Summations Only

Pretending implies that they're aware of the proper way to interpret the geological evidence. They're actually only aware of what we claim are proper approaches, but they sincerely believe that we're wrong.The way you're looking at this is sort of analogous to the way Christians look at atheists: they believe atheists understand that there really is a God and are just looking for excuses to ignore him. In the same way, you seem to believe that creationists know how to properly interpret the evidence, they're just looking for excuses to ignore it.But just as atheists really and truly don't believe God exists, creationists really and truly do believe they're interpreting the evidence properly.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Hi Taq,To put a finer point on it, you're saying that they've put themselves between a rock ("There's no evidence against Noah's flood") and a hard place ("Falsifying evidence against Noah's flood would be...oh, wait, they've already found that, let me think some more...").--Percy

Hi Serg-antr,I'm trying to understand your chain of argument. First you ask this rhetorical question: The best example of a swamp I know of is the Everglades in Florida, and since the surface is mostly water and vegetation it is pretty flat. Here's a picture of a tiny part of it, but I assume it's fairly representative: Isn't this flat enough for you? If not, how "perfectly flat" do you think you require, and why? You're argument isn't clear here, but I'll point out that uplift above surrounding areas will be eroded away, as Dr Adequate already pointed out.--Percy

The accumulated layers of vegetation over many centuries become gradually buried during a period of subsidence. Increasing heat and pressure turned the crushed vegetation to coal. Meanwhile at the new surface more layers of vegetation accumulate, become gradually buried, and turn to coal. Process repeats again and again, thereby explaining the many layers of coal interspersed with other layers. Given the sea sediments there must have been many sea intrusions. Erosion will differentially slice off (according to resistance to weathering) whatever sticks out above the surrounding landscape, including "a thin layer of coal." Entire mountain ranges have eroded away to become plains. What is it about this "thin layer of coal" that makes you think it would not be completely eroded away? What makes you say this? Does the Donets Basin have some kind of rare climate free of sun and wind and rain and hot/cold cycles? Erosion evens out a landscape. There was no incredible coincidence of uplift "exactly to the height of the coastal plain." If there are problems you haven't found them yet. How would a flood have formed the coal layers of the Donets Basin. I'm particularly interested in hearing the part about how the flood buried successive layers of vegetation (millions of years worth that would have had to grow and accumulate during the flood) miles deep, crushed and heated it into coal, then returned the layers close enough to the surface to be available for mining. Click on the "peek" button at the bottom of this message and you'll see how quoting is done.--Percy

Okay, now keep in mind that we have already answered one of your objections, that a swamp cannot be sufficiently flat, though I'm not sure what you mean by "seasoned". Do you mean many seasons? Do you mean old? Can't see how it fits in. Probably doesn't matter. The Everglades is approximately 40,000 square kilometers, but the Donets Basin was not necessarily all swamp at the same time. The many coal seams formed at many different times.Keep in mind that we have now answered two of your objections. Neither does the Donets Basin. The layers formed during a long period of net subsidence, then they were brought to the surface again during a long period of net uplift. High areas or mountains that form during uplift will be subject to erosion, all the way down to plains if sufficient time passes.Keep in mind that we have now answered three of your objections. This paragraph is so confused as to defy analysis. I think it must reflect your confusion in believing that each layer requires it's own period of subsidence followed by uplift. You're going to have to eliminate this error in your thinking. Of course erosion can be uneven, just look at the American southwest: See the mesas and the surrounding plain? The elevation of the entire area used to be at the top of those mesas and higher. Erosion wore down the plain, the erosion products being carried off by wind, rain and drainage to lower areas. But areas of harder material persisted longer, leaving the mesas behind. Eventually the plains will erode down to harder material, and the mesas will slowly erode, and then it will be flat plains as far as the eye can see, just like Kansas. There are other possibilities, of course, since we don't know if this area is one of net erosion or deposition. If it is now one of net deposition (obviously it was not for a considerable time in the past, otherwise the mesas would not have formed) then the plains could accumulate the erosion products of other regions and eventually fill up to the height of the mesas and beyond.Irregular erosion because of differential hardness can cause rugged looking areas, like the Badlands of South Dakota: But erosion isn't what creates mountains. Uplift creates mountains, and they're being eroded even while they're being uplifted. The Himalayas are mountains where uplift still exceeds the rate of erosion, while the Rocky Mountains are eroding faster than uplift. Eventually mountains chains are eroded away to plains. This is what happened once to the Appalachians, which have actually formed twice, once about a half billion years ago, then after being eroded down to plains by around a hundred million years ago and period of uplift began again, but erosion kept right on going, and today, though they once rivaled the Rockies, the Appalachians are a mere shadow of their former self.But let's remember that we're only having this lesson in geology because you said that the reason a flood must have formed the coal layers of the Donets basin was because of what you perceived as problems with the views of modern geology, but it really turns out that you just don't know anything about modern geology. Now let's examine your flood-related claims: I can only guess at what you're trying to say. Are you saying that the area of vegetation was much greater in extent than the Donets Basin, and that during the flood the vegetation was washed into the basin where it became buried? In nice even layers? 310 layers (by your count, I actually don't know where your figure of 310 comes from) by a single flood? Really? We're not actually sure whether time matters or not, but about the rest, how did the flood bury the layers so deeply that the vegetation became heated and crushed into coal? And then how did these deeply buried layers rise to be closer to the surface and available for mining?--Percy

Yeah, you and I were in the same document. I share your interpretation of the length of the black lines and of the dotted line, but it would be nice to see it spelled out. Has anyone posted a link to that document yet?I poked around a bit looking for a website where Serg-antr might have picked up his ideas about the Donets Basin but came up dry.--Percy

Well, yes, but all we really need here is the information you relied upon for your proposal. Let's see if we can fill in a few details.Is when the flood occurred part of your proposal, or could it have occurred any time? If you date coal, any coal anywhere in the world, it will be dated at >50,000 years old, so the flood had to have occurred at least 50,000 years ago.Is the duration of the flood also part of your proposal, or could it have lasted any amount of time? If you date the layers between which the coal layers lie you'll find that the coal layers range in age from 150 million years old to over 350 million years old. Is it consistent with your proposal that the flood lasted 200 million years? Or maybe you believe some of the coal layers were created by the flood and some were not? If this latter possibility is the correct one, how does one tell the difference between a flood created layer and a layer created in some other manner? Did this even make sense before you translated from the Russian? So are we to understand that you're proposing that the flood deposited the layers, and then the flood eroded the layers it just deposited?--Percy

You're misinterpreting the image, here it is again (click to enlarge): Let's look at the large-type labels in the right-hand column that you've been misinterpreting. The top one says "Uplift/erosion", and it corresponds to the little red up/down arrowed line immediately to it's left. It also corresponds to the white area in the next column to the left that says "Meteorite impact". Any layers that may have been deposited during this period were eroded away because of the uplift, which is why the area of the column is empty (white). But keep in mind that this area is and has been a region of net subsidence for hundreds of millions of years. The uplift period was short, and the amount of uplift was very small when compared to the total subsidence.Now look a little further down at the large-type label on the right hand side that says "Uplift/erosion (Basin inversion/transtension)". The white areas in the column correspond to periods of time where no layers exist, and the yellow area is one that experienced a great deal of disturbance as indicated by many faults. While longer than the other period I described, it was still relatively small in both duration and amount of uplift.These brief periods of uplift did not expose any coal layers to the surface, and so these coal layers would not be subject to erosion. So when you go on to say: This is completely impossible. Erosion cannot act on layers that are buried deep within the ground and have not seen the light of day since they were originally buried hundreds of millions of years ago.--Percy

The "presumably" part is a bit weak. If I were to say, "All coal seams were formed by gradual burial of low lying swamps and bogs (presumably)," now our justifications for what we believe are equal. How would be go about breaking this stalemate? We would each offer actual evidence for our positions. I can offer entire geology books of evidence for why we believe these coal seams were formed by gradual burial of low lying swamps and bogs (and will as the discussion continues). What evidence do you have that they were deposited by a flood? Since you reject radiometric dating and presumably other dating approaches, you have no idea how old any layer is. So when Bishop Ussher determined that the flood was 3933 years ago he was completely wrong? Where in time, exactly, is the line of demarcation between when we know how long ago something was and when we don't. Okay, first let's give a good name to your link: Донецкий каменноугольный бассейн (Donetsk coal basin)Google's Chrome provides a translation link. The translation is pretty rough but still comprehensible. 310 layers isn't a surprise at all. I was just wondering where you're getting your information because everything else you're saying is so imprecise that it's surprising to see a specific figure.By the way, your English is still pretty rough - it looks like you're using an automatic translation engine. If that's what you're doing then after you've translated to English translate back to Russian. If what you get back in Russian is incomprehensible then keep refining the translation to English until you can understand the Russian.Anyway, the Russian Wikipedia article on the Donetsk coal basin mentions that there are quite a few limestone layers. Limestone layers are formed from thousands and thousands of years of deposition of the remains of calcium-rich organisms. How long was the duration of the flood? I don't think you've thought this through. Here's the implications of what you're saying. The flood deposits a layer of vegetation, then a period of subsidence and continued deposits by the flood buries it deeply enough to turn the vegetation to coal, then a period of uplift occurs and the flood erodes away all the layers overlying the coal, then it erodes the coal layer, then a period of subsidence resumes, then the coal layer is buried again. And this happens for every coal layer.This make sense to you? Even though you have no idea how old any layer is and have no evidence for these many uplift/subsidence periods, not to mention the unlikelihood of the enormous coincidences required?And how fast do you think these uplifts and subsidences are taking place? Do you think geological layers move up and down like elevators? Uplift and subsidence is very slow, usually inches/year, so the huge number and uplifts and subsidences you require would take an equally huge amount of time, not to mention leaving enormous amounts of evidence behind at the tortured interfaces with adjacent regions.--Percy

When I use it it's an expression of frustration at bullheadedness or persistent stupidity.--Percy

In other words, you referenced a diagram that provides no support for your position.You say that the uplifts were there "according to geologists." Can you please tell us who these geologists are and provide references to their work? We'd really like to know how you know these uplifts happened? They aren't mentioned in your Russian Wikipedia entry (Донецкий каменноугольный бассейн (Donetsk coal basin)). How do you know it's a flood layer and not just a normal marine layer? But Bishop Ussher was a great scholar, and you are not, so rather than just asking us to take your word for it maybe you could provide some, oh, I don't know, evidence in support of your position? How long ago did time become relative? We know that a hundred years ago was the year 1912, and a thousand years ago was the year 912, and two thousand years ago was the year 12, and three thousand years ago was the year 989 BC, and so forth, but you're claiming that at some point we don't actually know how long ago anything was. How far back in time do we stop knowing how long ago things were because "time is always relative"? How was this fact established? How come no one but you knows about this? How is the limestone being deposited on the floors of shallow quiet seas today different from the limestone layers of the Donets basin? But you said that erosion broke up the coal layers. If the layers of the Carboniferous were uplifted then only the top layer would be exposed. Erosion could not affect the still deeply buried coal layers.And the layers above the coal layers could not have been eroded away down to the coal layers because, obviously, they're still there.Or were you trying to say something else when you said that erosion broke up the coal layers? Unusual in the sense that there is no evidence that it ever happened. Why wait? Let's consider the neighboring regions now. How did the layers of the Donets basin bob up and down like a pogo stick while the adjacent layers did nothing? Or is it your idea that all the layers around the world were bouncing up and down in synchrony?I didn't make any effort to remove the colloquialisms, good luck with your automated translator.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

I think you're going to have to explain to us in English just what you think each diagram is showing.--Percy

From Message 43: --Percy

Again, it doesn't sound like you've thought this through. A region that is subsiding at a land/water boundary will record a layer boundary. Another region that at the same time is also subsiding but is well above sea level will not record a layer boundary - it will just keep recording the same type of layer. Yet another region that at the same time is uplifting and being eroded away will not even appear in the geological record.Now, taking this new information into account, tell us again how you're correlating layers around the world?--Percy

Well, you're just floundering all over the place. Let's try to make the original question perfectly clear. Here's the chart that includes the stratigraphic sequence (click to enlarge): Let's just pick a random coal layer, the one in the middle of the Gzhelian at just before 290 million years ago. Where in your article does it say that this coal layer was ever eroded down to? For reference here's a link to your article that works, your link isn't working right now: Quantification of the control of sequences by tectonics and eustacy in the Dniepr-Donets Basin and on the Russian Platform during Carboniferous and PermianThere's nothing in that article about uplift during the Gzhelian. Here's a quote: Note that it says the subsidence rate was high during the Gzhelian and that a period of uplift didn't begin until the Permian. Now refer to the stratigraphic chart above. See the bottom white area in the Permian? That's the period of uplift that it's referring to. Notice that the white area doesn't extend down to the Gzhelian? That's what tells you that erosion has never, ever, reached the Gzhelian. If it had then the white area would be immediately on top of the Gzhelian, but it isn't, so erosion of the coal layer in the Gzhelian never happened - never! Capisce?You have some crazy ideas about how uplift and subsidence work. What you're suggesting about erosion down to the coal layer with the erosion breaking up the coal layer is impossible given the evidence. The only discontinuities in the stratigraphic column are the white areas. Everywhere else it is pretty much continuous deposition. That paper is talking about relativistic effects on particles. Are you proposing that the Donets Basin was moving at near light speed? Do you have any other irrelevant arguments you'd like to offer before actually answering the question about how long ago something has to be before we can't know how long ago it was, and why?I could keep going through the rest of your message but having just read it I think I'm going to give up here. I don't think you know what you're talking about no matter what language you're thinking in, and you're definitely getting way lost trying to figure out people's responses.--Percy