the day didn't properly examine the possibility that the flood layed most of the rocks. I'm happy to reverse that opinion if someone shows me evidence. That evidence is not in Hallam's "Great Geological Controversies' for example.I still admire many of these earlier geologists/surveyors/paleontologists whether diluvilist or gradualists BTW. Mantell, Smith and Lyell are particular favourites of mine - and they were mostly gradualists. But I admire even more the scientifically literate churchmen (such as Fairbourne I think his name was) who stuck to the young earth position and expected the data to ultimately come in line.

Tranquility Base writes:

---

So I stand by my point that the geologists of the day didn't properly examine the possibility that the flood layed most of the rocks. I'm happy to reverse that opinion if someone shows me evidence.

---

I think the evidence has already been presented to you. There's the increasing differences from modern forms with increasing depth, and increasing radiometric age determinations with increasing depth. There's magnetic reversals recorded on the sea floor which correlate with radiometric measurements and sedimentation rates. There's simple laws of physics you need to follow when you talk about continents and sea floors zipping rapidly about. A second order effect is evidence in some layers that they once existed at or near a surface (based upon evidence of things like footprints, burrows, streams, etc). Another is evidence within the layers themselves of slow sedimentation over periods of at least tens of thousands of years.If the Tower of Pisa is falling down and you don't know how to stop it, switching your attention to more tractable problems like mending broken statuary does not slow the fall one iota. If you don't know how to save the Titanic, moving on to something you can handle like polishing the brass won't help one bit.You have no answers for the truly significant problems with your theory, so you instead focus your attention on areas likely to be more fruitful, but that doesn't change the fact that your theory is unworkable from the outset.

---

What I am saying is that, from my historical readings, I have not come across any creationist geologist that sopke of anything remotely resembling modern flood geology.

---

The differences with regard to the significant problems are inconsequential.--Percy

Percy you either have not read my posts or are ignoring the fact that we believe that acclerated isotopic decay generated the heat that tectonically initiated the flood. So we expect rapid sea-floor spreading, rapid magnetic reversals and correlation with radiodecay! We could reasonably expect surges due to frictional plate slipping and hence multiple aerial exposures for up to months during the 400 days. Please stop discussing pathetic strawmen.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-12-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Percy you either have not read my posts or are ignoring the fact that we believe that acclerated isotopic decay generated the heat that tectonically initiated the flood. So we expect rapid sea-floor spreading, rapid magnetic reversals and correlation with radiodecay! We could reasonably expect surges due to frictional plate slipping and hence multiple aerial exposures for up to months during the 400 days. Please stop discussing pathetic strawmen

---

The point is, what is your evidence for accelerated radioactive decay? Why did it happen? Why did it stop?

^ The evidence for accelerated radioisotopic decay is (i) other evidence suggets rapidity of layering, not least the paleocurrent data (ii) the excess helium in granites (I am still trying to sort out the conflicting claims made by Snelling et al vs stuff posted here on zircons).We propose that accelerated radioisotopic decay instigated the flood via radioheating the crust causing rapid sea-floor spreading. It could be due to the dynamical evolution of some fundamental constant. One way or another, for us, God was behind it. I personally see it as analogous to the timed hormone releases (relaxin etc) that trigger human birth. We see the whole flood thing as a picture of birth out of waters.

Tranquility Base writes:

---

Percy you either have not read my posts or are ignoring the fact that we believe that acclerated isotopic decay generated the heat that tectonically initiated the flood. So we expect rapid sea-floor spreading, rapid magnetic reversals and correlation with radiodecay! We could reasonably expect surges due to frictional plate slipping and hence multiple aerial exposures for up to months during the 400 days. Please stop discussing pathetic strawmen.

---

Sure I've read your posts. One of the points I made in the post this is a reply to is that you were violating the known laws of physics, and by reintroducing these points you're doing it again. Plus, as edge mentions, you're proposing events for which you have no evidence, the sole impetus for your ideas being the Bible.

---

One way or another, for us, God was behind it.

---

Well, that changes things. I, for one, have no objections to scenarios based upon miracles, so long as it's realized they are religion, not science. Until you have evidence for what you're proposing, until your proposals obey the known laws of physics, and until they're consistent with the evidence, you basically just have a viewpoint based upon religious myth.--Percy

^ Percy, although our stuff is unashamedly based on Scripture we are also of the opinion that modern geological data strongly supports the flood. The paleocurrent data in itself is strongly diagnostic of the flood.And as of last year, the evolution of fundamental 'constants' is no longer non-scientific. We know (unless the astrophyically measured fine structute constant result is retracted which is getting very unlikely) that one or all of e, h and c have changed. I'm talking universal constants like Plancks' that undoubtedly would have modified decay rates. The fine structure constant is proportional to e^2/h/c so the evolution of these three constants might even have been responsible. The RATE group is working on the details.Together with the vast excess of helium we think there is good reason to propose that decay was accelerated. Like I said somewhere else for us it makes a lot of sense and I see the radioisotpoes like 'hormones' waiting to be 'switched on' just like in biology. remember that for us earth is for man even though you don't think so. Earth was cursed when man was. The switching on of the decay brought about the rebirth of the earth. Hooey for you but perhaps the true nature of earth's prehistory whether it fits your expectations or not. We have scriptures talking about a 'kindling of fire in the foundations of the mountains' (Deut). You can laugh all you like and cry 'non-science' but we're more interested in what happened to this planet than your definition of science.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-13-2002]

Tranquility Base writes:

---

Percy, although our stuff is unashamedly based on Scripture we are also of the opinion that modern geological data strongly supports the flood.
...
You can laugh all you like and cry 'non-science' but we're more interested in what happened to this planet than your definition of science.

---

Well, wait a minute, maybe I'm misunderstanding where you're coming from. You mean you understand that what you're doing isn't science?--Percy

It's pretty close to science and by some definitions that include forensics, archeology etc it might just be science.Science does use hypotheses. If you forget where ours came from for a minute the processes to study how the hypothesis explains the data is identical to the ones that you use - and these processes are, at the very least, a subset of science.The foundations of quantum mechanics are unscientifc. The postualtes come out of thin air. They just happen to reproduce the data. Sure there are some hints of the postulates (discrete energy levels etc) but the ultimate 'let the probabilty be proportional to the square of the wavefunction' comes out of thin air.Same for us - there are strong hints of the flood in the data in our opinions but the 'God instigated a global flood' hypothesis is primarily from Scripture.

So, now all the universal physical constants are up for grabs!!The speed of light has changed (slowed orders of magnitude) based on some error-ridden work by Barry Setterfield which has never been subjected to peer review. So radioactive decay rates have changed over time (10,000 years)and this caused the global flood. Pity data from supernova SN1987A contradicts such fantasies.Simple observation and geometry allowed the distance of SN1987A to be calculated at about 170,000 light years distant. Spectral analysis found the same decay rates for cobalt-56 and cobalt-57 as measured on earth today. Simple explanation is that their decay rates haven't changed in 170,000 years. The creationist explanation is that light was travelling an average 17 times faster in the past 10,000 years to give the illusion that SN1987A is so far away, the cobalt spectra shifted during transit so that it exactly matches current earth-bound spectra, something initiated a huge increase in radio-decay rates about 4,500 years ago and caused a global flood, all radioisotopes with shortish half-lifes were exhausted whilst the longer lived isotopes were progressively decayed from the centre of the earth outwards.It seems that creationists prefer to rewrite all of science and history simply to make it agree with their particular interpretations of the bible. No, TB, it isn't anything like science.BTW, I thought creationists were saying that there was too little helium for the earth to be old?!

wj - the universal constants aren't just up for grabs - we already have them! You're not aware that Science or Nature published a paper last year demonstrating that the fine structure constant has changed over time (measured astrophysically)? This has nothing to do with Barry Setterfield's stuff.Creationists do not necessarily use light speed changes to solve the star light problem anymore. The current approach is via Russell Humphrey's cosmology whereby the universe expanded from a 'white-hole'. Via general relativity this automatically yields a universe with vastly different time scales that vary continuously giving a central region that runs much much slower than the edges. In this bounded cosmolgy this emerges naturally and so far is consistent with redshifts and the background radiation. Anyway this would have to be taken into account for radiodecay supernova calcs if the expansion happened only 10,000 years ago in our timeframe.The helium issue: there is 100,000-fold too much in granites and too little in the air. Both problems are solved by recent accelerated decay.