|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,742 Year: 3,999/9,624 Month: 870/974 Week: 197/286 Day: 4/109 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3623 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: REAL Flood Geology | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
How about these premises?:
The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. C. 4500 years ago it rained hard all over the Earth, for 40 days and nights, because God made it such. Let's not worry about the water source, the temperature effects of condensation, etc. There were also be other water sources, but let's not sweat such details. Just say God was directly adding volume to the oceans. This resulted in sea level rising, say, 3000 feet (or 1000 metres if you prefer) over those 40 days. Then over the next year (or pick you own time period) the water drained to the ocean basins, where God removed it back to wherever s/he stores that extra supply of water. Now, what was the nature of the Earth, as opposed to pre-flood? Adminnemooseus New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3623 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Adminnemooseus: How about these premises?: The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. That appears to be what we are left with. As Obvous Child notes, the YEC hypothesis can't be made to function even hypothetically. It is truly absurd. An exercise like this lets one experience firsthand just how absurd it is. If the earth was 6,000 years old we would observe no plate tectonics and no multiple layers of strata. One of the earliest posts put it well: we would see three layers all over the world. We would see a pre-flood base layer, a flood sediment layer, and a layer comprised of the limited amount of accumulation since. That's all. We would see no Taiwan or Japan, no Himalayas, no Appalachians, no Grand Canyon. Pre-flood or post-flood conjectures make no difference. Features like these couldn't happen. They would not be here.
Adminnemooseus: C. 4500 years ago it rained hard all over the Earth, for 40 days and nights, because God made it such. Let's not worry about the water source, the temperature effects of condensation, etc. There were also be other water sources, but let's not sweat such details. Just say God was directly adding volume to the oceans. This resulted in sea level rising, say, 3000 feet (or 1000 metres if you prefer) over those 40 days. Add a zero. Sea level has to rise to nearly 30,000 feet. The height of Sagarmatha, or Mount Everest, is 29,028 feet (8,848 meters) according to Wiki. Flood waters are said to have covered the mountains to a depth of around 22.5 feet, as RAZD has noted. Allowing for some erosion over the centuries and variability in the length of an ancient Babylonian cubit, we can say sea level at the height of the flood would need to be (conservative estimate) about 29,060 feet above the level today. I'm okay for the moment with allowing all that water to come from nowhere. It would still be useful to get around eventually to the subject of where that much water could possibly be stowed away on a planet this size. (I suspect that will be a short discussion, too.) Other than that it would be good if all other physical effects of the global flood scenario to be realistic. So temperature effects of condensation and the like are fair game. We still need a global deluge of liquid water, though, however we manage it. It's the aftermath of that event that we're discussing. If the physics of the matter force us to adjust variables--postulating a longer period of precipitation, for example, or lower flood depth--we should discuss it. We just need the water. It isn't our job to ensure Noah's survival or anyone else's. The effects of such a flood on flora and fauna is part of the question. The idea is to get a sense of what observers (likely not us) would see today. What features of the planet would lead them to conclude that its entire surface had been inundated under flood waters 4,500 years earlier? ___ Edited by Archer Opterix, : Precision. Edited by Archer Opterix, : Precision. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Archer Opterix writes: What features of the planet would lead them to conclude that its entire surface had been inundated under flood waters 4,500 years earlier? I'd like to see some sound cause/effect reasoning too. What we've seen so far is something like. "If the flood happened, my house would be yellow. Lo, and behold! My house is yellow. The flood must have happened." I'd like to see the reasoning behind how the flood made my house yellow. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2538 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
off topic, but . . .
tell me they didn't actually say this. please, please tell me that no one is that stupid. the phrase in question?
Coal (charred animal remains) my god. Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2538 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
why does the global flood have to cover the mountains?
all you're asking is what earth would look like after a global catastrophic flood. not what it would lok like if noah's flood occurred. i think it's an important difference. Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
tell me they didn't actually say this. please, please tell me that no one is that stupid. Not necessarily stupid. The other options are ignorant, deluded, malicious and insane ... Yes, that is what was posted, together with the comment on nitrogen and this "gem"
quote: Don't bother thinking about all the volatile components in oil that gasoline and other lighter fuels are derived from that would blow the top off the pie. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
why does the global flood have to cover the mountains? Especially when other myths specifically mention mountains that stick above the flood water. This is a lesser test: if there is evidence that contradicts this then a deeper flood could not have happened.
... all you're asking is what earth would look like after a global catastrophic flood. Without magic water and magic tar and magic koalas (another board another topic). We would see the kind of evidence we do see for floods in some places except it would all be in the same time frame. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3623 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
On the subject of high seas:
RAZD: Especially when other myths specifically mention mountains that stick above the flood water. This is a lesser test: if there is evidence that contradicts this then a deeper flood could not have happened. Understood. Okay, I'm easy. So, for the sake of argument, what are we back to? 3,000 as Moose suggests? __
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lithodid-Man Member (Idle past 2956 days) Posts: 504 From: Juneau, Alaska, USA Joined: |
Living in a post-flood world the group I miss the most are the echindoderms. The starfish, sea urchins, sand dollars, sea cucumbers, and, most of all, the sea lillies (crinoids). Because this group all have a water vascular system and no means of ionic control they were all destroyed during the Great Flood. Because even a slight change in ionic balance (40 days of rain or fountains of the deep) causes them to explode internally. This is why this group, however diverse, never evolved freshwater forms in their 600 million year history. Oops, I mean 6000 year history.
Wanda: To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people. I've known sheep who could outwit you. I've worn dresses with higher IQs, but you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape? Otto: Apes don't read philosophy. Wanda: Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it. "A Fish Called Wanda" |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
Greasy or oily surfaces tend to make water roll of to the sides don't they. Just like after you wax your car then spray it with a hose. You nice even film of water ends up with big puckers in it. But not 22 feet deep. There is no evidence of this kind of behavior in any oil spill or seep.
If you change gravity, water density and a few other physical constants enough to allow water to flow up the sides of mountains ... I'm not changing gravity or any other constants. I would say that to keep the 22 foot deep water at all points on the planet would take a pretty major change in the way that gravity works so who's to say that 22 feet deep might be similar to what we see for a couple of milimeters now? It's no more far fetched than the rest of the scenario. It even explains why so many animals fell into the things since they were the only spots on the planet that weren't submerged. Again, going on experience with oil spills and seeps from the deep, oil floats up to the surface, even when congealed into tar like material. The surface would be slightly higher if anything: crude oil has a specific gravity that varies from 0.790 to 0.873 (anything below 1.0 floats, everything over 1.0 sinks - compared to fresh water, salt water today has a specific gravity of 1.025).And remember that under circumstances where water can flow up the side of mountains, all bets are pretty much off. Predicting what would really happen under conditions that would allow that, might be a tad tricky so I think my hypothesis is just as realistic as any other that I've ever heard. And of course we all know that mammals can swim while dinosaurs just sank ... What? How do we know that dinosaurs couldn't swim just as well as mammals - many even had hollow bones, so they should be LESS dense than mammals. Some were known to be aquatic and some were shore dwellers (duck-billed dinos) that were adapted to semi-aquatic habitat with nostrils at the tops of their skulls.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5940 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
Joman writes:
7. A diverse complex of sedimentary structures12. Large deposits of extreme purity. These two bullets in your list are contradictory. How can a global process create "complex" structures but also create large deposits of extreme purity. Large sedimentary deposits of extreme purity such as limestone, chalk, sandstone, mudstone, diatomaceous chert require isolation such as a large sedimentary basin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joman Inactive Member |
see next post.
Edited by Joman, : wrong quotes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joman Inactive Member |
Joman writes: 7. A diverse complex of sedimentary structures 12. Large deposits of extreme purity. iceage writes: These two bullets in your list are contradictory. How can a global process create "complex" structures but also create large deposits of extreme purity. The flood waters would produce a confusion of localized conditions for the deposition of sediments. On what basis can it be argued that a global flood would produce global uniformity of any kind? Does anyone propose that the weather and climate is the same everywhere on the earth? For the same reasons, uniformity wouldn't be true of a global flood water enviroment, either. The high purity is only possible with a immediate precipitation of constituents out of watery solution brought about by saturation.The precipitation would have had to have been catastrophic in nature to produce such large deposits. The high precipitation rate would be due to the huge infusion of minerals and such into the flood wqters during the flood stage. Depositions of high purity can't occur over long periods of time since there exists no pure enviroment in which and of which it may occur. Water is able to sort out a complex mix of constituents into refined seperations of them into homogenous sediment layers. Joman.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 862 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Joman writes:
The flood waters would produce a confusion of localized conditions for the deposition of sediments. On what basis can it be argued that a global flood would produce global uniformity of any kind? Physics and chemistry. In this supposed global flood there is one environment, an ocean. There is no desert for thick interbedded evaporites, no ice sheets for glacial deposits, no dry deserts for wind-formed aeolian deposits. Also air and ice are not water, they deposit differently. How they deposit can be observed right now. ABE - Yes ice is frozen water, what I mean is that gasses, liquids, and solids create different depositional environments.
Does anyone propose that the weather and climate is the same everywhere on the earth? For the same reasons, uniformity wouldn't be true of a global flood water enviroment, either. How does a global flood create aeolian deposits? How does a flood preserve delicate interbedded structures with one layer full of burrows, repeated over and over again for 15,000 layers? From Glen Morton at Page Not Found | Department of Chemistry
quote: That's just one piece of geology no YEC can explain or BS their way out of, there are many thousands more. Care to take a shot at these, especially point 74? Message 75 The high purity is only possible with a immediate precipitation of constituents out of watery solution brought about by saturation. The precipitation would have had to have been catastrophic in nature to produce such large deposits. The high precipitation rate would be due to the huge infusion of minerals and such into the flood wqters during the flood stage. Depositions of high purity can't occur over long periods of time since there exists no pure enviroment in which and of which it may occur. Water is able to sort out a complex mix of constituents into refined seperations of them into homogenous sediment layers. Could you define or provide an example of a "high purity" deposit? Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joman Inactive Member |
In this supposed global flood there is one environment, an ocean. It is an global size ocean of flood waters increasing and abating.Within the flood waters there wouldn't have been any uniformity of conditions. What you see today is what you would expect from such a huge and horrendous event. Every bizarre condition imaginable occurred and evidence of this is what is found everywhere upon the surface of the earth. There is no desert for thick interbedded evaporites, There are no appropriate mechanisms able to deposit such beds of evaporites in deserts. But the flood was able to deposit them. That the land in question is today a desert is due to climate patterns arising after the flood.
no ice sheets for glacial deposits,
The winter of the flood would've been severe and of such proportions so as to develope the ice sheets that are thought to represent ages of formation and retreat.
no dry deserts for wind-formed aeolian deposits.
So, provide significant global examples.
Also air and ice are not water, they deposit differently. How they deposit can be observed right now. How does a global flood create aeolian deposits?
There would be enormous supplies of sand after a global flood. Many features of dunes in water and in air are identical.
How does a flood preserve delicate interbedded structures with one layer full of burrows, repeated over and over again for 15,000 layers?
You must prove that they are burrows. But, the interbedded part is possible in a flood that involves an enormous variety of depositional circumstances.
The Haymond beds consist of 15,000 alternating layers of sand and shale. The sands have several characteristic sedimentary features which are found on turbidite deposits. Turbidites are deep water deposits in which each sand layer is deposited in a brief period of time, by a submarine "landslide" (I am trying to avoid jargon here) and the shale covering it is deposited over a long period of time.
That the shale took a long time to deposit is an assumption.And, it's an unresonable scenario isn't it? For 15,ooo ages of time a cycle of 7,5oo identical ages is repeated? No, it's more reasonable to believe that the cyclic structure of the layers is due to a local depositional enviroment within a massive global flood that sorted out the sand and the clay in the pattern as found. Otherwise you'd expect me to think that for a long age only sand under deep water was deposited, followed by a long age of only a particular clay and that this pattern was cyclic. Isn't it ridiculous? A age of deep water followed by an age of shallow for 7500 identical ages? It's flood waters that explains the beds of homogenous depositional materials. For the non-geologist who is reading this this means that the burrows are in the shales (which take a long time to be deposited) so the animals would have lots of time to dig their burrows.
That they are burrows is an assumption.
The sandstones are the catastrophic deposit which covers and fills in the burrows with sand. The fact that there are no burrows in the sand proves that the sand was deposited rapidly.
7,500 catastrophic and rapid depositions? Each followed by, 7500 peaceful depositions of clay? I don't think this is a scientifically rational explaination.
I pointed out that if the all the sedimentary record had to be deposited in a year long flood of Noah, then given that the entire geologic column in this area is 5000 meters thick, and that the Haymond beds are 1300 m thick, 1300/5000*365 days = 95 days for the Haymond beds to be deposited. Since there are 15,000 of these layers, then 15,000/95 days = 157 layers per day need to be deposited.
Probably, much faster than that.
The problem is that the animals which made the burrows mentioned above, need some time to re-colonize and re-burrow the shale. Is it really reasonable to believe that 157 times per day or 6.5 times per hour, for all the burrowers to be buried, killed, and a new group colonize above them for the process to be repeated? Even allowing for a daily cycle, would require 41 years for this deposit to be laid down.
I don't believe they are burrows.
That's just one piece of geology no YEC can explain or BS their way out of, there are many thousands more.
It's quite weak in my opinion. Especially so due to the ridiculousness of the nonflood scenario that was presented. A scenario that incorprates an unknown cyclic mechanism operating like clockwork for 7,500 cyclic ages over an enormous span of time.
Could you define or provide an example of a "high purity" deposit?
I would consider anything around 99% pure to be high purity. summary:My point is that what we find globally (not locally) upon the surface of the earth today corresponds to the consequences of a global flood. No local scenario's, such as The Haymond beds, the Grand Canyon, corresponds to the global nature of the flood. They only correspond to local scenario's occurring within the global flood. To prove that a "global" flood occurred requires looking at global effects. the complexity of "local" scenario's producing varied and often bizarre geologic formations which don't conform to hard fast rules is the norm for a global flood enviroment in the same way that local conditions of climate don't correspond to the global climate scenario. What would you expect to see after the waters of a horrendous global flood had occurred? You'd see a complex array of geologic anomalies in profusion mixed in with much larger geologic formations mixed in with some even larger geologic formations. What most on this site are proposing to do is apply local anomalies of sedimentation to global issues to which they can't rationally apply. Joman.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024