Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 181 (8016 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-21-2014 10:57 AM
187 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: tellmeverbatim
Upcoming Birthdays: AndrewPD
Post Volume:
Total: 723,861 Year: 9,702/28,606 Month: 1,392/2,455 Week: 110/592 Day: 27/83 Hour: 9/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56
...
25NextFF
Author Topic:   Was there a worldwide flood?
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2002
From: Big Spring, TX, USA
Joined: 03-18-2006
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 46 of 372 (411300)
07-19-2007 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Repzion
07-18-2007 2:59 PM


Please Explain the Following Evidence From Geology
Repzion writes:

Evidence from Geology.

Naturally, the only true flood account is recorded in the Bible. Yet, legends among different cultures worldwide provide convincing evidence that there was some kids of accident flood. But legends passed down from generation to generation aren’t as convincing as evidence we can see.

Here is my evidence from geology you are dead wrong.

1. Angular unconformities – Angular unconformities are where sediments are laid down in layers, then tilted and eroded, then new sediments are deposited on top. How does a global flood simultaneously deposit, tilt, and erode in the same exact place?

2. Radiometric dating – All common forms of radiometric dating, including C14, K-Ar, Ar-Ar, Rb-Sr, Th-Pb, U-Pb, and fission track. The dates derived from these diverse methods, when properly interpreted rather than intentionally misapplied, show that all but the very most recent deposits in the geologic column is vastly older than any postulated flood.

3. Fossil Sorting – The sorting of fossils in the geologic record is consistent with evolution and geology across all formations worldwide. There are basically no fossils of dinosaurs found with modern mammals, even when such dinosaurs could fly. There are no flowering plants in the Cambrian, no grasses, no mammals, and no birds. The overall sorting does not show any evidence consistent with a flood or settling in water.

4. Varves – How does one create 20 million annual layers, each layer which would have taken at least a month to settle due to hydrodynamics as is observed in the Green River Formation? How does one explain seasonal pollen grains found in the layers?

5. Sedimentation rates – Why would there be Precambrian rocks below ones feet in the Canadian Shield area, yet the entire geologic column in the Williston Basin in North Dakota? Why would a global flood scour down to the Precambrian in one place yet at the same time deposit tens of thousands of feet of sediment in another when it is exactly the same process? Giant post-pyramid ice ages are not an explanation as there is no written record or other evidence of increased historical glaciation to the extent needed to scour the Canadian Shield down in the last 4500 years, not to mention such Precambrian rocks elsewhere on Earth like South Africa.

6. Lava layers with ancient soils between flows – How could lava forms which only exist with a land surface interface create interbedded deposits with paleosoils?

7. Ice sheets – Ice caps can’t reform in the time allotted since any global flood of 4500 years ago.

8. Ice core data with correlated known volcanic events – Ice cores can be dated back by multiple methods nearly a million years, yet show no evidence of a global flood.

9. Ocean core data – Ocean cores would show unsorted piles of terrestrial life and different distributions in grain sizes than observed. They would also show little difference in thickness between the mid Atlantic ridge and near subduction zones, which is not what is observed.

10. Paleomagnetism – Because the Earth’s magnetic field has reversed polarity and has wandered over the globe in the past, certain igneous rocks show such preferred magnetic orientations when sufficiently cooled. By mapping these directions and reversals, which correlate with radioisotope dating and stratigraphy, it is easily shown that the vast majority of seafloor sediments, along with most volcanic rock, are way too old to have been deposited by any flood. In fact such measurements are one of the great evidences for plate tectonics, which alone invalidate a global flood.

11. Volcanism – According to ‘flood geology’ every igneous rock layer that overlays sedimentary rock would have to be less than 4500 years old. Yet, historical records indicate this tremendous amount of simultaneous volcanic activity could not have occurred in recent times because someone would have noticed, becoming extinct and all when the atmosphere becomes unbreathable. Such a position directly contradicts the existence of the Deccan Traps which are up to 2 km thick and 500,000 square km in extent, yet supposedly erupted in India despite any historic evidence, after such a flood.

12. Ore deposit formation rates – Most ore deposits require a longer period of time to separate their constituent elements and then cool to create an economically viable source of minerals.

13. Evaporites – The existence of evaporate deposits thousands of feet thick are incompatible with any global flood as they are formed through evaporation rather than through the addition of fresh water.

14. Carbonates – The huge amount of CO2 in the atmosphere prior to being locked into carbonate rock would have made the planet resemble Venus. There would have been no life to drown.

15. Microfossil deposits - Thick deposits of microfossils in limestone, diatomaceous chert, and chalk that could not settle to such a degree of thickness in the time allotted for any global flood.

16. Thick deposits of sand - Sand is the result of weathering and working of formally solid formations, requiring long long times to form and accumulate.

17. Aeolian sand deposits – Wind deposited sandstone is found above and below water deposited limestone. One example is the Cococino formation which is both overlain and overlies limestone.

18. Overthrust formations – the time and pressure required to cause overthrust formations is far greater than can occur in any post-flood historic time.

19. Formation of geologic features such as mountains and valleys – How did something like the Himalaya Mountains form without anyone noticing all those earthquakes? How were valleys cut between such mountains in less than 4500 years?

20. Heat of formation – I can’t explain this topic any better than has already been done.
From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
quote:
________________________________________

• If the geologic record was deposited in a year, then the events it records must also have occurred within a year. Some of these events release significant amounts of heat.
• Magma. The geologic record includes roughly 8 x 10E24 grams of lava flows and igneous intrusions. Assuming (conservatively) a specific heat of 0.15, this magma would release 5.4 x 10E27 joules while cooling 1100 degrees C. In addition, the heat of crystallization as the magma solidifies would release a great deal more heat.
• Limestone formation. There are roughly 5 x 10E23 grams of limestone in the earth's sediments [Poldervaart, 1955], and the formation of calcite releases about 11,290 joules/gram [Weast, 1974, p. D63]. If only 10% of the limestone were formed during the Flood, the 5.6 x 10E26 joules of heat released would be enough to boil the flood waters.
• Meteorite impacts. Erosion and crustal movements have erased an unknown number of impact craters on earth, but Creationists Whitcomb and DeYoung suggest that cratering to the extent seen on the Moon and Mercury occurred on earth during the year of Noah's Flood. The heat from just one of the largest lunar impacts released an estimated 3 x 10E26 joules; the same sized object falling to earth would release even more energy. [Fezer, pp. 45-46]
• Other. Other possibly significant heat sources are radioactive decay (some Creationists claim that radioactive decay rates were much higher during the Flood to account for consistently old radiometric dates); biological decay (think of the heat released in compost piles); and compression of sediments.
5.6 x 1026 joules is enough to heat the oceans to boiling. 3.7 x 10E27 joules will vaporize them completely. Since steam and air have a lower heat capacity than water, the steam released will quickly raise the temperature of the atmosphere over 1000 C. At these temperatures, much of the atmosphere would boil off the Earth.
Aside from losing its atmosphere, Earth can only get rid of heat by radiating it to space, and it can't radiate significantly more heat than it gets from the sun unless it is a great deal hotter than it is now. (It is very nearly at thermal equilibrium now.) If there weren't many millions of years to radiate the heat from the above processes, the earth would still be unlivably hot.
________________________________________

21. River meanders – River meanders incised in rock can only be caused by gradual uplift, not through a year’s worth of soft sediment deposition.

22. Large and extensive river potholes – As this is one of Iceage’s, I will defer the explanation to him, although I wouldn’t mind his input on others he brought up as well.

23. Glacial weathering – glacial deposits and weathering such as U-shaped valleys require longer than 4500 years to form.

24. Independent dating correlations – See Correlations Correlations Correlations (Message 1 of Thread Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 in Forum Proposed New Topics) enjoy!

25. Batholith formation – Why isn’t the Sierra Nevada granitic batholith still hot as it would have taken several million years to cool?

26. Differential weathering – How could the Sierra Nevada and the Appalachians show such different weathering if each are the exact same age of only 4500 years old?

27. Banded iron formations and red beds – Banded iron formations can’t form in the presence of significant oxygen. Yet they were supposedly deposited in a flood which supposedly allowed animals to breathe both before and after.

28. Water in confined aquifers – The chemistry of water may be measured as to its constituents, as any municipal water authority already knows. Under flood conditions, the water chemistry in a confined aquifer would have changed as lower elevation aquifers would contain more salt than higher aquifers as the flood waters diluted the salt content in the recharge zone. Not only is this behavior not shown by any known confined aquifer, but the age of such water according to the laws of physics is vastly older than any flood may have deposited.

29. Worldwide iridium layer – Although any worldwide flood evidence is lacking, there is a worldwide iridium layer at the K-T boundary where it exists. How could this iridium layer have been deposited among all those swirling waters in a flood?

30. Deformed structures in metamorphosed sediments – There are areas in metamorphic rock where pebbles and even fossils have been stretched and deformed in processes that would have taken several times any 4500 years since a global flood.

31. Compression of all fossil life into too short a time period – If all species represented by fossils, coal, and petroleum from throughout the geologic record lived simultaneously, they would have been standing on each other, an ecological impossibility.

32. Differential mineralization of fossils – Remains of buried humans in historic times show minimal mineralization. This increases overall with extinct mammals, then extinct dinosaurs, then extinct trilobites and ammonites.

33. Surface features buried throughout geologic column – Examples include: rain drops, river channels, wind-blown dunes, beaches, glacial deposits, burrows, in-place trees, soils, desiccation cracks, footprints.

34. Pollen sorting – Why is pollen sorted according to evolutionary principles instead of hydrodynamic principles in the geologic record?

35. Inconsistent worldwide geologic formations – Any flood would have left a single layer of similar sediment worldwide, not the tremendous amount and variety of layers that exist in each of the thousands of boreholes and outcrops in geology.

36. Existence of soil after flood – Soil is a delicate mixture of organic and inorganic materials. How could any soil exist after an environment that was supposedly turbulent enough to destroy all the earth’s crust?

37. Tectonic spreading rates – Observed tectonic spreading rates indicate that there is no evidence of any disturbance due to any global flood 4500 years ago.

38. Tar pits – If all petroleum was caused by some global flood, how can there be tar pits filled with land fossils that have not become coal or oil?

39. Caverns – Caverns carved from dolomite such as exist in West Texas can’t form in as little as 4500 years.

40. Oklo and other natural reactors – Such natural reactors could not have been formed a mere 4500 years ago unless the laws of physics involving radioactive decay are violated.

41. Multiple glaciations – There are at least four major separate evidences of glaciations in the geologic record separated by eons. How could all four occur during a flood while supposedly underwater?

42. Meteoric impacts – For the evidence of meteoric impacts to be buried under sediments indicate that such impacts all occurred in the span of one year. Such a bombardment would allow for no life due to a lack of sun.

43. Hydrocarbon formation – The amount of hydrocarbon deposits in the ground from organic causes represent a greater biomass than is possible to have formed within 4500 years.

44. Conglomerates within conglomerates within conglomerates within conglomerates – Conglomerates are made up of diverse weathered rock that is eroded then recemented. In order to have a 4th level conglomerate there needs to be four episodes of weathering and recementation of rocks which are often impossible to form and erode in 4500 years such as when some within the conglomerate matrix are igneous or metamorphic rock.

45. Change in physical properties of rock correlated with age and fossil content – The older the sedimentary rock under current scientific models, in most cases the greater its compaction. How would near-simultaneous deposition explain this observation?

46. Delicate structures preserved in supposed turbulence – Delicate structures such as insect wings and feathers are preserved in rock. How could a turbulence that supposedly weathers miles of consolidated rock simultaneously preserve delicate structures?

47. Coprolites – Coprolites, which are fossilized turds, are preserved throughout the fossil record. How does a flood have animals constantly crapping in the midst of a flood after they are exterminated?

48. Meteoric dust accumulation – Both ice cores and evaporates indicate meteoric dust accumulates at a roughly steady rate over time. How can this dust remain constant under contracted meteoric bombardment?

49. Desert varnish – Desert varnish is created by microorganisms in arid conditions over a period of hundreds of years. How could such varnish be created throughout the geologic record in flood conditions?

50. Multiple layers of fossil forests – How can a single flood explain multiple fossil forest layers such as can be seen at Joggins, Nova Scotia or Yellowstone?

51. Detailed layering – How could a global flood create thousands of layers seen in several geologic formations, each of which requires a different depositional environment?

52. Lack of any geologic evidence for a global flood – While there are dozens of categories representing millions of data points of evidence against Noah’s Flood, I know of no single piece of geologic evidence in favor of Noah’s Flood.

Go ahead, explain them all, haven't run across anyone that can explain even just one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Repzion, posted 07-18-2007 2:59 PM Repzion has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Repzion, posted 07-19-2007 11:25 PM anglagard has not yet responded
 Message 53 by Repzion, posted 07-20-2007 1:20 PM anglagard has not yet responded

  
Repzion
Member (Idle past 1698 days)
Posts: 22
From: Renton,Wa
Joined: 12-04-2006


Message 47 of 372 (411303)
07-19-2007 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by anglagard
07-19-2007 10:49 PM


Re: Please Explain the Following Evidence From Geology
At least try to use your own words, instead of using some one elses ideas. All of what you said was copied.. http://www.sportsline.com/mcc/messages/chrono/2824471/0/0/3019193#ID3019193
This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by anglagard, posted 07-19-2007 10:49 PM anglagard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Adminnemooseus, posted 07-19-2007 11:44 PM Repzion has not yet responded
 Message 49 by Iname, posted 07-19-2007 11:53 PM Repzion has not yet responded
 Message 50 by Percy, posted 07-20-2007 6:50 AM Repzion has not yet responded
 Message 52 by molbiogirl, posted 07-20-2007 11:02 AM Repzion has responded
 Message 60 by dwise1, posted 07-20-2007 4:34 PM Repzion has not yet responded
 Message 62 by bluegenes, posted 07-20-2007 4:50 PM Repzion has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3497
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 48 of 372 (411304)
07-19-2007 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Repzion
07-19-2007 11:25 PM


Anglagard is quoting himself from another evcforum.net topic
At least try to use your own words, instead of using some one elses ideas. All of what you said was copied.. http://www.sportsline.com/mcc/messages/chrono/...

From the place you cited:

quote:
For those of you who are interested, a member of the Evolution v Creation forum, the link I posted on my previous post, has already begun to answer the 100 points CHER listed. The 100 point to refute the flood came from the other forum from a member named angalgard and the responded is Someone Who Cares. If you are interested in following the debate between these two people, use my link to read both sides. The thread there has been restricted to just these two members of but you can still read it.

Normally you might have had a point. But in this case your cite contains a message quoted from an earlier post at an earlier topic posting by Anglagard.

See 100 Categories of Evidence Against Noah’s Flood - S1WC and anglagard ONLY. Note that that is a "Great Debate", for two participants only. Do not post to that topic.

Adminnemooseus

Edited by Admin, : Shorten link.


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, Assistance w/ Forum Formatting, Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics, Official Invitations to Online Chat@EvC

Admin writes:

It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.

There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.

Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Repzion, posted 07-19-2007 11:25 PM Repzion has not yet responded

  
Iname
Junior Member (Idle past 165 days)
Posts: 28
Joined: 06-08-2006


Message 49 of 372 (411306)
07-19-2007 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Repzion
07-19-2007 11:25 PM


Re: Please Explain the Following Evidence From Geology
[/lurk]

Uh oh Anglagard, he got you there. Or at least he would have had you not posted the same list here...

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=8&t=160&m=1 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=8&t=160&m=1">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=8&t=160&m=1\

...over a month before that was posted on the CBS board. You should go complain to CHER for stealing your post. ;)

[lurk]

ABE:Stupid slow computer, causing me to post after moose.

Edited by Iname, : No reason given.

Edited by Iname, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Repzion, posted 07-19-2007 11:25 PM Repzion has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 12821
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 50 of 372 (411335)
07-20-2007 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Repzion
07-19-2007 11:25 PM


Re: Please Explain the Following Evidence From Geology
Hi Repzion,

As you're now aware, Anglagard is the original author of that list. For others reading this and in fairness to you I want to point out that a simple Google search only lists a single site, the CBS Sportsline site, and that it doesn't list any hits at EvC Forum where Anglagard originally posted his list. All it does is include text at the bottom of the page saying, "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 1 already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included." If you click on the provided link you'll see the hits at EvC Forum.

I don't believe it's fair to ask you to respond to a list of this length that was the result of a lengthy effort for another thread, so I suggest you don't even try, though you certainly can if that's what you'd like to do. It would be more reasonable if Anglagard were to select one or a few arguments that he feels argue most strongly against a worldwide flood, and then you can respond to those.

What science has shown is that knowledge of the natural world is most successfully gained by actual study of the natural world, and not from books written by people who conducted no such studies, books that are almost completely silent on such matters anyway. In order to participate successfully in this thread it will be necessary for you to begin to familiarize yourself with some of the actual evidence from the natural world.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Repzion, posted 07-19-2007 11:25 PM Repzion has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 592 days)
Posts: 2962
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 51 of 372 (411339)
07-20-2007 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Repzion
07-18-2007 2:59 PM


"naturally"
Didn't see this the first time though, but I think it requires special attention.

Naturally, the only true flood account is recorded in the Bible.

Why would the account in the Bible be "naturally, the only true flood account"?

I know you BELIEVE it is, but do you have any reason other than your personal belief that indicates taht the Biblical account of the Flood is any more accurate than, say, the Babylonia account which predates it? Or for that matter the Navajo account which has virtually nothing in common with it.

Upon what basis do you determine that this on particular myth or more likely to be accurate than any of the other myths you've cited?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Repzion, posted 07-18-2007 2:59 PM Repzion has not yet responded

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 460 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 52 of 372 (411370)
07-20-2007 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Repzion
07-19-2007 11:25 PM


Re: Please Explain the Following Evidence From Geology
I get the distinct feeling a fifteen year old who has thus far spouted AIG verbatim won't respond to this list.
So I'd like to offer a suggestion.

Pick one item on the list, Rep. Just one! And offer some evidence in rebuttal.

Keep in mind, however, that we here at EvC are hep to AIG. And many here at EvC have been down the teen-and-AIG road oh so many times before.

So. Just pick one item and stick with it.

And here's another thought! See if you can find your evidence in a scientific journal. Any journal! Just so long as it's peer reviewed.

Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Repzion, posted 07-19-2007 11:25 PM Repzion has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Repzion, posted 05-28-2009 5:41 PM molbiogirl has not yet responded

Repzion
Member (Idle past 1698 days)
Posts: 22
From: Renton,Wa
Joined: 12-04-2006


Message 53 of 372 (411400)
07-20-2007 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by anglagard
07-19-2007 10:49 PM


Re: Please Explain the Following Evidence From Geology
"River meanders – River meanders incised in rock can only be caused by gradual uplift" Can only??? Lets see here. Lets looks at Palouse Falls. Here is a link of what it looks like. Theres lots more if you look them up on google.

http://perljam.net/motorcycle/cts2006/med/palouse-falls-pano-2-cropped.jpg

http://www.alanbauer.com/images/Desert/Palouse...

http://www.nwcreation.net/articles/images/evidenceoftheflood/...

Palouse Falls. If you go and turn east onto Highway 26 at Washtucna, you would soon be driving alongside the Palouse River. The Palouse River flows out of Idaho, passes through the towns of Palouse and Colfax, and meanders through the Palouse Hills. It forms a part of the border between Whitman and Adams Counties. Then, about 3½ miles east of Washtucna, at the very eastern border of Franklin County, this lazy, meandering river makes a sharp turn southward and flows in a straight line over rapids and falls for four miles. Then it makes a 185-foot plunge over Palouse Falls.7 Here the basalt walls are vertical cliffs. You can clearly see the various layers of basalt, with their colonnades and entablatures.
When I see a sudden change in the earth's features, I like to ask why. Why did a lazy, meandering river suddenly become a rushing rapids flowing as straight as a stick for four miles? And what made that river suddenly fall 185 feet, then again meander calmly down to the Snake River? ( Doesn't sound like uplift to me, taking billions of year to create such a fascinating site )

The basalt cliffs near Palouse Falls have a curious tendency to make sharp, 90° turns. There is a deep canyon that cuts a perpendicular line across the river gorge just south of the falls. What geologic force has cut those canyons so straight and at such remarkable angles? And straight 4 mile lines?

Erratics. You've all haerd of Basin City right? Well it is built on gravel beds. Some local farmers sometimes find huge boulders in their fields - not just the basalt rock that we would expect in this area, but granite and metamorphic rock as well. These unusual rocks must have come from far away in the mountains. Geologists can trace them to their source in the Okanogan Highlands or even the Rocky Mountains. Since these rocks are out of place here in the Pasco Basin, they are called erratics. How did such large boulders move here from so far away? It doesn't sound like uplift to me.

http://home.rochester.rr.com/srinz/bigrocks.html

Okay, that's all I have so far =) I might be only 15, but I don't give yup that easy

Edited by Repzion, : No reason given.

Edited by Repzion, : No reason given.

Edited by Admin, : Shorten picture links.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by anglagard, posted 07-19-2007 10:49 PM anglagard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by PaulK, posted 07-20-2007 1:31 PM Repzion has not yet responded
 Message 55 by NosyNed, posted 07-20-2007 2:06 PM Repzion has not yet responded
 Message 56 by bdfoster, posted 07-20-2007 2:29 PM Repzion has not yet responded
 Message 57 by Percy, posted 07-20-2007 2:57 PM Repzion has not yet responded
 Message 58 by RAZD, posted 07-20-2007 3:37 PM Repzion has not yet responded
 Message 61 by bluegenes, posted 07-20-2007 4:44 PM Repzion has not yet responded
 Message 68 by iceage, posted 07-20-2007 6:20 PM Repzion has not yet responded
 Message 69 by Nuggin, posted 07-20-2007 6:29 PM Repzion has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 10477
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 54 of 372 (411405)
07-20-2007 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Repzion
07-20-2007 1:20 PM


Re: Please Explain the Following Evidence From Geology
AFAIK erratics are rocks deposited by glaciers during one of the Ice Ages. Why would you think that anybody tried to use uplift to explain them ?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Repzion, posted 07-20-2007 1:20 PM Repzion has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8561
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 55 of 372 (411411)
07-20-2007 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Repzion
07-20-2007 1:20 PM


Meanders
You were asked to explain the flood formation of the meanders.

When I see a sudden change in the earth's features, I like to ask why. Why did a lazy, meandering river suddenly become a rushing rapids flowing as straight as a stick for four miles? And what made that river suddenly fall 185 feet, then again meander calmly down to the Snake River? ( Doesn't sound like uplift to me, taking billions of year to create such a fascinating site )

I don't see any such explanation in that paragraph. Did I miss it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Repzion, posted 07-20-2007 1:20 PM Repzion has not yet responded

bdfoster
Member (Idle past 1159 days)
Posts: 60
From: Riverside, CA
Joined: 05-09-2007


Message 56 of 372 (411419)
07-20-2007 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Repzion
07-20-2007 1:20 PM


Re: Please Explain the Following Evidence From Geology
You've just described how the Palouse Falls are not an example of incised meanders. It's an example of a young basalt flow disrupting previously incised meanders. You say that a lazy meandering river suddenly become a rushing rapids flowing as straight as a stick for four miles. What am I missing here? Even if you had any temporal constraints on when or how quickly the straight as a stick canyon was formed, it can't even remotely be considered a meander, incised or otherwiwse. You say the basalt cliffs near Palouse Falls have a curious tendency to make sharp, 90° turns. Meanders don't do this. A previously incised river flowing across jointed basalt does. It doesn't matter that it doesn't sound like uplift to you. And I don't think anyone suggests that these features take billions of years to form. In most cases river downcutting is able to keep pace with uplift. That's why incised meanders form. The Grand Canyon is thought to have been carved mostly in the 5 or 6 million years.


Brent
This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Repzion, posted 07-20-2007 1:20 PM Repzion has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 12821
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 57 of 372 (411424)
07-20-2007 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Repzion
07-20-2007 1:20 PM


Re: Please Explain the Following Evidence From Geology
Hi Repzion,

Wow! You provided one of the most spectacular examples of uplift, downcutting and slope retreat I've ever seen, even better than the Grand Canyon! Just look at this picture you provided:


Click to enlarge

You can see there were several periods of uplift, each indicated by the successive vertical portions of the canyon walls.

The Palouse River was never as wide as the top of the canyon. Once a river has cut down through rock the sides experience slope retreat through erosive forces. The rock on the sides of canyon gradually erodes and flakes away into the water and is carried downstream. You can see the larger products of this slope retreat very near the center of the picture. The very large piles of charcoal-colored material contain the larger pieces eroded from the above rocks. Eroding this much material takes a very long time, I'd venture a guess of around a million years at least.

Even if the river initially cuts only a narrow channel, probably about as wide as the river is now, the sides of that channel experience slope retreat and become further and further apart. The sides of the channel exposed first will retreat the furthest, which is precisely what we see in the picture

A single immense erosive event such as a gigantic flow of water would not cut in this tiered way but would quickly cut straight down, and if only 6000 years ago the slopes would have had barely any time to retreat. Plus such a flow would be far too violent to meander.

Also, a mammoth flood that submerged the globe would not cause catastrophic water flows. During massive floods rivers overflow their banks to gradually and relatively peacefully cover the surrounding landscape, and the flood waters recede just as gradually. With rain all over the globe and waters bursting from the deep, water levels would have gradually risen everywhere. There wouldn't have been dam-burst type events in the case of the Biblical flood.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Repzion, posted 07-20-2007 1:20 PM Repzion has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by edge, posted 07-20-2007 4:29 PM Percy has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15460
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 58 of 372 (411432)
07-20-2007 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Repzion
07-20-2007 1:20 PM


Re: Please Explain the Following Evidence From Geology
When I see a sudden change in the earth's features, I like to ask why. Why did a lazy, meandering river suddenly become a rushing rapids flowing as straight as a stick for four miles?

Without knowing anything about the area I'd say this feature is either a tectonic fold or a fault line -- ie a ridge formed by the underlying rock buckling under stress. It seems the area has had a lot of tectonic activity in the past:

http://www.whitman.edu/geology/LocalGeo.html

quote:
The north-south oriented compressional stress regime of south-central Washington has existed from the Miocene to present. Some anticlines in the Yakima fold belt have developed as much as 1000 m of structural relief in the past 10 m.y. (Reidel et al., 1992).

(that's uplift to you) and further

quote:
The major tectonic element in southeastern Washington is the northwest-trending Olympic-Wallowa lineament (OWL). It is in part a strike-slip fault, and is aligned with many of the anticlines of the Yakima fold belt (Tolan and Reidel, 1989). ...
The Hite fault intersects the Olympic-Wallowa lineament at approximately a right angle 35 km southeast of Walla Walla. This northeasterly-striking fault disappears near Lower Granite Dam on the Snake River (Tolan and Reidel, 1989).

These major fault lines bracket the area of Palouse Falls and there would likely be other smaller fault lines in the area.

And what made that river suddenly fall 185 feet, then again meander calmly down to the Snake River?

Easy: this is due to erosion of the volcanic basalt progressively further upstream over time. The basalt cap is hard compared to rock below thus the erosion makes a falls instead of a valley -- similar to Niagara Falls.

See Earth Science World Image Bank for a picture of the falls.

Looking for more information on this formation I find
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palouse_Falls_State_Park

quote:
The ancesteral Palouse river flowed through the currently dry Washtucna Coulee to the Columbia River The Palouse Falls and surrounding canyons were created when the Missoula Floods overtopped the south valley wall of the ancesteral Palouse River, diverting it to the current course to the Snake River by erosion of a new channel.[1][4]

Looking at GOOGLE MAPS (Palouse Falls, WA) you can see the "currently dry Washtucna Coulee" in direct line with the river before the diversion.

With folds in the underlying rock caused by the above tectonic stress, and these fold valleys being filled with debris from glaciers or other deposition until the "Missoula Floods overtopped the south valley wall" the erosion would quickly remove the overlying material until it came to the rock below, following the fold line until it reached the next discontinuity.

This took me about 5 minutes to look up. We also have some actual geologists around that can probably give you a better explanation, but suffice it to say there is nothing here that is not ordinary to geology. Another alternative for you is to contact your local college geology department and see what they have to say: that is how you learn things.

The real questions though, are how do YOU explain it with "flood geology"? How do you explain the OLD river bed that is now dry? How do you explain the erosion of the basalt by water in a short period of time if it was laid down by volcanic activity - whether it was formed before, during or after the flood (this is hardened magma ... rock, not soil)?

Enjoy.

ps -- type "[qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs]" and it becomes:

quote boxes are easy

It's not rocket science.

Edited by RAZD, : english


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Repzion, posted 07-20-2007 1:20 PM Repzion has not yet responded

edge
Member
Posts: 2014
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 59 of 372 (411434)
07-20-2007 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Percy
07-20-2007 2:57 PM


Re: Please Explain the Following Evidence From Geology
A single immense erosive event such as a gigantic flow of water would not cut in this tiered way but would quickly cut straight down, and if only 6000 years ago the slopes would have had barely any time to retreat. Plus such a flow would be far too violent to meander.

I find no evidence of mulitple uplifts of the CRBs. The stair-stepped topography in this picture looks more like successive lava flows; with interflow deposits being the ledge-formers and flows being the cliff-formers.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Percy, posted 07-20-2007 2:57 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Percy, posted 07-20-2007 5:37 PM edge has not yet responded

dwise1
Member
Posts: 2049
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 60 of 372 (411438)
07-20-2007 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Repzion
07-19-2007 11:25 PM


Re: Please Explain the Following Evidence From Geology
As has already been explained to you, anglagard was the source of that list and hence those are his words. However, even if those were not his own words [grammatical note: subjunctive used to express a contrary-to-fact condition], those are still geological facts that a serious defender of Flood Geology would need to address. In other words, your objection -- even if it were valid [note subjunctive mood again] -- would still have afforded you no excuse from addressing the evidence.

I wish to introduce you to the web site of Glenn R. Morton at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm, a practicing petroleum geologist who has participated on this forum. He was a young-earth creationist and his original geology training was purely Flood Geology and he published more than 20 articles on Flood Geology in creationist journals. The rest of his geology training was on-the-job working directly and hands-on with the actual geological evidence, which is where he ran into trouble. Because every day, day after day, he kept running straight into rock-hard geological evidence that Flood Geology had taught him didn't exist and couldn't exist if Scripture were to have any meaning. He also hired other ICR-trained Flood geologists and they all encountered the same things that he was.

I first heard of him in a 1986 article reporting about the First International Conference on Creationism where he presented the first paper. In that paper, he presented the geological evidence that he had encountered with contradicted Flood Geology. He also reported that all the YEC geologists working with him suffered severe crises of faith because what they had been taught to belief (ie, Flood Geology) contradicted the actual facts. This was my first realization that creation science wasn't just completely and utter false and damaging to science education, but it also poses a grave danger to the faith of its followers.

What I didn't learn until much later was that after that conference Glenn himself was driven to the verge of atheism by Flood Geology. He was able to avert that consequence by arriving at a scientifically accurate way to harmonize the Bible with geology. Though he has emerged from the entire process as a strong opponent of creation science. During the time he was struggling with his own crisis of faith, he contacted all the other YEC geologists who had gone through that with him and asked them if there, of all Flood Geology's objections to conventional geology, where was at least a single one which turned out to be true. None of them could come up with one.

Glenn's site offers several articles describing the geological evidence. He also carries several testimonials written by himself and by others who had gone through the same thing. You can get to the index list of those articles, "Personal Stories of Creation/Evolution", at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm#_kmacleod. His own personal testimonials are:

"Why I left Young-earth Creationism" at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm

"The Transformation of a Young-earth Creationist" at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/transform.htm

Basically, my personal view is that "creation science" is false and full of deceptions. I have read and heard the testimonials of many ex-Christian atheists and one of the main reasons for their deconversions was the discovery that their religion and religious leaders had lied to them. Therefore, with religious leaders using "creation science", we have a case of entire denominations lying to their members. In reading the testimonials of ex-YECs (young-earth creationists) I have noted that their deconversion from YECism usually happened when they started to learn the truth about evolution and about science -- in Glenn's case, it was learning the truth about geology.

It is also my personal view that the fault lies in a particular theology that requires belief in statements about the physical world that are simply contrary-to-fact. The fault does not lie in religion itself nor in Christianity itself nor in science itself, but rather in that false theology that promotes the telling of lies and deceptions in order to serve the God of Truth. Let's face it, does God need to be served by lies? What does the Bible have to say about that? Does the Bible identify any Christian deity who is served by lies and deception?

In short, if your theology turns out to be wrong, then don't just become an atheist, even though that's what your theology teaches that you must do. If your Man-made theology turns out to be wrong, then correct it. Or at least seek a theology which is truthful.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Repzion, posted 07-19-2007 11:25 PM Repzion has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
56
...
25NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014