Summations Only

..."flood geology" is a farce...Farce? Let's try to figure out why exactly farce. Sedimentary rocks are predominantly of marine origin and the same rocks can be produced from various processes. Why should we make an exception for the flood to determine the genesis of rocks?Sorry for my bad English.Edited by Serg-antr, : No reason given.

My argument is that your words about farce are not substantiated. We do not know what processes are formed by sedimentary rocks, we judge of it only by analogy to modern processes, and they can be very different from those that were in the Earth's history. Therefore the claim that flood geology is a farce at least has no reason.

"So their "interpretations" are on a par with: "Given the data that pigs fly, the most sensible interpretation is that they have wings.""Hmm.
Let's look at an example of a normal coal basin - Donetsk in Ukraine. It has an area of 60 thousand square km. Carboniferous age rocks are limestone, shale and coal. Thickness coal seams has mainly from a few centimeters to one meter, almost all saems are sustained throughout the basin, the number of layers are 310.
Traditional geology explains the formation of the coal-bearing strata dip and uplifting territory and the formation of coal - the accumulation of peat in the coastal plain.
Now, look: if coal was formed from peat bog, this swamp was an ideally flat surface area of 60 thousand square km. Where have you seen in the modern Earth a swamp area with a perfectly flat surface (otherwise, cannot formed a layer of coal with thickness a few centimeters)?
Furthermore, immersion basin at different depths accumulated sea rocks - limestone and shale. But the basin was exactly uplifting to the height of the coastal wetlands (up to a few tens of centimeters), not more, otherwise the thin coal layers was washed away to the land. And these super accurate uplifting was 310 during the Carboniferous period.Do not you think that such "interpretations" (also) are on a par with: "Given the data that pigs fly, the most sensible interpretation is that they have wings."?Sorry for my bad English.Edited by Serg-antr, : No reason given.Edited by Serg-antr, : No reason given.

"But that is your interpretation, not that of geologists. They don't say that it was "an ideally flat surface". You do."And how do they explain the formation of sustained throughout the basin coal layers several inches thick? I have not found."I've been looking at what geologists do say about the basin. They say that when the basin was uplifted, erosion did take place."Erosion did taken place, but it is not completely washed away a thin layer of coal. Perhaps a few exceptions, but generally so. This is a fact. Mean erosion was very weak, so the uplift was almost exactly to the height of the coastal plain. Otherwise how to explain the same sustained of thin layers of coal throughout the basin?"And if these are the principles of flood geology, which is what
the thread is meant to be about, you're welcome to those, too."A flood just these problems are easy to solve.How to make this a quote? Edited by Adminnemooseus, : NOTE - Private message sent to try to give quoting help - Adminnemooseus

"My approach to this question is slightly different than most. Instead of arguing back and forth about this sediment or that, I prefer to get to the meat of the issue. There is simply no evidence that can falsify the YEC flood models. The evidence doesn't matter when talking to someone who supports the flood model. Their mind was already made up BEFORE they saw the evidence.How do I know this? All you need to do is ask a very simple question: What features must a geologic formation have in order to falsify a recent globa flood? I have yet to find a YEC who can answer this, and that is why YEC flood models are a farce. They are unfalsifiable."I do not like an ideological disputes. I want to understand the facts.

Hi Percy.

quote:

---

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.
Isn't this flat enough for you? If not, how "perfectly flat" do you think you require, and why?

---

Perhaps it is enough to form a flat plain seasoned area of ​​the peat, but:
1. Its area is not tens of thousands of square kilometers.
2. Her story does not know 310 uplift and subsidence.
Compare the thickness of coal with its area (just imagine), multiply that by 310 and you will be easier to understand what I'm saying. Around the basin changing climate, sea level has fluctuated, were formed and destroyed mountains, volcanoes erupt, and only within the basin cycle 310 times all came back to the permanent swamp area. Is not it obvious that this story is something wrong?

quote:

---

What is it about this "thin layer of coal" that makes you think it would not be completely eroded away?

---

This is a fact - thin layers of coal can be traced throughout the basin. It is approved unanimously by all the researchers of basin. If the rate of erosion was not enough to blur a few centimeters (one meter) thick coal, this erosion has been very weak, and hence the uplift was only about to the level of the coastal plain. Otherwise irregular and selective erosion would make intermittent layer.

quote:

---

Erosion evens out a landscape.

---

It is not. Take a look at all the relief of the mountains to be sure. Landscape evens out an accumulation, erosion dissects the landscape.

quote:

---

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.

---

Perhaps the coal - sea rock, the area of ​​marine sediment is controlled almost entirely by gravity and the basin area and the basin can be of any size. And millions of years of accumulation of vegetation, you can simply replace the millions of square kilometers of the spread of the vegetation, and then transfer it to the sedimentary basin (possibly influence the flood).
Conversion of peat into coal went on heating and compression, but maybe not for millions of years, much faster. Coal is important for the formation of pressure and temperature, time does not matter.

Hi, dr Adequate and Percy.
Again I have forced to apologize for my puzzles, but believe me, I have their formulation takes many more times than you have read them. Take it easy the my speech (but not arguments!). Yeah, I do not understand the theory, do not understand the terms (in English), I have bad character, crooked legs and a long nose, but it unfortunately does not add weight (force?) to your arguments. , ?.. - No, but how are you?.. (Catch phrase of a Russian film).That you have understood from this picture? Dash some ...
This is a stratigraphic column, but we are discussing about the history of the area. This is not the same thing. And the scale of this column are not well, just the one we need. Something to talk about history, we need lots and lots more information. And then - let the two "normal" geologists interpret all the information about a coal basin, get the three opinions. The cause of the regression can be either uplift of the area, or sinking of sea level. You want to say that the basin was in place, and the sea level fluctuated? These oscillations left their mark on the planet? In America, too? Erosion has left a broken relief, continental accumulation would leave a continental deposits - both of them are not. Sustained, continuous. Please advise me what to do if your answers in my opinion do not respond to my questions?
We're talking about the area of continuous swamp, not about the territory Everglades. In the photo area of the bog near several dozen square kilometers (not thousands).
But one coal seam formed at the same time. This is obviously not the case. The cause of the sculpture is a sculptor, not the car driver, who brought to the sculptor a monolith. Erosion shapes mountains, river valleys, it cuts into the rocks of uplifting plains, how the sculptor removes too much of the monolith.
I draw your attention to this in order to explain that after a period of erosion is broken relief, if not in the ground, in the eroded layers (as in the photo Badlands in the South Dakota). Yes, it is. 310 from the Russian Wiki.
This is not improbable, you're not surprised thousands of layers in flysch? Both as a result of tectonic movements, erosion by flood waters (presumably). We can not judge the scheme. Probably not all the coal layers extend across the basin (this is normal for the natural process), but many layers. This is noted by the researchers. And even if the layer is not the whole area of the basin, it is continuous, not broken.

But I'm not talking about uplifting the Permian period; I'm talking about uplifting the Carboniferous, which is associated with the formation of each layer of coal.If there are no arrows near the Carboniferous that does not mean that there was not uplift, small scale of the image. It is not, you're probably wrong. Books (at least in Russian) say nothing of the frequent fluctuations in sea level in the Carboniferous, the accumulation of peat they associate with epeirogenic earth movements.
What is "Sheesh" Yes, sorry. I will try.Erosion would make a coal layers broken, continental accumulation would formed a continental deposits. None of this is not in the Donets Basin.

If you're talking about the description of the Donets Basin geology, it is mainly in Russian, English is difficult for me to look. If you made ​​it about my ideas, it is simple logic, do not know whether it is reflected on some sites. All coal seams were formed as a result of flood (presumably). I doubt that dating gives the correct result. And we know very little about the properties of time. I am of the determination made ​​by Saint Augustine: time is a measure of the actions. It is impossible to reconcile with the modern years. Yes, sorry, I was too hasty in sending messages.
I agreed with your interpretation of my words. The number 310 is taken from wiki (link). Were you surprised when the flood could deposited 300 layers of coal, but this is not surprising, because the formation of flysch you by surprise, and there are sometimes more than a thousand layers. Yes, right. Such processes and are now in the sea, only on a much smaller scale: a sea currents erode sediments.

I know these words of St. Augustine, and fully agree with them. But I think I do not say there's anything to be ashamed.Edited by Serg-antr, : No reason given.Edited by Serg-antr, : No reason given.

Sheesh. You all say is right and I agree with you, but you're talking about raising the Permian and the end of Mesozoic, and I'm talking about raising the Carboniferous period, which according to geologists were responsible for the formation of marshes and coal. But about these uplifts the column does not say anything, because the small scale. But they are were (according to geologists), because the situation of accumulation was changed. My evidence - a form of layer, a thin layer spread over a wide area. This is a typical form of layers of marine origin. It is unlikely that the marsh was homogeneous on a such large area, and unlikely that the vibrational motion of the earth's crust took place with such precision (one meter) and as often as in the Carboniferous period in the Donbas. Yes, I have no idea about it. Yes, he was completely wrong. A line of demarcation could not be carried out, the time is always relative. Thank you, I will try it. Calcium carbonate in sea water depends on many factors and may be very different from the modern. And if you replace a longer duration of gathering material for the formation of limestone over a larger area, you get the same amount of limestone. No, no, all the layers of the Carboniferous period was deposited, and then period of subsidence and squeezed under pressure strata, was formed coal, and then uplift and erosion of the overlying rocks. Usually, yes, but the flood is an unusual event. If we shall have the time and energy, we (shall?) consider also a neighboring regions.

(From link):"Multiple transgressions and regressions of the Pennsylvanian seas across the continent can be seen in the rocks, and even counted, because they leave a telltale sequence of layers"This is very interesting. I make the note for myself, it need to understand. But with that, I do not agree. If the layers of the Carboniferous have been deposited on account of fluctuations in the level of the sea, they correlate with the all world. But this is not observed. Here is the summary of the stratigraphic column from the textbook of historical geology :
Signature over the column: Western Europe, Moscow, Ulyanovsk (Russia), the Donets Basin, the North Caucasus, Northern Urals, Magnitogorsk (Russia), the Kuznetsk basin (Russia), Texas, Australia (New England), Algeria, Libya.
As we can see, there is no correlation.Edited by Serg-antr, : No reason given.

I do not mean "the same", but a correlation. Certainly rocks can be different depending on environments, but the boundaries between layers should correlate in all the world. After all, the sea level fluctuations necessarily lead to changes in the rocks.The rest of the answers later, sorry, I am very busy.

Here are the links and citations.
Quantification of the control of sequences by tectonics and eustacy in the Dniepr-Donets Basin and on the Russian Platform during Carboniferous and Permian A comparison of local and global second-order stratigraphic sequences, allowing an estimation of the ratio of the importance of eustatic to tectonic processes controlling subsidence in each basin, demonstrates that eustacy controlled sedimentation in the Moscow Basin and tectonics prevailed in the Dniepr-Donets Basin. Dnieper-Donets depression , , . --- "For coal deposits typical is rhythm, which is a consequence of pulsating tectonic movements during which uplift interspersed with subsidence."More in this thesis ‘ (it is in Ukrainian, I can not to translate into English) specify the nature of these motions. I'm not saying that this is the flood deposits, I'm trying to figure out whether they could be formed by the flood. We can not say anything about the duration of events, especially in the distant past (beyond the historical period), not knowing the properties of time. And that time has properties that can be changed, and not only at the quantum level, as far as I know, has already proven physics. About the dynamical inhomogeneity of time can be found for example in the article written by my fellow countrymen. Time, what is it? Dynamical Properties of Time. Quote from there:" Thus, any material system is capable to influence the course of time in that region of space, where it is placed."
Perhaps because an ignorance of the properties of time now a mess with the dating, such as the age of dinosaur soft tissue that could not survive in the soil for more than 10,000 years (Schweitzer MH, Zheng W, Organ CL, et al. Biomolecular characterization and protein sequences of the Campanian hadrosaur B. canadensis / / Science. 2009 May 1, 324 (5927) :626-31) Today the limestone is not formed, now formed the lime mud. The lime mud can accumulate over time but can be collected from a large area, and sorted by flow. As a result from this the limestone "stream" may be similar to the limestone "many years." Yes, the continental erosion dissects the terrain and makes intermittent horizontal layers, but marine clastic flow washes away the large width of rocks parallel to the horizon. Maybe the coal layers can be the proof of it. No, my idea is that they are transferred, sorted, accumulated, eroded powerful flow. Do not understand the question. Regarding the Carboniferous period diagram this shows only the names of stages.

Because these layers are tightened by tectonic conveyor into the mantle. Coal shall remain only on the continents. Reality is a such theory. Where in the modern world there are such large homogeneous marshes with perfectly flat terrain how on Donbass?