Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,469 Year: 3,726/9,624 Month: 597/974 Week: 210/276 Day: 50/34 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   REAL Flood Geology
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 1011 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 94 of 137 (371014)
12-19-2006 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Joman
12-19-2006 3:33 PM


Re: General nature of global flood enviroment.
Lets start out small.
The geologic record contains layer after layer of sediments exhibiting mud or dessication cracks and paleosols (ancient soil horizons). How do you form those under water?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Joman, posted 12-19-2006 3:33 PM Joman has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 1011 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 108 of 137 (371212)
12-20-2006 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Buzsaw
12-19-2006 9:49 PM


Re: Magic Water
This is the same argument so many YECs love to use; however, because they lack basic geologic knowledge, they don't realize that the sediment that presently makes up the geologic column had to come from somewhere. It had to have been eroded.
The most productive way to create sediment from erosion is to erode highlands, otherwise, you're just moving dirt around. In other words, you need to erode land that is above sea level and the higher the better. The higher the land, the better the erosion, and the greater the amount of sediment available for transport and subsequent deposition (i.e., the geologic column).
If the pre-flood land was "relatively smooth," then erosion will be relatively non-productive.
Let's think about this logically, Buz.
Let's say you have a land mass that is relatively smooth. What's that? Maximum 2000' high rolling hills? Then the rains started. Since all the land masses were covered by water, that means sea levels were raised globally. That's a LOT of rain.
So what we have is rain that is simultaneously eroding the hills and raising sea levels. The more you raise the sea level, the less erosion you will have, and therefore less sediment (remember, the higher, the better). In addition, the rising sea level is covering more and more land, which prevents it from being eroded. The longer it rains, the less sediment your model produces. Your model results in far too little sediment production and not very much water.
All you'd see in the geologic record is oceanic crust overlain by oceanic sediments, which would in turn be overlain by a very thin cover of continentally-derived sediment that is graded from thickest at the bottom to clay at the top. This continental cover would be traced across the entire globe and you'd be able to follow it from the ocean basins up onto the continents - on each and every continent. The sediments would be thickest at the continental margins and pinch out both towards the deep ocean basins and possibly on the land if the land masses still had any topography.
On the land masses themselves you might see peneplanation of the hard rocks and sediment-filled basins, and a generally flat landscape. However, hard rocks don't necessarily erode very easily in a few days of hard rain. They erode much better with time. Time allows water to seep into the rocks, alter the minerals to softer more erodable material such as clay. Transport in streams, not getting hit by raindrops, is what transforms boulders, cobbles, pebbles into sand.
I'd say you'd have to have a virtual lack of hard rocks in your model, which means no igneous rocks and very little in the way of metamorphic rocks.
It doesn't work, Buz. Even with my simplistic and totally non-technical examination of your model, your "relatively smooth" pre-flood earth would not produce enough sediment to result in the geologic column, nor enough water to depress the oceanic basins.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Buzsaw, posted 12-19-2006 9:49 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by iceage, posted 12-20-2006 11:57 PM roxrkool has replied
 Message 121 by Buzsaw, posted 12-25-2006 10:16 PM roxrkool has replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 1011 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 119 of 137 (371771)
12-23-2006 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by iceage
12-20-2006 11:57 PM


Re: Sand and the flood
I have no idea, but I get the distinct impression most YECs think the geologic column is composed of sand, silt, and clay, with a few conglomerates thrown in for good measure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by iceage, posted 12-20-2006 11:57 PM iceage has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Archer Opteryx, posted 12-27-2006 1:13 AM roxrkool has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 1011 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 120 of 137 (371772)
12-23-2006 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Joman
12-21-2006 1:27 PM


Re: specific gravity
I'm not the only 'expert,' Joman. Most of the people who have posted replies to you are very knowledgeable about geology.
No, the formations that form the Grand Canyon are not the result of gradational layering. They are the result of depositional environments. If they did result from S.G., then we would have figured that out long ago.
You have alternating and intercalating layers of sandstone, shale, limestone, plus a whole host of other minor sedimentary rock types that cannot be formed as a result of specific gravity.
How do flood waters form limestone, for example? Limestone requires a certain temperature, depth, water clarity and turbidity, and chemistry to form. What are the conditions that allow deposition of sandstone, then limestone, shale, limestone, and back to sandstone in a flooding environment?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Joman, posted 12-21-2006 1:27 PM Joman has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 1011 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 124 of 137 (372332)
12-26-2006 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Buzsaw
12-25-2006 10:16 PM


Re: Magic Water
Buz writes:
I was thinking a max of something like 3000' and a much lower sea level, say a 1500' or so lower and relatively shallow oceans of say a max of 2000' or so below sea level.
I'm not sure I understand. The max elevation is somewhere around 3,000' (above sea level) and 2,000' deep oceans - that I understand.
What do you mean by a 1500' sea level?
This would suggest a great deal of erosion and platonic seismic activity, would it not?
Please elaborate. What suggests a lot of erosion or seismic activity? And what do you mean by "platonic?"
I believe Ballard's Black Sea discovery of a lower pre-flood sea level confirms that pre-flood seas were much lower than what is observed today.
There is plenty of evidence for much lower and higher sea levels, that's not a problem. The problem is accounting for the large amount of sediment in the geologic record. Is that what you believe? That most of the geologic record is composed of flood-deposited sediments?
So if Ballard discovered what you think is the pre-flood world, all the rocks and sediment present below are pre-flood. Meaning that only the uppermost sediments of the geologic record are Noachian. Is that correct?
Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Buzsaw, posted 12-25-2006 10:16 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Buzsaw, posted 12-26-2006 6:49 PM roxrkool has replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 1011 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 131 of 137 (372533)
12-28-2006 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Buzsaw
12-26-2006 6:49 PM


Re: Magic Water
I can see why you don't debate the science, Buz, however, it's obvious you hold a very strong position about the occurrence of a global flood because you argue in favor of it constantly. I don't see anything wrong with holding controversial positions, but in the face of overwhelming evidence against it, it seems a bit pig-headed.
The fact is, if the present geologic record was deposited from a global flood, you still don't have enough source material on the continents - even with 3,000' high hills. The geologic column is many kilometers thick and that requires an immense amount of material.
In addition, I've yet to see an explanation for how flood waters can precipitate hundreds of feet of limestone or calcite/dolomite.
The Grand Canyon ICR stuff makes sense to you because, despite a lack of evidence, you believe the GC was carved from unconsolidated sediment. Because not even a child will concede rock is as easy to erode as sand and gravel.
Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Buzsaw, posted 12-26-2006 6:49 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by iceage, posted 12-28-2006 11:11 AM roxrkool has not replied
 Message 135 by Buzsaw, posted 12-31-2006 1:04 PM roxrkool has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024