|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,927 Year: 4,184/9,624 Month: 1,055/974 Week: 14/368 Day: 14/11 Hour: 2/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The Flood = many coincidences | |||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1020 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
Peg observation:
1. Fish fossils found in marine-derived sedimentary rocks on top of mountains is not strange at all and is not BEST explained by a flood covering the mountains. First of all, the fossils are contained IN the rock. They are part of the rock and as you go deeper into the stratigraphic layers, the fossils change systematically. Not only that, but the rocks and fossils also change systematically as you move laterally along the layers. This pattern of fossils is seen in individual mountains, mountain ranges, and you can see the same patterns on separate continents. The reason rocks and fossils change with stratigraphic height/depth, as well as laterally, is because of changing depositional environments. If you imagine yourself at a beach, what are the possible depositional environments you can see from that vantage point? You have a beach deposit where you are standing, where the sand is dense and gets wet as the tide moves in. In wet sand, what do you see? Footprints, some shells, vegetation, and clams if you dig down, maybe some crab debris. If you look into the ocean, the water gets deeper. You get fish, shellfish, carbonate minerals settling out of the water forming limestone, and reef systems. Even deeper out, you start getting clay settling out of the water because the water is too cold and dark to precipitate carbonate so you get shale. Different types of animals live in the deep ocean. Even deeper you may get siliceous ooze precipitating out on the seabed and again different types of sea life. Looking towards land, you might see dune fields, with scorpians, lizards, shrubs, etc. Even further out see alluvial fans, braided stream environments, mountain ranges, valleys. All with different rocks and animal life and vegetation. All these sediments, animals, and vegetation leave evidence of their existence in the rocks. This is why we know a great flood is NOT responsible for the rocks and fossils we see today.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1020 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
Peg observation:
4. Sea mounts. I would add that, yes, the world has been flooded. Much of the ice that comprised alpine and continental glaciers -- for which we have abundant evidence -- melted. Glaciers are still melting and sea levels are still rising and sea mounts are getting deeper and deeper. However, we do not require a 4,000 to 10,000 (or ?) year old flood to explain why sea mounts are under water or why islands and continental coasts are currently facing future inundation. The explanation may be quite simple: wave erosion and climate. Peg, for you the flood is plausible because you see the geological evidence around you as individual pieces of a puzzle. As isolated rock formations. What you need to understand is that all the rocks or formations around you represent ancient geologic events and processes that cannot have formed in the absence of the surrounding rock formations (i.e., events and processes). Therefore, you cannot consider the formation of the sea mounts, or extinction events, or fossils in rocks on mountain tops, etc. without considering what the rocks look like on the other side of the valley, or on the marine floor, or on the adjacent continent. Once you start looking at how the rocks all intimately fit together over square miles, over hundreds of square miles, and from one continent to another, then you will realize that a global flood is a wholly inadequate model that consistently fails to explain the beautifully intricate and integrated geological puzzle before us. If you are interested in learning why geologists have made the interpretations they have, pick up a book on historical geology. That's an excellent place to start.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1020 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
Hear, hear!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1020 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
Wow. I am at a loss for words.
Have you ever picked up a geology book and taken the time to actually read about the science you so gleefully distort and misrepresent? The subjects of your last post are things I learned about during my first year of study at the university and that was nearly 20 years ago. Maybe it's time to start a thread on architecture and see how you like it...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1020 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
Where are the ones in the Tyrrhenian Sea?
Vesuvius is the result of continent-continent collision between African and Eurasian plates. The African plate is subducted beneath the Eurasian plate and formed the volcanoes on the western shores of Italy and also east through Greece and Turkey.
Same with the Cascades, ...
Cascadia Subduction Zone.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1020 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
Not all plates subduct at the same angle and subducting plate dynamics are very complicated.
Near the subduction zones, newly subducted slab angles tend to be fairly high -- forming volcanoes closer to the subduction zone. But the deeper the plate goes, the warmer it gets, so it's likely the slab will become somewhat buoyant and the angle will become shallower -- forming volcanoes further away from the subduction zone. Crust type and composition strongly affects how a subducted slab will behave. Some geos even think you can subduct a spreading center! How about that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1020 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
I could go on and on citing examples such as these in earth science and geology literature.
They are examples of what exactly?
Please, by all means.keep up the good work science.so people like me who have to deal with reality can continue to laugh across the cosmos! Science evidently does not deal with reality, but would rather dwell in never-never land of a ridiculous theory that is supposed to be based on movement, but has no movementand this is science.
You are either a POE or certifiably delusional. Plate movement is measured on a daily basis. Or is there a world-wide conspiracy to blame?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1020 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
He doesn't have to construct a model because there is apparently no data and no geological evidence to model... other than that observable when one sports his/her god-goggles, that is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1020 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
Failing to address known problems with the plate tectonic theory,...
Now the plate tectonic theory MUST work, or else the entire scientific community will end up with a giant white elephant on their hands; they ran too far with the theory while problems with it compounded. Therefore the only solution will be to dispose of it and reap the embarrassment.
It certainly does work. If it did not, we wouldn't be using it on a daily basis. I'm insulted at the implication that geologists are incompetent nincompoops who couldn't find their way out of a paper bag. There are many questions regarding how PTT works. The fact that we don't understand it entirely is no reason to scrap it. If we applied your logic to Creationist theory, where would it stand?
Yet another example of this careless plate tectonic dogma, from none other than the National Geographic Society:
Please explain your issues with the above quotations.
The oldest rocks in the ocean date back only 200 million years, quite young for a planet thought to be about 4.5 billion years old. New crust constantly rises to the ocean surface along the mid-ocean ridge system, a giant underwater mountain range that snakes through the oceans like the stitching on a baseball. The birth of new crust pushes apart pieces of Earth's crust, called plates.Science Dang-it! Another example of this repeated lack of any standard of care: The ocean basins are underlain by crust that is nowhere older than about 180 million years. A significant proportion of the currently exposed continents is more than 1 billion years old, and the oldest continental materials date back to more than 4 billion years.Edmond A. Mathez and James D. Webster, The Earth Machine, The Science of a Dynamic Planet, Columbia University Press, New York 2004 I don’t argue movement Rox. Soils move, rocks move, buildings move, everything moves; that is no mystery. However, I believe that the primary movement (historically) on a global scale was vertical, while horizontal movement was secondary. Therefore I concede to Vertical Tectonics.
Please explain.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1020 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
To borrow a few words of another: Nothing in geology makes sense except in the light of chemistry.
My job entails attempting to unravel the mysteries of why and how ore deposits form and this would be impossible without a good understanding of chemistry. I use chemistry every single day as a geologist.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024