|
Author
|
Topic: Flood Geology: A Thread For Portillo
|
Serg-antr
Junior Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 23 From: Ukraine Joined: 05-12-2010
|
|
Message 67 of 503 (674573)
09-30-2012 3:47 PM
|
Reply to: Message 57 by Coyote
09-24-2012 8:40 PM
|
|
Re: What is flood geology?
Why are you still discussing the Carboniferous in relation to the global flood? As I pointed out in Message 42, the Carboniferous ended about 300 million years before modern humans evolved. How can you reconcile an error of that magnitude?
Here's an example of what radioisotope dating can give any result.
: K-Ar According to the results of dating the age of the "young" rocks of crest of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge are 1687 million years.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 57 by Coyote, posted 09-24-2012 8:40 PM | | Coyote has replied |
|
Serg-antr
Junior Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 23 From: Ukraine Joined: 05-12-2010
|
Re: What is flood geology?
But that doesn't say what you think it does. It says that tectonic events caused subsidence in the Carboniferous, not uplift. And then "Subsequent subsidences ended with uplift during the Sakmarian" --- which is in the Permian (which is just where the diagram I showed you puts it). So if they are right, then the Carboniferous deposits are due to repeated episodes of subsidence caused by rifting, not by alternating episodes of uplift and subsidence. I can't comment on stuff written in the Cyrillic alphabet, but the paper in English contradicts rather than supports your claims. The article compares the Moscow and Donets Basin. In the abstract states that the sedimentation at the Moscow basin was controlled by eustatic sea level, and at the Donetsk basin by tectonics. So eustatic fluctuations in the Donets Basin had no effect on the sedimentation. The conclusions about the frequent uplift and subsidence of the Donbas done by changing rocks: limestone - mudstones - coal.
|
Serg-antr
Junior Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 23 From: Ukraine Joined: 05-12-2010
|
|
|
Message 77 of 503 (674666)
10-01-2012 2:08 PM
|
Reply to: Message 73 by Percy
09-30-2012 6:56 PM
|
|
Re: What is flood geology?
What the heck is your problem? Hmm...
I think you're going to have to explain to us in English just what you think each diagram is showing. Would say simply, translate into English inscriptions and signatures please. I thought you ask about this picture that I think about it. I have translated the inscription (see my post with columns). There's 12 columns, inscriptions in order: Western Europe, Moscow, Ulyanovsk (Russia), the Donets Basin, the North Caucasus, Northern Urals, Magnitogorsk (Russia), the Kuznetsk basin (Russia), Texas, Australia (New England), Algeria , Libya. Signature from the first four columns (it applies to the other): Summary stratigraphic section. Symbols see Fig. 8.1 (if necessary, I bring a picture with symbols).
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 73 by Percy, posted 09-30-2012 6:56 PM | | Percy has seen this message but not replied |
|
Serg-antr
Junior Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 23 From: Ukraine Joined: 05-12-2010
|
Re: What is flood geology?
But if they are right, nor did uplift, which happened in the Permian, which is after the Carboniferous. Donets depression depth of about 20 km. It was formed as a result of the subsidence of the basement in the Carboniferous period. In the Permian a subsidence over, began uplift. But amid the general subsidence in the Carboniferous sedimentary rocks are reconstructed by many small uplifts, leading to a change in environments and accumulation of peat instead of limestone. Here's an illustration.
About these often uplifts a small amplitude I say in this thread. Instead of high-amplitude uplifts, which began in the Permian.
|
Serg-antr
Junior Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 23 From: Ukraine Joined: 05-12-2010
|
|
|
Message 80 of 503 (674672)
10-01-2012 2:26 PM
|
Reply to: Message 74 by JonF
10-01-2012 10:42 AM
|
|
Re: What is flood geology?
Google Translate gives a fairly readable translation of that paper (I changed your link above to point to the translation). They discuss the issue of "excess argon" "frozen" into the lava due to rapid cooling which produces an unrealistically old age but, (IMHO), don't provide a convincing argument that this is not a problem. They are convincing in their argument that the samples crystallized in the magma rather than being suddenly cooled, but they could well have crystallized in equilibrium with the surrounding magma and therefore included excess argon. Still, as Coyote pointed out, individual cases of disagreement aren't convincing. The overwhelming number of concordant (agreeing) dates means that the only realistic argument against radiometric dating would have to be asystemic analysis that explains the concordance (agreement) of dates obtained from different geologic formations and dated using methods which use different isotopes and decay schemes. That's no easy task, and nobody has come close to successfully attacking radiometric dating.
Argon is an inert gas in the rock it is formed by the radioactive decay of K-40. How did he get into the lava? The article suggests that this relic of Gondwana, but how did they get into the modern Mid-Atlantic Ridge? Do not know how in the U.S., Russia Client for absolute age determination in the application must indicate the presumptive relative age. This makes it possible to choose from a series of analyzes of the analyzes, which gave the expected result. Concordia probably composed in the same way - unwanted results discarded.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 74 by JonF, posted 10-01-2012 10:42 AM | | JonF has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 83 by JonF, posted 10-01-2012 8:10 PM | | Serg-antr has not replied |
|
Serg-antr
Junior Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 23 From: Ukraine Joined: 05-12-2010
|
Re: What is flood geology?
You could maybe give me references, preferably references that aren't written in a language I can't speak? But this is not a reference, this is the picture seemed to me everything is clear. Written at the top the level of the sea and the time, on the left the thickness of the rocks.
|
Serg-antr
Junior Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 23 From: Ukraine Joined: 05-12-2010
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 84 of 503 (674844)
10-03-2012 12:04 PM
|
|
|
Sorry, it was my unfortunate attempt to participate in the English-speaking forum. But that paper is about holocrystalline plagioclase, amphibole, pyroxene, not about a pillow lava (chapter 5).
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 85 by JonF, posted 10-03-2012 12:33 PM | | Serg-antr has replied |
|
Serg-antr
Junior Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 23 From: Ukraine Joined: 05-12-2010
|
|
|
Message 86 of 503 (674855)
10-03-2012 2:40 PM
|
Reply to: Message 85 by JonF
10-03-2012 12:33 PM
|
|
I'm sorry to see that you do not have any support for your claims that "This makes it possible to choose from a series of analyzes of the analyzes, which gave the expected result. Concordia probably composed in the same way - unwanted results discarded." Do you intend to retract those claims? I have not accuse of fraud, I said that the unwanted results are discarded. If, for example, you say that "fixists" (and there are many among modern scholars) discards their unwanted evidence, it's not mean that you are accusing them of fraud. As proof of my words I can bring a post of respected geologist, Ph.D., co-leader of the project of UNESCO IGCP-514 during 2009-2010 Alexander Lalomov.
original post in Russianmachine translation
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 85 by JonF, posted 10-03-2012 12:33 PM | | JonF has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 87 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-03-2012 4:28 PM | | Serg-antr has not replied | | | Message 88 by JonF, posted 10-03-2012 6:08 PM | | Serg-antr has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2
