|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Flood Geology: A Thread For Portillo | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Dr Adequate writes: Yeah, OK, I agree that they're pretending to interpret the geological record in terms of the flood. Pretending implies that they're aware of the proper way to interpret the geological evidence. They're actually only aware of what we claim are proper approaches, but they sincerely believe that we're wrong. The way you're looking at this is sort of analogous to the way Christians look at atheists: they believe atheists understand that there really is a God and are just looking for excuses to ignore him. In the same way, you seem to believe that creationists know how to properly interpret the evidence, they're just looking for excuses to ignore it. But just as atheists really and truly don't believe God exists, creationists really and truly do believe they're interpreting the evidence properly. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The way you're looking at this is sort of analogous to the way Christians look at atheists: they believe atheists understand that there really is a God and are just looking for excuses to ignore him. In the same way, you seem to believe that creationists know how to properly interpret the evidence, they're just looking for excuses to ignore it. No, not at all. Their biggest problem is that they don't know what the evidence looks like that they're meant to be interpreting. So their "interpretations" are on a par with: "Given the data that pigs fly, the most sensible interpretation is that they have wings." As to their honesty, I make no claims; I merely point out that they say they're offering an alternate interpretation of the data when this is not in fact what they're doing. Personally I have always inclined to believe that they are deluded rather than deceptive, my argument being: if they can fool others, why not suppose that they have also fooled themselves?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Serg-antr Junior Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 23 From: Ukraine Joined: |
"So their "interpretations" are on a par with: "Given the data that pigs fly, the most sensible interpretation is that they have wings.""
Hmm.Let's look at an example of a normal coal basin - Donetsk in Ukraine. It has an area of 60 thousand square km. Carboniferous age rocks are limestone, shale and coal. Thickness coal seams has mainly from a few centimeters to one meter, almost all saems are sustained throughout the basin, the number of layers are 310. Traditional geology explains the formation of the coal-bearing strata dip and uplifting territory and the formation of coal - the accumulation of peat in the coastal plain. Now, look: if coal was formed from peat bog, this swamp was an ideally flat surface area of 60 thousand square km. Where have you seen in the modern Earth a swamp area with a perfectly flat surface (otherwise, cannot formed a layer of coal with thickness a few centimeters)? Furthermore, immersion basin at different depths accumulated sea rocks - limestone and shale. But the basin was exactly uplifting to the height of the coastal wetlands (up to a few tens of centimeters), not more, otherwise the thin coal layers was washed away to the land. And these super accurate uplifting was 310 during the Carboniferous period. Do not you think that such "interpretations" (also) are on a par with: "Given the data that pigs fly, the most sensible interpretation is that they have wings."? Sorry for my bad English. Edited by Serg-antr, : No reason given. Edited by Serg-antr, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Now, look: if coal was formed from peat bog, this swamp was an ideally flat surface area of 60 thousand square km. Where have you seen in the modern Earth a swamp area with a perfectly flat surface (otherwise, cannot formed a layer of coal with thickness a few centimeters)? But that is your interpretation, not that of geologists. They don't say that it was "an ideally flat surface". You do.
Furthermore, immersion basin at different depths accumulated sea rocks - limestone and shale. But the basin was exactly uplifting to the height of the coastal wetlands (up to a few tens of centimeters), not more, otherwise the thin carbon layer was washed away to the land. Again, that's your interpretation. This is why you're not quoting a geologist saying that. I've been looking at what geologists do say about the basin. They say that when the basin was uplifted, erosion did take place. You apparently say that the uplift must have been fine-tuned so that erosion did not take place. You do not say how you came to this conclusion, but however you came to it, it's yours.
Do not you think that such "interpretations" (also) are on a par with: "Given the data that pigs fly, the most sensible interpretation is that they have wings."? I think they very well might be. But they are your interpretations. And you're welcome to them. And if these are the principles of flood geology, which is what the thread is meant to be about, you're welcome to those, too. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
My argument is that your words about farce are not substantiated. We do not know what processes are formed by sedimentary rocks, we judge of it only by analogy to modern processes, and they can be very different from those that were in the Earth's history. Therefore the claim that flood geology is a farce at least has no reason. My approach to this question is slightly different than most. Instead of arguing back and forth about this sediment or that, I prefer to get to the meat of the issue. There is simply no evidence that can falsify the YEC flood models. The evidence doesn't matter when talking to someone who supports the flood model. Their mind was already made up BEFORE they saw the evidence. How do I know this? All you need to do is ask a very simple question: What features must a geologic formation have in order to falsify a recent globa flood? I have yet to find a YEC who can answer this, and that is why YEC flood models are a farce. They are unfalsifiable. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hi Taq,
To put a finer point on it, you're saying that they've put themselves between a rock ("There's no evidence against Noah's flood") and a hard place ("Falsifying evidence against Noah's flood would be...oh, wait, they've already found that, let me think some more..."). --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Serg-antr Junior Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 23 From: Ukraine Joined: |
"But that is your interpretation, not that of geologists. They don't say that it was "an ideally flat surface". You do."
And how do they explain the formation of sustained throughout the basin coal layers several inches thick? I have not found. "I've been looking at what geologists do say about the basin. They say that when the basin was uplifted, erosion did take place." Erosion did taken place, but it is not completely washed away a thin layer of coal. Perhaps a few exceptions, but generally so. This is a fact. Mean erosion was very weak, so the uplift was almost exactly to the height of the coastal plain. Otherwise how to explain the same sustained of thin layers of coal throughout the basin? "And if these are the principles of flood geology, which is whatthe thread is meant to be about, you're welcome to those, too." A flood just these problems are easy to solve. How to make this a quote? Edited by Adminnemooseus, : NOTE - Private message sent to try to give quoting help - Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Serg-antr Junior Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 23 From: Ukraine Joined: |
"My approach to this question is slightly different than most. Instead of arguing back and forth about this sediment or that, I prefer to get to the meat of the issue. There is simply no evidence that can falsify the YEC flood models. The evidence doesn't matter when talking to someone who supports the flood model. Their mind was already made up BEFORE they saw the evidence.
How do I know this? All you need to do is ask a very simple question: What features must a geologic formation have in order to falsify a recent globa flood? I have yet to find a YEC who can answer this, and that is why YEC flood models are a farce. They are unfalsifiable." I do not like an ideological disputes. I want to understand the facts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
And how do they explain the formation of sustained throughout the basin coal layers several inches thick? I have not found. Big peat swamps. Note that this does not involve your fantasy of an "ideally flat surface". Do any of the coal beds, in fact, have a base which is an "ideally flat surface"? Show me.
Erosion did taken place, but it is not completely washed away a thin layer of coal. What makes you say that? For all you know it may have washed away many beds of coal, unless you have magic powers of seeing things that aren't there.
Mean erosion was very weak, so the uplift was almost exactly to the height of the coastal plain. Otherwise how to explain the same sustained of thin layers of coal throughout the basin? It is hard to know what you think you're talking about. What do you think the rate of uplift has to do with the thickness or the extent of the coal beds?
A flood just these problems are easy to solve. There are apparently no problems for real geology. How flood geology would explain anything about this basin you have not as yet ventured to suggest. Perhaps we could hear some teensy-tiny bit of a scrap of a shred of a scintilla of something about frickin' flood geology, which is the subject of this thread? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Dr,
Dr Adequate writes: As to their honesty, I make no claims; I merely point out that they say they're offering an alternate interpretation of the data when this is not in fact what they're doing. Personally I have always inclined to believe that they are deluded rather than deceptive, my argument being: if they can fool others, why not suppose that they have also fooled themselves? They actually believe what they preach. Most have been deluded by a few people that have made a fortune selling their beliefs to the masses. All the things of the flood mentioned here is held by YEC'S which make up a small portion of people who believe in the Biblical flood of Noah. They are a very vocal group about their beliefs. They have no Biblical scripture to support the catastrophic events they say took place during the flood. Zero text. The Bible says the entire land mass was covered by at least 15 cubits of water. The Bible says it rained for 40 days and 40 nights and the fountains (springs) of the deep were opened up. The Bible in the flood story does not say anything about catastrophic techtronic plate movement. or volcanic eruptions. If those are the things you guys want to argue against you need to find YEC creationist to argue with. Since they are saying they are arguing what the Bible says I simply ask for the scripture that supports their assertions that those catastrophic events took place. To sum up they are arguing that the Bible says something that is not in the Bible. My question to you and anyone else here that cares to answer is: Is there any known land mass that is visible today that has not been covered with water at sometime in it's past? God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Drosophilla Member (Idle past 3669 days) Posts: 172 From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK Joined:
|
My question to you and anyone else here that cares to answer is: Is there any known land mass that is visible today that has not been covered with water at sometime in it's past? And my reply to you is: Is there any known land mass that is visible today that has not had the sun shine on it sometime in it's past? (clearly not). Does that therefore mean that the sun must have shone over the whole Earth SIMULTANEOUSLY? For that is the nonsense you are trying to put across in your statement above.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hi Serg-antr,
I'm trying to understand your chain of argument. First you ask this rhetorical question:
Serg-antr writes: Where have you seen in the modern Earth a swamp area with a perfectly flat surface (otherwise, cannot formed a layer of coal with thickness a few centimeters)? The best example of a swamp I know of is the Everglades in Florida, and since the surface is mostly water and vegetation it is pretty flat. Here's a picture of a tiny part of it, but I assume it's fairly representative:
Isn't this flat enough for you? If not, how "perfectly flat" do you think you require, and why?
Furthermore, immersion basin at different depths accumulated sea rocks - limestone and shale. But the basin was exactly uplifting to the height of the coastal wetlands (up to a few tens of centimeters), not more, otherwise the thin coal layers was washed away to the land. And these super accurate uplifting was 310 during the Carboniferous period. You're argument isn't clear here, but I'll point out that uplift above surrounding areas will be eroded away, as Dr Adequate already pointed out. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Serg-antr writes: And how do they explain the formation of sustained throughout the basin coal layers several inches thick? I have not found. The accumulated layers of vegetation over many centuries become gradually buried during a period of subsidence. Increasing heat and pressure turned the crushed vegetation to coal. Meanwhile at the new surface more layers of vegetation accumulate, become gradually buried, and turn to coal. Process repeats again and again, thereby explaining the many layers of coal interspersed with other layers. Given the sea sediments there must have been many sea intrusions.
Erosion did taken place, but it is not completely washed away a thin layer of coal. Erosion will differentially slice off (according to resistance to weathering) whatever sticks out above the surrounding landscape, including "a thin layer of coal." Entire mountain ranges have eroded away to become plains. What is it about this "thin layer of coal" that makes you think it would not be completely eroded away?
Mean erosion was very weak,... What makes you say this? Does the Donets Basin have some kind of rare climate free of sun and wind and rain and hot/cold cycles?
...so the uplift was almost exactly to the height of the coastal plain. Erosion evens out a landscape. There was no incredible coincidence of uplift "exactly to the height of the coastal plain."
A flood just these problems are easy to solve. If there are problems you haven't found them yet. How would a flood have formed the coal layers of the Donets Basin. I'm particularly interested in hearing the part about how the flood buried successive layers of vegetation (millions of years worth that would have had to grow and accumulate during the flood) miles deep, crushed and heated it into coal, then returned the layers close enough to the surface to be available for mining.
How to make this a quote? Click on the "peek" button at the bottom of this message and you'll see how quoting is done. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Is there any known land mass that is visible today that has not been covered with water at sometime in it's past? The areas known as shields are by definition exposed basement rock, hence not blanketed by marine sediment at any point in the stratigraphy they don't actually have. But you are asking the wrong question. If you really wanted to know if there was ever a global flood, the question would be: "Is there any evidence that all the land was ever simultaneously covered with water at any time in the past?" The answer is no. Glad I could clear that up for you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Serg-antr Junior Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 23 From: Ukraine Joined: |
Hi Percy.
quote:Perhaps it is enough to form a flat plain seasoned area of the peat, but: 1. Its area is not tens of thousands of square kilometers. 2. Her story does not know 310 uplift and subsidence. Compare the thickness of coal with its area (just imagine), multiply that by 310 and you will be easier to understand what I'm saying. Around the basin changing climate, sea level has fluctuated, were formed and destroyed mountains, volcanoes erupt, and only within the basin cycle 310 times all came back to the permanent swamp area. Is not it obvious that this story is something wrong? quote:This is a fact - thin layers of coal can be traced throughout the basin. It is approved unanimously by all the researchers of basin. If the rate of erosion was not enough to blur a few centimeters (one meter) thick coal, this erosion has been very weak, and hence the uplift was only about to the level of the coastal plain. Otherwise irregular and selective erosion would make intermittent layer. quote:It is not. Take a look at all the relief of the mountains to be sure. Landscape evens out an accumulation, erosion dissects the landscape. quote:Perhaps the coal - sea rock, the area of marine sediment is controlled almost entirely by gravity and the basin area and the basin can be of any size. And millions of years of accumulation of vegetation, you can simply replace the millions of square kilometers of the spread of the vegetation, and then transfer it to the sedimentary basin (possibly influence the flood). Conversion of peat into coal went on heating and compression, but maybe not for millions of years, much faster. Coal is important for the formation of pressure and temperature, time does not matter.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024