Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Flood Geology: A Thread For Portillo
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 271 of 503 (677520)
10-30-2012 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by mindspawn
10-30-2012 7:32 AM


Re: No flood
Well dates may contradict a biblical flood, but not a global flood at the PT boundary.
It doesn't matter if there was a global flood at the PT boundary because that couldn't be The FloodTM because there were no people alive at the PT boundary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by mindspawn, posted 10-30-2012 7:32 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 272 of 503 (677523)
10-30-2012 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by mindspawn
10-30-2012 7:04 AM


Hi Mindspawn,
Here's something else to consider. If all the ice in all the world were to melt, if all the moisture in the atmosphere were to fall as rain, it would raise sea levels by about 70 meters or 230 feet. That's not enough for a global flood. You need at least 100 times more water than exists now, and even then Mount Everest wouldn't be covered.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by mindspawn, posted 10-30-2012 7:04 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by mindspawn, posted 11-05-2012 4:47 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 273 of 503 (677592)
10-30-2012 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by mindspawn
10-30-2012 7:04 AM


Hi Mindspring,
Another thing to consider is that if sea levels did rise only 230 feet, then if Noah did live in the Ararat region water could never have reached his boat. If he lived further south where elevations are much lower then the flood could have floated his boat, but it could not have floated it to anywhere near Mount Ararat where even the foothills are at an elevation of several thousand feet.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by mindspawn, posted 10-30-2012 7:04 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 274 of 503 (677609)
10-30-2012 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by mindspawn
10-30-2012 7:15 AM


Re: Bones and the flood
I would like to see a map and/or good descriptions with locations for all these devitrified ash layers and the 'over-filled' basins.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by mindspawn, posted 10-30-2012 7:15 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 275 of 503 (678084)
11-05-2012 4:40 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Percy
10-29-2012 2:10 PM


Re: Bones and the flood
You've got this backwards. The possibility of a worldwide flood was never discarded. It's just that geologists have found no evidence of a worldwide flood at the P-T boundary. Just look at the possible causes of the P-T extinction event listed over at Wikipedia. Asteroid impacts, volcanism, and sea level fluctuations, to mention just a few. This list includes everything for which there is at least a little evidence. A global flood is absent from the list because of absence of evidence, not because it was discarded a priori. Find us evidence of a global flood and it will be added to the list - I'll add it myself.
By the way, note that one of the possibilities in the list is pronounced sea level regression. Not global transgression - regression globablly at continental boundaries from dropping sea levels.
Ok so we know there was a significant transgression, we know there was a significant regression, and we know that there was a worldwide overfill situation. As you point out, one of these 3, just the regression, is one of the scientific possibilities of the cause of death. If we combine all 3, the transgression plus huge sediment movements in flood-plains and then the regression, this is another possibility to add to the strength of the regression view.
This has been addressed before, but I guess you're just going to continue repeating it. There is too little moisture in the air for it to affect sea levels significantly if it all fell as rain at once.
And the Siberian Traps that you think would have heated the world and melted the ice caps and glaciers might actually have spewed so much dust into the air that it cooled the world into an extremely lengthy winter, in the way the Krakatoa eruption cooled the world a couple hundred years ago, but much worse. The oceans might have frozen all the way to the equator.
Or perhaps the CO2 spewed into the atmosphere caused global warming, making conditions too hot for much plant life, and of course that would have melted ice caps and glaciers, but obviously not enough to cause a global flood, because for that there is no evidence.
But one thing we do know: things that happen leave behind evidence. If a global flood happened, an event much, much more severe and easily detectable than increased fluvial deposits in floodplains, there would be evidence. A lot of evidence.
I didn't reply to your point before, because it is such common knowledge that volcanoes cause torrential downpours. It is also common knowledge that the Triassic was warmer than the Permian. This is so well known that the world's temperature increased at the PT boundary, you are welcome to post your contrary evidence on this. It would be nice to reach consensus on common knowledge more quickly, it would help getting to the meat of the debate more quickly.
What is your proof that water vapor levels were the same as today during the Carboniferous? Everything I have read is that there were great fluctuations in humidity during the late carboniferous and Permian. The Siberian Traps could have occurred during a humidity spike. The following Triassic is renowned for its dry, low-humidity conditions, so there was a drop from relatively higher and fluctuating humidity levels, to low humidity. Precipitation could have added to the flood conditions of the transgression and regression at the PT boundary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Percy, posted 10-29-2012 2:10 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Percy, posted 11-05-2012 9:50 PM mindspawn has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 276 of 503 (678085)
11-05-2012 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by Percy
10-30-2012 11:13 AM


Percy, regarding covering mountains, you should read up on the landscape of the carboniferous. FLAT. Not mountainous like today. This flat landscape could more easily be covered by 70M of water. I believe tectonic movements and the Siberian traps occurred during the flood and these major tectonic movements continued after the flood for hundreds of years.
Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.
Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Percy, posted 10-30-2012 11:13 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-05-2012 4:55 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 277 of 503 (678086)
11-05-2012 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by mindspawn
11-05-2012 4:47 AM


Percy, regarding covering mountains, you should read up on the landscape of the carboniferous. FLAT. Not mountainous like today.
A couple of minutes with Google says you're wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by mindspawn, posted 11-05-2012 4:47 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 278 of 503 (678088)
11-05-2012 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by PaulK
10-30-2012 9:20 AM


Re: Bones and the flood
Is it ? Just how much water is needed ? And how far does the area actually extend ? It certainly isn't found everywhere.
The worldwide layer of boundary clay is found in China, Iran , Canada, Europe, Caucasus, and elsewhere according to the link in post 235.
I don't believe I've seen evidence of this, except for the one basin where the filling was explained by differential subsidence, due to tectonic events. Where do you find evidence for such events happening worldwide ?
Please read the links in post 249 for confirmation of a worldwide sedimentary overfill situation. The links relate to Russia, Africa (Karoo) , Australia, and the original Antarctica has been discussed repeatedly.
ps that original link regarding overfill was "hypothesized" as caused by tectonic events. The worldwide overfill is fact. The cause being tectonic is not fact, its an hypothesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by PaulK, posted 10-30-2012 9:20 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by PaulK, posted 11-05-2012 8:36 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 279 of 503 (678101)
11-05-2012 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by mindspawn
11-05-2012 5:17 AM


Re: Bones and the flood
quote:
The worldwide layer of boundary clay is found in China, Iran , Canada, Europe, Caucasus, and elsewhere according to the link in post 235.
I think you mean post 236. The link in question also claims a "boundary clay" layer at the end of the Cretaceous, which can't be due to a global flood given your ideas.
And then there is the question of whether these deposits are sufficient to infer a worldwide distribution. That isn't clear to me either - we'd need to plot them on a map of Triassic Earth to conclude that.
quote:
Please read the links in post 249 for confirmation of a worldwide sedimentary overfill situation. The links relate to Russia, Africa (Karoo) , Australia, and the original Antarctica has been discussed repeatedly.
Having read them, I have to say that they contradict your idea of a sudden overfilling at the Permian-Triassic boundary.
The main Karoo basin overfilled in the late Permian. It is hard to find details of the other basins, but I can't see anything that indicates that they all overfilled at the same time.
The Australian paper refers to repeated changes in the supply of sediment, which hardly sounds like a singular event. The final pulse of oversupply preceded the formation of the final coal beds, themselves Permian in age
I can't see anything in the abstract of the Russian paper which indicates overfilling at the Permian-Triassic boundary, either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by mindspawn, posted 11-05-2012 5:17 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 280 of 503 (678171)
11-05-2012 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by mindspawn
11-05-2012 4:40 AM


Re: Bones and the flood
mindspawn writes:
I didn't reply to your point before, because it is such common knowledge that volcanoes cause torrential downpours.
It is interesting that you think this is common knowledge, but I can find no evidence that this is true. But even if it were true, there is not enough moisture in the atmosphere to raise sea levels by measurable amounts.
What is your proof that water vapor levels were the same as today during the Carboniferous?
Whatever additional water you're proposing might have been in the atmosphere during the Carboniferous would have had to come from the oceans. Returning that water to the oceans would not have flooded the Earth. If you're proposing that the water came from within the Earth through volcanic eruptions then it would still be here flooding the Earth, but it's not here, so that never happened, either.
Note that if the entire atmosphere of the Earth were at 100% humidity it would still contain far less than a cubic kilometer of water. The Earth's oceans contain 1.3 billion cubic kilometers of water. You cannot cram enough gaseous water into the atmosphere to measurably affect sea levels.
It is also common knowledge that the Triassic was warmer than the Permian. This is so well known that the world's temperature increased at the PT boundary, you are welcome to post your contrary evidence on this.
I don't think I ever said otherwise. You were arguing that the Siberian Traps would have caused global warming, and I was pointing out that short term they would have caused cooling. The Krakatoa eruption is a prime example of this, a major volcanic eruption one year causing global cooling for the next few years. And your flood is a one year event, remember?
Not only is there insufficient ice on the Earth to flood the world as it is today, you couldn't flood a flat world in just a year. The amount of heat required to melt that much ice in just a year would have sterilized the Earth. It wouldn't have been *an* extinction event but *THE* extinction event, and we wouldn't be here discussing this.
And in the warm, arid conditions you say followed the flood, how would the water have reformed into glaciers and icecaps?
Plus the Earth wasn't flat. The Appalachian Mountains began to form almost 500 million years ago, 250 million years before the P-T boundary. The Gamburtsev Mountains in Antartica are also thought to be around 500 million years old. The Great Dividing Range in Australia is around 300 million years old.
And if the world were flat, then in that case there could have been no uplands denuded of vegetation to provide the sediments for the floodplains as described in the cited material you've been misinterpreting.
You're making the appeal that if we can't prove the flood didn't happen that therefore it could have, but that's not the way science works. I direct your attention again to the Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot. The fact that no one can prove there isn't a teapot in orbit about the sun doesn't mean it is a proposal that should be taken seriously. And the fact that no one can prove there was no global flood at the P-T boundary also doesn't mean it is a proposal to be taken seriously.
But more important is what we can prove. We can prove there were high mountain ranges at the P-T boundary. We can prove that the P-T boundary was 250 million years ago. We can prove that the heat required to melt enough ice to flood the world would wipe out all life. We can prove there isn't enough water on the Earth to flood the entire surface. And we can prove that the atmosphere cannot hold enough water to measurably affect ocean levels.
You're left with a flood with no evidence that it ever happened, and with no conceivable mechanism that could cause it to happen.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by mindspawn, posted 11-05-2012 4:40 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 281 of 503 (678218)
11-06-2012 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by Granny Magda
10-29-2012 4:47 PM


Re: Bones and the flood
Hi Granny Magda, sorry to be slow to reply, but I enjoyed your post and was waiting for the time to reply.
Let me be frank with you; you are simply not going to overturn the geological status quo by digging out a few papers and making "sounds sensible" conclusions about them. Nor are you going to find evidence for a global flood lurking unnoticed in some online geology paper. I mean, you have admitted that you don't know much about geology, so consider this; if that evidence were there, don't you think that the real experts - professional geologists - would have noticed it by now? And don't you think it rather unlikely that a novice like yourself would suddenly come along and show the experts what's been staring them in the face all these years? To me, that sounds like a fantasy and a somewhat self-indulgent one.
When I read this I had a good laugh because of the truth of what you say. Yes I am being a little self-indulgent, yet in my defense this is one of the reasons I'm on this site. both to challenge evolutionists on some points they may not have thought through, and also to test some of my pet theories against a level of expertise that I don't find on creationist sites.
I also agree on the unlikelihood of a novice like me discovering anything new, but in my defense Google is actually an effective tool to research across a number of disciplines and latest research extremely rapidly, and although this isn't the best form of research academically I do believe it is easier than in the past for a novice to discover unique trends through deductive reasoning.
Sure, me too. But the truth is that arid highlands don't produce many fossils. Fossils tend to be produced in aquatic environments because those are the environments that encourage fossilisation.
Such layers do exist though. You might try looking for info about the interior of Pangea. That area was highly landlocked during the Carboniferous and would have been extremely arid.
This is my point, that there is an overemphasis on swamp-based fauna and flora during the carboniferous, and other environments could have easily existed. Could you post links on the Pangea interior to back up your point that there has been research on dryer interior regions.
I don't mean to be rude, but that is an extraordinarily silly thing to say. I only bring this up, because it should bring home to you just how wrong you are about this topic.
The truth is that there are a great many other environments recorded in the Carboniferous, notably a great deal of marine material. Take a look at this discussion of carboniferous index fossils from Berkeley;
You are correct here, I have been focussing on land based areas because of the questions posed to me regarding mammal and angiosperm fossils in the carboniferous. More correct wording should have referred to the main terrestrial animals, you are correct about there been many marine index fossils too. And thanks for pointing out the "rice" too, but the land-based carboniferous layers are mainly identified by swamp fossils, the swamp formed carboniferous coal is even the reason for the name "carboniferous".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Granny Magda, posted 10-29-2012 4:47 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-06-2012 4:06 AM mindspawn has replied
 Message 286 by Granny Magda, posted 11-06-2012 10:52 AM mindspawn has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 282 of 503 (678225)
11-06-2012 4:06 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by mindspawn
11-06-2012 1:51 AM


Re: Bones and the flood
both to challenge evolutionists on some points they may not have thought through ...
Well, it is certainly true that no evolutionist has ever thought through the implications of there being no mountains in the Carboniferous Period.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by mindspawn, posted 11-06-2012 1:51 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by mindspawn, posted 11-06-2012 4:57 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 283 of 503 (678227)
11-06-2012 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by Dr Adequate
11-06-2012 4:06 AM


Re: Bones and the flood
Lol, good one. I gave you a Cheers for that. But my point still stands, the carboniferous is well known for its relatively flatter landscape compared to today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-06-2012 4:06 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-07-2012 4:55 AM mindspawn has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 284 of 503 (678232)
11-06-2012 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by JonF
10-25-2012 2:27 PM


One study found many alleles, up to 21, for some loci, in Sudan alone. There are more than 2,000 of some alleles in the HLA complex (HLA Alleles Numbers). No recent bottleneck for humans!
Starkenberg et al listed 19 alleles in cows at the DRB3.2 locus (see Table 1). Not much of a recent bottleneck for cows!
The Coat Colors of Mice covers lots of information, for example (picked randomly) the "a" gene has 397 alleles in mice. Definitely no recent bottleneck for mice!
So there definitely has not been a world-wide population bottleneck for all species, which is a requirement of your recent flood scenario. Case closed. Unless, of course, you can show evidence of hypermutation in the last few thousand years.
Hey JonF, just going back to this post of yours about the alleles. Thanks for your well researched post. Logically we cannot use the HLA genes to prove or disprove a bottleneck, because each human already has many such alleles in this "super locus". Logically it is a normal locus of two alleles that we would have to look at. Thus Noah's ark would not require a bottleneck because even 8 humans on the ark is enough to carry many many HLA alleles. In any case the human bottleneck is not claimed by the bible, the bible claims subsequent DNA injections after the ark and so there is no bottleneck claim by creationists regarding humans. Its the larger terrestrial animals that would show this genetic bottleneck, and be limited to 14 alleles across populations in specifically those regions of the genome that normally only contain two alleles. But even these alleles would contain slight mutations since the ark, yet highly retain their similarity to the original.
19 alleles in cows is actually a bottleneck situation. Unfortunately that Starkenberg et al link you provided did not open up, and I cant see if two or more of those were mere mutant allele variants or had major core differences in allele structure.
An additional point is that there are a number of creatures that would not be limited to 7. The ark was huge, to assume that no extra lizards, geckos, mice, ants, beetles etc etc survived would be illogical. Even with modern technology, many ships that are supposed to have no rats or mice, often have rats or mice on board.
So the cow shows a bottleneck (19 allelles). Have you got any other allele numbers for large animals for me.
Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by JonF, posted 10-25-2012 2:27 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by JonF, posted 11-06-2012 8:06 AM mindspawn has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 285 of 503 (678237)
11-06-2012 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by mindspawn
11-06-2012 6:38 AM


Logically it is a normal locus of two alleles that we would have to look at. Thus Noah's ark would not require a bottleneck because even 8 humans on the ark is enough to carry many many HLA alleles.
100% incorrect. You are really confused and don't have a clue about genetics and bottlenecks.
Any human has one or two alleles of a gene, no more. With 8 humans on the boat, three of them being descendants of Noye and his wife, they could have carried a "realistic" maximum of 10 alleles (four from Noye and his wife, all shared by their sons, and six from the son's wives) and an absolute maximum of 16 alleles (if all three sons had different mutations at both their copies of that gene in the germ cell line).
If there was a bottleneck, any gene you care to pick would show it. There just hasn't been time for 10 HLA alleles to evolve into thousands. Therefore, no human bottleneck.
So the cow shows a bottleneck (19 allelles). Have you got any other allele numbers for large animals for me.
A small number of alleles of one gene is not necessarily a bottleneck; it may be a strongly conserved gene.
Many alleles of any gene disproves a bottleneck but the converse is not true; few alleles of one gene does not prove a bottleneck. To prove a bottleneck you need further information.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by mindspawn, posted 11-06-2012 6:38 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by mindspawn, posted 11-07-2012 2:37 AM JonF has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024