|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 6277 days) Posts: 420 From: Cincinnati OH USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Crand Canyon Tracks Were Not Formed During a Worldwide Flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: If you have proof, we would be glad to see it. If any creationists are reading this you'd have to wonder how TB knows this. Was he actually there? How do you 'prove' such a thing? And actually, you did no such thing. You simply stated that this was a lower limit. This is also wrong because there are plenty of times in the geologic record where the amount of land covered by water was less than 85%.
quote: Can you explain to us then, why accelerated decay happened only during the flood?
quote: There you go again! You offer no evidence except your statement that this is a lower limit.
quote: So, explain how we get terrestrial fossils and sedimentary facies in the Cretaceous for example, then.
quote: So, your tidal surges just happen to coincide in time with the runaway subduction surges... Why is that? And how many times are you going to do this in a year? And how are you going to develope paleosoils, etc. in the several days between flood surges? You have diligently avoided this question. How about an answer now.
quote: Hunh? How do you expel brines into the ocean and end up precipitating salts on the scale that we are talking about? Can you point out where these expulsions have observed or occur in the geological record?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Except for the fact that we have very good information as to the fact that there were source areas for Cretaceous deposits such as the Mesa Verde Group. We can see that they came from an eroding land mass, not that they were deposited everywhere and then eroded away in uplifted areas. In fact, if it were deposited everywhere, as in your flood scenario, then exactly was was the source? Your data is, as usual, limited. You really need to take your first geology course someday.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: And? I do not see this as evidence for a biblical flood. At present 67% of the earth is covered by water. If we raise sea level by even a few hundred feet that could easily go up to 85% in a very short time. The problem is that to get the last 15% of the earth covered by water, you need unbelievable amounts of water. This is a common misperception among non-scientists that the relationship is linear. In other words, to gain the last 1% of coverage would not be the same as going from 67% to 68%.
quote: Actually, there is. As any true creationist can tell you, there are some fairly broad generalizations in the data that you use. Are these reasonable? Sure, but for an absolutist, such as most creationists are, this is not an adequate assurance.
quote: But the point is that some erosion was occurring when you apparently want to have complete innundation. There were clearly source areas for sediments in the late Cretaceous. Why is this?
quote: In other words you cannot explain this. Just blow off my question with a 'goddidit' explanation. Sorry, TB, but this can hardly be considered evidence.
quote: Because you only have half a week (actually less) between innundations for this rehabitation to occur. And that only accounts for the Pennsylvanian System.
quote: Please explain the source of tides as you understand them. I do not see what caused such huge tidal forces. Was it the moon? Was the earth rotating more slowly or was the moon larger? I see no mechanism for such tides. And remember, if such tides contributed to the surges, then you have even less time for rehabitation of the land surface between floods. How did those forests magically appear in 12 hours? How did dinosaurs inhabit broad flood plains hundreds of miles across in such a short period and even build nests?
quote: And you assume nothing? LOLLLLLLLL! Sorry, but this is getting more and more fantastic all the time. Can you show me floating mats upon which trees grow? Can you show us where we can find worm burrows and animal tracks in floating mats? And just how did these floating mats maintain any integrity with the turbulence that such flood surges must have generated?
quote: Good. Then you can cite this person. I cannot see brines of greater salinity than the ocean being expelled into the ocean and suddenly precipitating salts in the same order as one would expect from evaporation and also develop syneresis cracks and other dessication features. Please enlighten us.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Just my point. The source areas were still above sea level. There was no point in time where all source areas were submerged. This would have resulted in a single, mappable and well defined 'flood deposit' that we do not see in the geological record.
quote: Thank you for supporting my argument.
quote: This argument is a bit general. Can you use specific data?
quote: Or perhaps the formations were never deposited in the highlands at all. I don't think that you quite understand provenance of sediments. Frequently, we can tell where the sediments came from. Now, if those areas were being weathered and eroded at the time as your innundation, they cannot have been submerged. Therefore there was always some land surface that was above sea level.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: I don't remember anyone saying this. It seems likely that glacial fluctuations would be on a much shorter time scale than sea floor spreading. Perhaps you didn't read our posts very carefully.
quote: If I understand you correctly, there is another possibility: non-deposition. In other words, the rocks were never deposited in what you call highlands. This appears to be the case as I was trying to explain with source areas. We know that there are source areas for terrigenous sediments at all times in the geological record, including the entire Cretaceous. That means that there was some emergent land at all times. It is also true that there were eroded areas (unconformities) that are not at high elevations.
quote: Not really. See above.
quote: Even here this is not arguable. The point however is that 'may have had' is not the same as 'must have had' marine strata. There is ample evidence that some areas did NOT have marine strata at any time during the Cretaceous.
quote: A good guess, but completely irrelevant because we know that this did not happen.
quote: How do you know that mountains were considerably lower? In fact I dare say that the mountains were at least as high as they are today, judging by mapping of Cretaceous volcanic fields and the presence of certain metamorphic assemblages. And what do you mean by 'empirically' in this statement?
quote: Are you saying that these occurred at significantly different times? Then you think that the volume of the earth fluctuated? What is your evidence for this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: I think you overestimate the importance of this friction. After all, some form friction plays a role in all earthquakes on established faults. It is exactly the kind of thing you are talking about, but you didn't recognize it because of your lack of background in geology. The point here is that earthquakes are the mechanism of energy release on the Benioff Zone. While the energy build up and release is similar to what you describe, it is on a much shorter time scale and there is no evidence or reason why all of the subduction should occur at once.
quote: It lacks an empirical basis, and a basic understanding.
quote: Again, this depends upon the scale of your observation. The gross fluctuations are well explained by plate tectonics.
quote: Then you agree that there is no real evidence for a global flood in the Noachian sense?
quote: I have been over this before. If there is a constant supply of coarse terrigenous sediment then there is a constant landmass above sea level.
quote: What is the evidence for such 'bulging.' This is new, is it not? Your theory becomes more complex and fantastic all the time.
quote: I seriously doubt that it has never before been thought of. I know a USGS retiree who says that if you haven't found something, you simply haven't gone far enough back in the literature. I think you would find that it's usually there someplace, and there is usually a reason it has been discounted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: So, how do you manage to get this effect a hundred times in a year? Do earthquakes happen that often along an active fault?
quote: Right, over hundreds of thousands or millions of years. Just as the geological record indicates.
quote: Please document this. I cannot believe that this idea has been offered without some kind of alternative.
quote: Sure. Evidence that must be taken in a vacuum of other evidence. You have to ignore substantial amounts of contradictory evidence.
quote: So, then, how does such a brief flood deposit all of those sediments? Why was this brief flood not described in the bible? And maybe you don't get it but if there are substantial tracts of land above sea level, there is no global flood. Are you assuming a completely different hypsographic chart for the flood year?
quote: You were not clear about what was bulging.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Sure, let's just ignore the time scale of KNOWN events. Makes sense to me. The point is that none of what you are suggesting has ever been observed. However, we do see other features that you seem to ignore.
quote: We have already eliminated the possibility of runaway subduction based on the physics of the earth and the lack of a geological record of such an event. Why do you retreat to this old, worn out idea? You have also not given us a mechanism for accelerated radioactive decay. You are building a house of cards. No such thing is possible in a YEC context or any other.
quote: A distinct possibility.
quote: You ignore the heat generated by such a model. You ignore radiometric dates. You ignore OBSERVED and documented processes that can produce the same effects in favor of some fantastic notions. YOu have created a knowledge vacuum in which your scenario works perfectly.
quote: This is, of course, purely extra-biblical. Doesn't this bother you?
quote: It is a year long as far as I know the myth.
quote: Wrong. According to modern observations and geophysical models, this is not where the bulging occurs.
quote: Where do you see such bulging today?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Well, that IS one method of debating...
quote: Is this an attack? I'm not sure you have done anything here but muddled through some distorted logic. This 'attack' cannot be answered.
quote: Indeed, much sand does blow away. In fact you need to discuss this with your fellow creationists, because MOST of the time eolian sands blow away. They are a lost part of an already LONG geological record. Nevertheless, not all sand blows away or else we would have NO windblown sand in the geological record. Some is buried and eventually lithified.
quote: If you were correct, yes.
quote: This is actually a silly statement. It is not the weight of the water that compacts sediments, but the weight of overlying sediments. And what do you mean by a 'short amount of time'? There are sediments in the Mississippi delta that are thousands of years old but hardly lithified.
quote: Hope you have better luck with this one.
quote: No, not all the time. Depends on a lot of parameters. You are choosing yours quite carefully.
quote: Okay, next time I see ferns in growing in a whole desert of sand dunes, I'll check it out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Well, I was hoping that you would try to answer and then realize that you do not really understand plate tectonics all on your own. However if you want, I will tell you right up front that you do not have the background to understand the diagrams that you refer to.
quote: Either side of what? Your statements are so vague that we have no idea what to tell you.
quote: I would agree that 'bulging' is the best way to get the volumes of material necessary to cause your first order sea level fluctuations. There are other reasons for sea level to rise as well. The point here is that you have not been able to describe this 'bulging' and its location. I think the level of discussion here has risen to somewhat over your depth. I believe you have been completely innundated...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: First of all, I would be interested in the reference which suggests that the rate is out of style as an explanation. It would seem to me that increased spreading rates and reduced volume of the ocean basins may be related to another effect, rather than directly to each other. Now, what gives you the idea that subduction rates can be significantly different from spreading rates? Once again, I suggest that both rates are caused by another effect that causes both to rise and fall together. If the rates were significantly different, then the earth must undergo a volume change. Increased subduction rate alone cannot influence the volume of the ocean basins. That would mean that I could pull on one end of the oceanic plate and cause the whole plate to move. That won't happen. Please give us some indication where this 'bulging' that your refer to occurs. That way, perhaps we can figure out where your misunderstanding lies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Heavens no! We wouldn't want to attract any attention to the details! Actually, I know this. I am TRYING to get you to put it into words where they are so that you can see that they are not due to compression, as (I think) you are trying to say.
quote: Hmm, I see no bulging caused by the trench. I see bulging due to convective upwelling of the mantle at the spreading center. I see bulging related to the magmatic axis. But nothing directly related kinematically to the trench. In fact all I see near the trench is a depression. In fact, at some locations, the depression is so intense that the forearc is submerged. Seems to me that faster I don't suppose you could describe this bulging that you see to me.
quote: Ambiguous would be a generous description.
quote: Yes. If you are talking about the right location and the right mechanics!
quote: Your new-found humility is refreshing. Grandstanding is an attitude. In the past, your approach was grandstanding and sometimes insulting.
quote: Nonsense. When we tell you that you don't have it right, you simply dismiss us. If you can show that you have an open mind, I will actually put some time into explaining these things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Egad. You're kidding me.
quote: Agreed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Pardon me for the intrusion, but I cannot tell that you have come up with ANYTHING. If it is so easy, please proceed.
quote: I believe the question was something like 'where was the high ground?' Oh, I get it. Where the animals were...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024