|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Flood Geology: A Thread For Portillo | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I should like this thread to be devoted to Portillo's explanations of "flood geology" and answers to his claims. He seems to want to talk about it, but what he says it clearly off-topic on the thread he started about Australian marsupials.
Therefore, if the moderators are in agreement, I suggest that we have at least one wide-ranging, broadly-focused topic about flood geology in general and why the rest of us think it's wrong. As there is meant to be a specific question to every topic, I would suggest this. Would Portillo, or any other "flood geologist" around here explain the principles of "flood geology" and why they think these principles are right? As the proposer of a topic is meant to state his or own position, I shall state my own ideas: "flood geology" is a farce. I should add that Portillo is one of the better sort of creationist, and that so long as he himself remains civil he deserves a civil debate in return. We don't have to be nice about his views, but while his own hands are clean of personal attacks, none should be made on him, and I would like the moderators to take notice of this stipulation.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
OK.
So this is pretty much up to Portillo. What are his principles, and why should we believe them? And I would like to ask that no-one else should jump in until he's had a chance to set out his own position.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I can forgive your bad English, but not make sense of it. Some of the subtleties of your argument must have passed me by, such as what it is.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Flood geology is the attempt to reconcile the observable geological data with the historical evidence for a flood provided by the bible. Flood geology is an alternative interpretation of the observable data ... I would object to that characterization. Flood geology usually ignores a lot of the observable data and makes stuff up to boot. You should rather say: "the attempt to reconcile all the observable or made-up geological data that they think they can reconcile". Look at Portillo's stuff on the other thread. Despite being corrected numerous times and shown actual photographs of fossils, he still goes on talking as though it is usual for fossils to be found intact, perfectly preserved, unaffected by decay and scavengers. Elsewhere he has insisted that decay has destroyed all the skeletons in modern-era shipwrecks, and that similarly decay has ensured that there are no surviving bones of the buffalo herds wiped out in the 1800s, and that "in Siberia there are 5 million woolly mammaths frozen". His data is almost monotonously contrary to observation. Meanwhile, they're barely tackling the hard stuff. A lot of the observable data is barely mentioned, they haven't tried to synthesize it into their point of view. They are producing acolytes, not a theory, so they don't systematically go through the phenomena of geology and try to explain them in terms of their hypothesis.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Yeah, OK, I agree that they're pretending to interpret the geological record in terms of the flood.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 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?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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. No.
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? What's principally wrong with it is that you made it up. You seem to be supposing that the uplift was the cause of the regressions. It wasn't. Again, the problem is with your interpretation, which is stupid, rather than that of scientists, which isn't. Look, here's what geologists think happened.
Got that?
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 ... Again, let us point out that it may have removed many such layers. It is only in the fantasy world in your head that it didn't.
Otherwise irregular and selective erosion would make intermittent layer. Oh, I see where you're going wrong. It is not the case that all the layers are coextensive with the basin. Some of them are. Some of them aren't. See, I said this was the problem with flood geologists. You don't even know what the data are that you should be trying to explain. Now, let me explain something to you. Your inability to explain data you don't know about in terms of a theory you don't understand is not a weakness in that theory. It's a weakness in your knowledge and understanding. And your character.
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). That could have made more sense. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The Everglades is approximately 40,000 square kilometers, but the Donets Basin was not necessarily all swamp at the same time. I believe (though the key does not say so explicitly) that in the diagram I supplied in my previous post the extent of the each black line representing coal indicates how much of the basin is taken up by the coal layer. If so, then it was sometimes entirely covered by peat swamps; but often it wasn't. A dotted black line presumably indicates that the coal layer, though synchronous, was not continuous.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I poked around a bit looking for a website where Serg-antr might have picked up his ideas about the Donets Basin but came up dry. Well, I guess it's written in Ukrainian. The Ukrainian for Donetsk Basin is Донецький басейн, so we could probably locate the website if we also knew the Ukrainian for "why are there still monkeys?" Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
This is a stratigraphic column, but we are discussing about the history of the area. This is not the same thing. It gives a great deal of the history. As understood by geologists, rather than made up in your head. In particular, it marks times of deposition, erosion, and uplift. You can see that geologists think that the uplift occurred after most of the coal measures were deposited in the Carboniferous. You can see that this is different from your interpretation, in which the uplift is responsible for the regressions which caused the peat swamps. That's something you made up, it's not how geologists interpret the stratigraphy.
The cause of the regression can be either uplift of the area, or sinking of sea level. You want to say that the basin was in place, and the sea level fluctuated? These oscillations left their mark on the planet? In America, too? Well, yes. That's why the Carboniferous is called the Carboniferous. Sheesh. Similar cyclothems with coal beds in were being deposited all over the planet at the time when (most of) the Donetsk basin coal beds were being deposited.
Erosion has left a broken relief, continental accumulation would leave a continental deposits - both of them are not. Your meaning escapes me. Try again.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It is not, you're probably wrong. Books (at least in Russian) say nothing of the frequent fluctuations in sea level in the Carboniferous, the accumulation of peat they associate with epeirogenic earth movements. I have not read these books in Russian of which you speak (have you?) However, I can read English, for example this website of the University of California Museum of Paleontology. It clearly states:
The North American Pennsylvanian environment was alternately terrestrial and marine, with the transgression and regression of the seas caused by glaciation. [...] Glacial periods result in lowered ocean levels, while interglacial periods result in a rise in ocean levels, covering the continental shelf with shallow seas. (Note that the "Pennsylvanian" is what Americans call the first half of the Carboniferous Period.) Now although they are talking about North American rocks in particular, the mechanism to which they attribute them would clearly be global, since it involves global changes in sea-level; hence it would explain all the characteristic cyclothems of the Carboniferous, including those of Donetsk. This is clearly the case, for, as I say, the production of coal-bearing cyclothems was worldwide during the Carboniferous. Now, this can be explained by changes in the global climate causing changes in the global sea-level. But by your daft interpretation, this would have to involve coincidental localized epeirogenic earth movements all over the globe as separate bits of the planet somehow decided to bounce up and down in synchrony. This would also (if any answer is needed) answer your point about erosion. There wouldn't need to be any erosion of the Donesk Basin in the Carboniferous, because there wouldn't need to be any uplift of the Donesk Basin during the Carboniferous. Just transgressions and regressions caused by melting and glaciation, the same as was happening everywhere else in the world at that time.
What is "Sheesh" A sort of audible sigh. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
If the layers of the Carboniferous have been deposited on account of fluctuations in the level of the sea, they correlate with the all world. No, think about this. Remember that those places would not all be exactly at the same level. One of them could perfectly well be underwater while the other was dry land. What changes is the sea level, in each particular place the depth to which it was submerged (or wasn't) would be a function of that (and of local subsidence and uplift, if any). And even when two of them are both below (or above) sea-level, the nature of the sediment would depend on local factors, there's no reason why you shouldn't have limestone in one place but shale in another, or peat swamps in one place and a river delta in the other. So we wouldn't expect the stratigraphy to look the same in two different places. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024