Wegener and Evidence for Continental Drift

"Absolutely. There should be structural, textural, compositional, morpologic and lithological effects that are both diagnostic of CPT and yet not explainable by mainstream PT. That is to say, there should be EVIDENCE. Neither TC nor Baumgardner have come up with anything yet. "
--Indeed there may be. But I've got enough research inquiries going on right now. If you like, you can give examples of what is observed (having to do with structural, textural, compositional, morplogic, and lithological effects of stress and strain in the lithosphere) and what should be observed if CPT occured.-------------------

quote:

---

--Indeed there may be. But I've got enough research inquiries going on right now. If you like, you can give examples of what is observed (having to do with structural, textural, compositional, morplogic, and lithological effects of stress and strain in the lithosphere) and what should be observed if CPT occured.

---

You are the one claiming some kind of legitimacy for CPT. It is incumbent upon you to support your assertions. If you cannot do so, then you must accept the fact that you will be taken to the woodshed in a debate.

quote:

---

"In other words, cooling rates must have been fantastic because you need them to be fantastic[1] and there is absolutely no evidence that they were[2]."

​

--[1] - Not because "I" need them to be fantastic, but CPT needs them to have been so.

---

If you are advocating CPT, you need this process to be accepted. If you are not supporting CPT, just what are we doing here?

quote:

---

--[2] - I didn't say anything about this but what would you expect to see if cooling rates were high?

---

I don't expect anything because there is no evidence that they were so high.

quote:

---

"Utter nonsense. Do you have any idea how to place a significant amount of the mantle in contact with seawater?[1] Do you have any idea what the products of such a reaction would be?[2]"

​

--[1] - Yes I have an idea - Rapid plate divergence.

---

So, you can expose a thin veneer of the mantle to seawater. Do you realize how large the mantle is?

quote:

---

--[2] - Not really. Do you?

---

No. Once again, it is your job to come up with an explanation to support your hypothesis, not mine.

quote:

---

"Hmm, that's convenient. In other words you have absolutely nothing and yet your model is preferrable to mainstream plate tectonics?!"

​

--And yet my model is preferable to mainstream PT???? Have you been listening at all!? I'm not going to reply to this nonsense again.

---

You have said elsewhere that the CPT model fits the data better than mainstream plate tectonics. I read that as saying it is preferrable to the mainstream model.

quote:

---

"Are you certain that we can attain heavier-than-air-flight? I think a little more research should be carried out because there may be other explanations for airliners and missiles.

​

--An untenable analogy.

---

Of course! It is utterly ridiculous! But so is your idea that an unproductive and unrealistic line of research should receive research attention.

quote:

---

The latter account was an inconsistency in my word-usage and explanation(I explained my misuse of describing them as 'immeasurable in post #135)

---

LOL...Hence my point, TC. You did contradict yourself. You claim it was poor choice of words. Fine. How many posts did we go through before we got to this admission?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Hi, TC!Let us conclude the issues already under discussion. You ignored almost all my points, which I briefly recapitulate here. Please see Message 160 for greater detail. And please don't make this part of the discussion take any longer than it already has by only replying to the information in this summary so that I'm forced to repeat it again.

1. Please don't attach my name to your positions.
   ​
2. Your diagrams do not contain relevant data.
   ​
3. The following should be true of mid-ocean sediments:
   ​
   1. The discontinuity in sediment depth would be a sudden one from feet to centimeters as you move closer to the ridge.
      ​
   2. There would be a thin veneer of fine grained sediment atop deep large grained sediment throughout almost all sea floor around the world.
   ​
   But this runs counter to the evidence.
   ​
4. According to your flood scenario, the following would be true of sediments close to continents:
   ​
   1. The deepest sedimentary layers should contain the detritus from runoff from the continents prior to their submergence. There should never be any evidence of sea floor life like clams and crabs and so forth because there was no time for them to inhabit the newly created sea floor. Organic content, other than that flowing off the continent, should be low since the new sea would be largely uninhabited. It should not be surprising to find the remains of many land animals washed off the continent.
      ​
   2. The next higher sedimentary layer should be the result of turbulent water caused by accelerated continental drift and the seismic activity you insist happened. Organic content should be low.
      ​
   3. The next higher sedimentary layer should contain the drainage from continents as they reemerge from the waters.
      ​
   4. The highest sedimentary layer would be a thin layer formed during the past 5000 years since the flood, depth dependent upon local conditions but averaging around 5 cm, and having high organic content.
   ​
   This also runs counter to the evidence.
   ​
5. Wegener had evidence, you have none.
   ​
6. Mammals in the Cambrian *would* be evidence for your position, but no such thing as ever been found. Nor any other such anomalies.

About your geomagnetic diversion, I have only these points:

• The only thing that's correlated is the colors you chose.
  ​
• The correlated color bars on your last two graphs have uncorrelated widths.
  ​
• You don't cite a source for your bathymetric data or even describe whether it's an average or is from a specific places.

--Percy[Fixed message reference in 1st para. --Percy][This message has been edited by Percipient, 07-01-2003]

TC, think about it - this is the kind of geological evidence that could conclusively prove or disprove CPT. Are you sure it's not so important that you can afford to ignore it?I do wonder if Dr. Baumgardner thought about this.Incidently, do you know when CPT was supposed to have happened? I'm very interested in the timescale we should be looking at.The Rock Hound------------------
"Science constantly poses questions, where religion can only shout about answers."

Percy:"Let us conclude the issues already under discussion. You ignored almost all my points, which I briefly recapitulate here. Please see Message 157 for greater detail. And please don't make this part of the discussion take any longer than it already has by only replying to the information in this summary so that I'm forced to repeat it again."
--Post #157 is mine, I think you mean post #160? And I didn't ignore those points, I just didn't get to them yet. My posting on geomagnetism wasn't a deviation from the discussion, you've apparently been dying for my lack of posting unequivocal evidences for young earth geodynamics so I tried to get you some."1. Please don't attach my name to your positions."
--Maybe you didn't notice but you skipped this part in your quote, "because as me and percy have both clarified, it has not been presented." The reason I said this is because you have said it yourself:

quote:

---

your images have the wrong scale for 200 meters from the ridge. They provide no information whatsoever for sedimentary depths that small or that close to the ridge. About the smallest depth that can be represented on your charts is a meter, about 20 times too large, and the smallest distance from the ridge is maybe a half kilometer, about two and a half times too large.

---

--How in the world does this imply that I am playing you out to be supportive of my views and hypotheses? It doesn't at all--your assertion against Creationists in general, "What is it about Creationists that they keep claiming support from people who disagree with them?" wasn't warranted.--BTW - "taking someone's word for it" is a normal expression where I come from which does in fact mean to take someone's advice."2. Your diagrams do not contain relevant data"
--No, actually they very much do. This segment seems to fit here so I will insert it:

quote:

---

About your geomagnetic diversion, I have only these points:

​

-The only thing that's correlated is the colors you chose.

---

--what? if 'the colors I chose' correlate, then the data correlates because the colors represent spans of time which is reflected on differing graphs representing different data.

quote:

---

The correlated color bars on your last two graphs have uncorrelated widths.

---

--I've looked at my marking the data, they are all separated correctly though two bars seem to have been shifted to the left 6 pixels. I have corrected this. Just note that this only represents the correlation better:
Click for larger version--I've added a couple other tid-bits on this graph for comparisons since you seem to be doubting the correlation. I have on this graph the actual ocean floor bathymetry and the marking of anomalous diflections from the estimated depth from the equation given below (the middle grey line) with ovals. For these data points I have marked with bars, representing the time span where the bathymetric data lay. Keep in mind what I said earlier about the correlation between the geomagnetic data and the bathymetric data because of the possible need for shifting of the geomagnetic data:

quote:

---

I have marked with arrows whether the deviations in the bathymetric data are positive or negative. The most prominent inconsistency is with that seen with purple at about 75 My - 105 My which does not agree with the geomagnetic data by this interpretation. What may be the cause of this may be that they correlate inversely--or instead of with the geomagnetic rate, the rate of sea-floor spreading. If we do this, nearly all data could successfully complement each other if shifted to the right 5-10 My. This also isn't just something that could be done as a "convenience", since the rate of sea-floor spreading is much faster, it would be expected that the curie temperature not be reached until a certain time. The 5-10 My value may be that point where geomagnetic data[polarity] is "locked" into the ocean floor.

---

--Since the rate of sea-floor spreading by this analysis is inversely proportional to the geomagnetic data, the black arrows indicate increases or decreases in the rate of sea-floor spreading. The white arrows still represent the same as before - anomalous deflections in the bathymetric data.
--I invite you to apply your speculation that the widths are uncorrelated or any other thought that the data are inaccurately represented. I can assure you that they are represented accurately."You don't cite a source for your bathymetric data or even describe whether it's an average or is from a specific places"
--I referred those reading to its original source--my heat transfer article. But for your information the data was taken from the Deep Sea Drilling Project (DSDP) and Ocean Drilling Project (ODP) [Johanson and Carlson, 1992]. The 3 lines are not averages of the data but are estimates of sea-floor depth as a function of age by the equation given in the article:"3. The following should be true of mid-ocean sediments:a. The discontinuity in sediment depth would be a sudden one from feet to centimeters as you move closer to the ridge."
--It would not be sudden if my analysis of the geomagnetic data above is accurate. See the deceleration?"There would be a thin veneer of fine grained sediment atop deep large grained sediment throughout almost all sea floor around the world."
--I can't agree with this, even by your reckoning:

quote:

---

With continents moving at miles per day and sea floor being produced at the same rate the seas would have been very turbulent and held huge amounts of sediment throughout, including near oceanic ridges. In such turbulent waters only large grained particles would fall out as sediment to the sea floor. Once continental movement slowed to its current rate and the seas settled the large grained sediment would have quickly fallen to the sea floor, including at the oceanic ridges. It would be feet deep. New sea floor produced after the flood would accumulate sediment at the current rate of 1 cm per thousand years.

---

--That fine grained sediments would not be deposited at all is questionable, though that there would be a cloud of sediments during the last phases of the flood is plausible. The problem is that if we assume that there was a deceleration in plate divergence as seen in the my analysis of the geomagnetic data and especially if something of a deceleration continued for a good time post-flood, there would be such a layer, but there would not be a discontinuity. The other problem with your taking such a finding of a layer of fine grained sediments as unequivocal of young earth geodynamics is that turbidities create the same thing. Even if the waters were turbulent, finer grained sediments will still be transported farther from its origin and larger grained sediments would be transported less distant. The deposition of the sediments will not only correlate horizontally but will also be vertically correlated with that of a turbidity with graded bedding. Mainstream geology would just interpret it as a monster turbidity. I will admit that if enough data were collected on the layer the conclusions would become less equivocal because turbidities lose velocity when approaching inclines. But I doubt that any such data would ever be collected unless the ICR or someone got interested because it would be of little interest to mainstream inquirers. There aren't many people doing this kind of research on our 'side'.I still hold my disagreement with your thoughts on there being a sedimentary thickness discontinuity, though."4. According to your flood scenario, the following would be true of sediments close to continents:The deepest sedimentary layers should contain the detritus from runoff from the continents prior to their submergence. There should never be any evidence of sea floor life like clams and crabs and so forth because there was no time for them to inhabit the newly created sea floor. Organic content, other than that flowing off the continent, should be low since the new sea would be largely uninhabited. It should not be surprising to find the remains of many land animals washed off the continent."
--Why wouldn't there be time for them to inhabit the newly created ocean floor? Maybe not for the first few days or so while the ocean was being filled with water form previous oceans, but not throughout the bulk of the course of the flood. As for the detritus and land animals, maybe, but maybe not. This would depend on biogeography which I don't know much about."The next higher sedimentary layer should be the result of turbulent water caused by accelerated continental drift and the seismic activity you insist happened. Organic content should be low."
--Organic contents, same as above."The next higher sedimentary layer should contain the drainage from continents as they reemerge from the waters."
--Acceptable as far as I know."The highest sedimentary layer would be a thin layer formed during the past 5000 years since the flood, depth dependent upon local conditions but averaging around 5 cm, and having high organic content."
--Only at the mid-ocean ridge, your 5 cm estimate would vary greatly on a scale of meters, dependent on amount per volume of water of pelagic sediments. Also dependent on hydrothermal activity and post-flood decelerating spreading rates."This also runs counter to the evidence."
--Does it? I wouldn't know. I havent done much research on the off-shore sediment cores. But if you'd like to supply us with sufficient data so that we could verify your speculation that it runs counter to the evidence, go for it. I'm not going to get the data because this is something you brought up--and as long as you make conclusions (eg. This runs counter to the evidence) the burden of proof is on you."Wegener had evidence, you have none."
--Wegener had evidence for continental drift. I have the same evidence for continental drift because continental drift is a part of both uniformitarian PT and catastrophic PT. Now if you want to differentiate between uniformitarian PT and catastrophic PT your no longer talking about what Wegener presented. For the differentiation between UPT and CPT I have supplied in this thread at least two evidences. That of the Venusian global resurfacing and from my analysis of polarity chrons and the geomagnetic data. You still haven't replied to the Venusian evidence I clarified for you in the last portions of my post #157."6. Mammals in the Cambrian *would* be evidence for your position, but no such thing as ever been found. Nor any other such anomalies."
--Agreed as far as I am aware.[Fixed too wide diagram, fixed extraneous close-quote. --Admin]-------------------[This message has been edited by Admin, 07-01-2003]

quote:

---

--Indeed there may be. But I've got enough research inquiries going on right now. If you like, you can give examples of what is observed (having to do with structural, textural, compositional, morplogic, and lithological effects of stress and strain in the lithosphere) and what should be observed if CPT occured.

---

"You are the one claiming some kind of legitimacy for CPT. It is incumbent upon you to support your assertions. If you cannot do so, then you must accept the fact that you will be taken to the woodshed in a debate."
--Thats nice, but I never made any positive assertions regarding stress and strain in the lithosphere and what would be expected if CPT occurred, so if you don't want to take it anywhere, I havent even jumped in so don't push me in a hole you and IRH dug just so that you could accuse me of not supporting an assertion I never made.------------------

"If you are advocating CPT, you need this process to be accepted. If you are not supporting CPT, just what are we doing here?"
--I am advocating CPT to an extent. You just keep wanting to ignore the fact that I already know that we have abundant inconsistencies and areas where research needs to be done. This process of plate cooling is currently under scrutiny.

quote:

---

You say: "...there is absolutely no evidence that they[cooling rates] were[fantastic ie, high]."

​

I say: "I didn't say anything about this but what would you expect to see if cooling rates were high?"

---

"I don't expect anything because there is no evidence that they were so high."
--hm..--Who would have thought--edge make a logical fallacy?"So, you can expose a thin veneer of the mantle to seawater. Do you realize how large the mantle is?"
--You mean in surface area below the ocean crust? Sure, but what are you trying to get at? You don't think mantle rock would be exposed to oceanic water at such spreading rates as CPT postulates?This ones not as bad as your previous circular reasoning, but it still made me laugh:

quote:

---

You say: "Utter nonsense... Do you have any idea what the products of such a reaction would be?" [edge expresses my apparent stupidity for invoking such a reaction because of the products]

​

I say: "Not really. Do you?"

---

"No[lol - why express his surprise at my invoking 'such a reaction' because of the products when he doesn't know the products..]. Once again, it is your job to come up with an explanation to support your hypothesis, not mine.[then you go off on a tangent. This is out of place because you are not responding to my attempt at supporting my hypothesis. You are responding to my denial of knowing what the products of the reaction would be.]"
--Mind if I do a little sketch for this one:"You have said elsewhere that the CPT model fits the data better than mainstream plate tectonics."
--Alright, let me get this strait... Never(with the possible exception of my first month or two a year and a half ago).. in all my existence here on have I ever exclaimed that CPT fits the data BETTER than mainstream PT. Where did you get this? You keep bringing it up despite its utter ridiculousness."Of course! It is utterly ridiculous! But so is your idea that an unproductive and unrealistic line of research should receive research attention."
--What makes any of my research proposals unrealistic and undeserving of an ioda of scientific attention? Some vague generalization against creationism isn't going to cut it, give me something specific.-------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-01-2003]

Yes, I've corrected the reference. Might I suggest that you complete the points under discussion before introducing new points? The messages for the current points are already long.About my complaint that you are citing me as supporting your position, you seem to be forgetting that though *your* oceanic ridge evidence turned out to contain no data for close in to the ridge, mine did not. I cited a figure for the average sedimentation rate in mid-ocean, and described the increased sedimentation rates near active ridges because of warmer waters and therefore more life above. Persist in this mistake if you wish. I gave you advice, which you followed, sort of. Had I instead assured you that something was true and you had accepted my assurance, then you would have been taking my word for something. I'm picking on you for mistakes like this because of the incongruity of someone who incorreclty uses words and phrases he's not familiar with and who can't even keep "linear" and "exponential" straight but tries to argue as if he knows what he's talking about. Uh, TC, as I stated right up front in my message, I was summarizing the points you ignored, not responding to your new point concerning magnetic reversals. This confusion on your part is another reason why it's a good idea to complete current points before introducing new ones, particularly since we're already at saturation. Obviously, the diagrams I was referring to are the same ones you already conceded don't contain data for sedimentation depths close the ridge. Though your geomagnetic argument is new, it is no different from your other arguments. You are still promoting a scenario for which you have no evidence, namely a young earth with its geology created by a recent worldwide flood. And in order to explain how evidence so strongly indicating slow sedimentation rates and an ancient earth is misinterpreted you are invoking imaginary processes for which you also have no evidence. So, no, TC, I see no deceleration.As I asked a message or two ago, why don't you tell us what your evidence for the flood is? In order to justify the violence you're doing to established physics it would have to be pretty mighty evidence. You follow this with a long argument, but it simply ignores the fact that turbulent waters such as those of the flood will produce large-grained sediment. Certainly it wouldn't be *only* large-grained, but large-grained would dominate. After the flood year the sediment should be fine-grained. In other words, the character of sediment deposited during the turbulent flood year should be different than that deposited later in calmer waters.The mid-ocean sediment is all fine-grained. There is no discontinuity from large-grained to fine-grained. There isn't even a gradual transition from large-grained to fine-grained. There is only fine-grained sediment. The evidence indicates there was no turbulent flood. It is the lack of just such evidence that leads Creationists like Wmscott who understand how sedimentation works to advocate a very quiet, slow, peaceful flood that gradually crept up on the continents and then just as quietly receded.You can't ignore the fact that different processes produce different evidence. Had there been a violent flood 5,000 years ago the evidence would indicate it. It doesn't. Well, I guess it all depends upon how ridiculous you're willing to be. You've already got accelerated decay, accelerated continental drift, accelerated cooling and accelerated magnetic reversals. It sounds like you want to add to this accelerated migration, accelerated, mating, accelerated reproduction, accelerated growth, accelerated life spans and accelerated biological decay.At the beginning of the flood year the Atlantic Ocean did not exist. How do you explain fossil clams, which don't migrate all that fast, of a size indicating an age of at least several years in deep sediments off the Atlantic coast that would have come from the beginning of the flood year? Oh, give it a break, TC. This isn't biogeography, this is common sense. The water fell from the sky and welled up from the deep and flowed off the continents and into the oceans in torrents, and it carried everything not nailed down with it, including flora and fauna. Why don't we find them buried in the coastal sediments, TC?So try again, TC. Here's what we should find in coastal sediments. I've corrected the reference to the mid-ocean sedimentation rate, and I've added a couple additional details:

1. The deepest sedimentary layers should contain the detritus from runoff from the continents prior to their submergence. There should never be any evidence of sea floor life like clams and crabs and so forth because there was no time for them to inhabit the newly created sea floor. Organic content, other than that flowing off the continent, should be low since the new sea would be largely uninhabited. It should not be surprising to find the remains of many land animals washed off the continent.
   ​
2. The next higher sedimentary layer should be the result of turbulent water caused by accelerated continental drift and the seismic activity you insist happened. Organic content should be low.
   ​
3. The next higher sedimentary layer should contain the drainage from continents as they reemerge from the waters. Organic content should again be low.
   ​
4. The highest sedimentary layer would be a thin layer formed during the past 5000 years since the flood, depth dependent upon local conditions and having high organic content. The top layer should reflect increasing migration of life into the newly formed coastal regions.

Moving on: First, asking for evidence of what is common knowledge is just a stonewalling tactic, TC. You bought all those geology books, just look it up. Besides, had we found what I described in those four points above we would all be Creationists - the evidence would require it.Second, you're taking two different tacks. First you dispute each of my four points, and now you defend them by asking me to provide contrary evidence. Pick just one approach, okay? Good grief, TC, we settled this already, don't you remember? You're slipping back into previous misunderstandings again. Evidence of continental drift is *not* evidence of PT or CPT. Wegener wasn't gathering evidence for PT, he was gathering evidence for continental drift, of which he had a lot. You should be gathering evidence for the flood and for accelerated physical processes. So far you have none.By the way, would it be possible for you to please stop using the word "uniformitarian". It's a popular Creationist attempt to mischaracterize modern geology, as in, "Modern geology is uniformitarian and does not accept the possibility of sudden catastrophes. Obviously modern geology is wrong since the world experiences earthquakes, volcanoes, fires and floods all the time." Sorry, TC, it still reads like science fiction hash. Well, TC, if you agree that mammals in the Cambrian *would* be evidence for your position, and since there are no mammals in the Cambrian, then guess what? You still have no evidence!--Percy[Fixed grammatical errors. --Percy][This message has been edited by Percipient, 07-01-2003]

quote:

---

"You are the one claiming some kind of legitimacy for CPT. It is incumbent upon you to support your assertions. If you cannot do so, then you must accept the fact that you will be taken to the woodshed in a debate."

​

--Thats nice, but I never made any positive assertions regarding stress and strain in the lithosphere and what would be expected if CPT occurred, so if you don't want to take it anywhere, I havent even jumped in so don't push me in a hole you and IRH dug just so that you could accuse me of not supporting an assertion I never made.

---

Actually, I'm just looking for ANY kind of evidence that you can provide. This one was just a suggestion since you seem to be having so much trouble elsewhere.

quote:

---

"I don't expect anything because there is no evidence that they were so high."

​

--hm..

​

--Who would have thought--edge make a logical fallacy?

---

Except that the premise was yours, not mine...

quote:

---

"So, you can expose a thin veneer of the mantle to seawater. Do you realize how large the mantle is?"

​

--You mean in surface area below the ocean crust? Sure, but what are you trying to get at? You don't think mantle rock would be exposed to oceanic water at such spreading rates as CPT postulates?

---

No, I don't. How do you cool mantle material at 200 km depth with seawater? You have to cool the entire mantle in a very short period of time here. If you could do it by heating seawater, you still have the problem of a poached Noah and a sterilized earth.

quote:

---

This ones not as bad as your previous circular reasoning, but it still made me laugh:

​

You say: "Utter nonsense... Do you have any idea what the products of such a reaction would be?" [edge expresses my apparent stupidity for invoking such a reaction because of the products]

​

I say: "Not really. Do you?"

​

"No[lol - why express his surprise at my invoking 'such a reaction' because of the products when he doesn't know the products..]. Once again, it is your job to come up with an explanation to support your hypothesis, not mine.[then you go off on a tangent. This is out of place because you are not responding to my attempt at supporting my hypothesis. You are responding to my denial of knowing what the products of the reaction would be.]"

---

Wrong. My meaning was not that I don't have any ideas, but that it is your job to come up with them. By the way, my ideas for products cannot are not found on earth. But just think of it logically: If the processes were that much different during the flood, why do we see no distinctive products of this interaction between the entire mantle and seawater, for instance.

quote:

---

--Mind if I do a little sketch for this one:

---

Once again, the premise was yours, not mine. I am under no obligation to follow any rules of logic. If you provide an assertion you should have SOMETHING to back it up. I can't do all your work for you.

quote:

---

What makes any of my research proposals unrealistic and undeserving of an ioda of scientific attention? Some vague generalization against creationism isn't going to cut it, give me something specific.

---

There are too many glaring inconsistencies, such as the cooling problem. No self-respecting institution would give you a dime unless you can come up with a reasonable explanation and a way to demonstrate it. Do you think research money grows on trees? Tell you what, I have a friend as NSF. Give me a copy of your proposal and I'll send it up to him for some constructive criticism.

I think this is about the right place to post this.
It was posted by GeeWhiz at fundies vs athiests on msn.

quote:

---

You (and several of your co-horts) confuse evidence with explanations. Surfin is trying to EXPLAIN the flood using science....where we're just asking for EVIDENCE. Here's an example that will explain the difference:

​

The bible says the flood occurred, and the ark came to rest on Mt. Ararat. Since it contained all the land animals of the Earth (all others would have drowned) then, if the bible's story is True, we could expect to see a layer of relatively uniform composition sediment over the entire planet that dates back 6,000 or so years. Below that layer would be the fossils of all the animals that lived before the flood. Above that layer
we could expect to see a fossil record of younger and younger fossils the farther one gets away from Mt. Ararat. That is, the animals would have started to re-populate the Earth from the vicinity around Mt. Ararat, and succeeding generations would have moved farther and farther away. If this type of fossil record was found, it would strongly suggest that the bible's story might be True. That doesn't explain the flood.......but it provides evidence consistent with the possibility that the flood occurred.

​

So, God could have caused the flood (supernatural explanation).....but scientific evidence would support it.

​

However....if you wish to explain the flood scientifically, then you are making a case that it was a natural occurrence....and natural occurrences don't need God to explain them. If you insist that it was a supernatural event, then no other explanation is necessary......and you should be able to find scientific evidence for it because one can make certain predictions (such as fossil distribution, or a world-wide layer of sediment separating fossil distributions) from a given explanation that can be tested scientifically.

​

So, it's entirely consistent to accept a supernatural explanation as a possible explanation for something, and yet ask for scientific proof or evidence to support that possibility. Science does that all the time -- notes a phenomenon, posits an explanation for it, makes predictions for certain other observations based on the proposed explanation, then tests to see if those predictions are met or not. If so, the explanation gains a bit of credibility.....if not, the explanation is either modified or scrapped in favor of an explanation that IS consistent.

---

I think it is worth copying because it makes a point rather clearly that I haven't seen expressed so well before.Now, I'm going to nominate it for a post of the month.

Sorry for the delay. Car accident and trying to keep the OYSI site updated."Might I suggest that you complete the points under discussion before introducing new points? The messages for the current points are already long."
--Well your the one asking me to, "be gathering evidence for the flood and for accelerated physical processes." If I happen to have these things, shouldn't I attempt to present it as well?"About my complaint that you are citing me as supporting your position, you seem to be forgetting that though *your* oceanic ridge evidence turned out to contain no data for close in to the ridge, mine did not."
--You didn't present any data similar to what I have done. I gave you hard accurate data, albeit not exactly what we need, it still was good data. All you gave me was a sedimentation rate and extrapolated from there--no data there. Where is the data that you presented close to the ridge which you seem to be referring to?
--Also, to reitterate once more, I never said that you supported any one of my positions. Only making it clear to another participant in this thread that no sedimentary thickness data has been presented close to the ridge."Though your geomagnetic argument is new, it is no different from your other arguments. You are still promoting a scenario for which you have no evidence, namely a young earth with its geology created by a recent worldwide flood."
--Nope, you misunderstand my points regarding the geomagnetic data. I am not attempting to give evidence that "the earth is young with its geology created by a recent worldwide flood", though indeed I rightly infer it form the analysis!"And in order to explain how evidence so strongly indicating slow sedimentation rates and an ancient earth is misinterpreted you are invoking imaginary processes for which you also have no evidence. So, no, TC, I see no deceleration."
--Hm.. Well the sedimentary data(or lack thereof to be more accurate) doesn't have anything to do with my analysis of the geomagnetic data(at least as far as I have considered). But to the point, I still don't see how you don't see the deceleration! Indeed William Lowrie did (well, actually the acceleration, or gradual increase in the frequency of geomagnetic reversals since ~80 Ma) and admittedly had no hint at an explanation of the trend. I'm going to write an article on this odd trend in the geomagnetic data. If you skim through the current draft you should have a good understanding as to why this is significant: http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/...is%20Grose/geomag.htm"As I asked a message or two ago, why don't you tell us what your evidence for the flood is?"
--Well lets see, In this thread I've presented two pretty solid cases. One with evidence from the crustal evolution of Venus. And another from an analysis of some geomagnetic data. For the former all you have said so far is that it 'reads like science fiction hash'. This isn't good enough, you have some explaining to do."You follow this with a long argument, but it simply ignores the fact that turbulent waters such as those of the flood will produce large-grained sediment. Certainly it wouldn't be *only* large-grained, but large-grained would dominate."
--It would? What if the majority was already fine grained pre-flood?"After the flood year the sediment should be fine-grained. In other words, the character of sediment deposited during the turbulent flood year should be different than that deposited later in calmer waters."
--I will agree that I am convinced that there would be a cloud of indefinite size in the oceans subsequent to the flood, but my argument still stands. The deposit this cloud would create would look exactly like it were deposited by a turbidity current."The mid-ocean sediment is all fine-grained."
--Indeed, for reasons already discussed"There is no discontinuity from large-grained to fine-grained."
--There isn't?? Again making conclusions from data you have not aquired? Also, I don't expect there to be a vertical discontinuity along the atlantic mid-ocean ridge because those large grained sediments wouldn't get there."There isn't even a gradual transition from large-grained to fine-grained."
--Data please."There is only fine-grained sediment."
--I would suspect so, maybe there is larger grained sediments than would be thought usual, there may even be a smoking gun there. But again I don't expect it, and there is still no data from which your conclusions can be made."Well, I guess it all depends upon how ridiculous you're willing to be. You've already got accelerated decay, accelerated continental drift, accelerated cooling and accelerated magnetic reversals. It sounds like you want to add to this accelerated migration, accelerated, mating, accelerated reproduction, accelerated growth, accelerated life spans and accelerated biological decay."
--Ignoring the sarcasm, you seem to think that in the early portions of the "flood year" that there would be this big gap between the Americas and Africa and that the pre-flood oceans would just get subducted right along with the pre-flood oceanic lithosphere. My point is that as soon as the Atlantic began to open up, water is going to begin to fill it up."At the beginning of the flood year the Atlantic Ocean did not exist. How do you explain fossil clams, which don't migrate all that fast, of a size indicating an age of at least several years in deep sediments off the Atlantic coast that would have come from the beginning of the flood year?"
--It would have came along with the rest of the ocean water form pre-flood oceans."Oh, give it a break, TC. This isn't biogeography, this is common sense. The water fell from the sky and welled up from the deep and flowed off the continents and into the oceans in torrents, and it carried everything not nailed down with it, including flora and fauna. Why don't we find them buried in the coastal sediments, TC?"
--I don't know, are you sure we don't find any terrestrial material/organisms in coastal ocean sediments? I havent done this sort of research and neither do I have any books with appropriate information. You seem to think that if you get a couple of basic books on geology and 'earth's dynamic systems' that you'll be able to do a complete thesis on any specific geologic topic. However this isn't true. I've been on the topic of paleosols and fossil forests as well as the process of lithification and each one of those topics are large and complex. Theres much more to these things, even if this is just a forum on the internet. Theres a lot of data, and thus a lot of analysis."So try again, TC. Here's what we should find in coastal sediments. I've corrected the reference to the mid-ocean sedimentation rate, and I've added a couple additional details:"
--I don't want to think too far ahead, but I still don't think that your thoughts on the organic content as well as some other aspects of your theory are adequate. Tell you what, you just get some real data on what we do see in costal ocean sediments and I'll be happy to discuss this topic further. The development of scientific theories always begins with a guess, you've made yours and I've made mine. Now, lets get that data."First, asking for evidence of what is common knowledge is just a stonewalling tactic, TC."
--lol, for what is 'common knowledge' you say? Well I think your out on a limb there. Lets get that data. And I mean real data, not a summary of the data, I want 'data'."Besides, had we found what I described in those four points above we would all be Creationists - the evidence would require it."
--I doubt it, yes even if we did."Second, you're taking two different tacks. First you dispute each of my four points, and now you defend them by asking me to provide contrary evidence. Pick just one approach, okay?"
--I am on one approach, I have disputed each of your points and then I ask you to defend them if you are so confident that it is contrary to the evidence. I'm not the one doing the defending there."Good grief, TC, we settled this already, don't you remember? You're slipping back into previous misunderstandings again. Evidence of continental drift is *not* evidence of PT or CPT."
--I don't think we settled it then. Evidence of continental drift, is indeed evidence for plate tectonics. Plate tectonics is just a more comprehensive dyamic system involving continental drift. You don't have the evidence for continental drift then you just have that much less evidence for the cyclic evolution of the oceanic lithosphere."Wegener wasn't gathering evidence for PT, he was gathering evidence for continental drift, of which he had a lot."
--Yup, which led to what???? the theory of plate tectonics could it be? Could they not somehow be tied together? I didn't read the introductory section of Turcotte and Schubert's book Geodynamics so many times for nothing."By the way, would it be possible for you to please stop using the word "uniformitarian". It's a popular Creationist attempt to mischaracterize modern geology, as in, "Modern geology is uniformitarian and does not accept the possibility of sudden catastrophes. Obviously modern geology is wrong since the world experiences earthquakes, volcanoes, fires and floods all the time."
--Percy, I've understood the principle of Uniformitarianism ever since my first real geology book (Marine Geology by John Ericson I believe) and have also since then understood these misrepresentations by my fellow YEC's. Inasmuch Uniformitarianism is the good ol' 'present is the key to the past' principle, continental drift probably didn't progress at the rates CPT proposes. Mainstream PT allows for minor 'catastrophes' in various processes, even sea-foor spreading rates, though the assumption that it has been essentially constant throughout the history of sea-floor spreading warrants the 'uniformitarian' label. Especially if we are going to be trying to differentiate between the two."Sorry, TC, it still reads like science fiction hash."
--It does? What would it mean to you if I said the same thing to you? Well, quite frankly, nothing. Again, you have some explainaing to do.------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-17-2003]

"Actually, I'm just looking for ANY kind of evidence that you can provide."
--no your not.------------------