|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The 3 catch cries of uniformitarian geology are equally well explained by the Flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
The three catch cries of Lyellian uniformitarianism are perfectly explained by flood geology:
(1) Rivers follow gorges proportional to their size. The same catchments that drained the Flood waters, rapidly eroding soft sediments into gorges, are also the catchments that provide the source for these same rivers today. (2) Layers only form slowly Layers have been proven beyond doubt to form in seconds and minutes under rapid flow. (See numerous posts on this web site). (3) The formations around the world can all be assigned to a dozen or so modern day sedimentary environments. Firstly most of the geo-col comes from a single environment - marine inundation on to land. Secondly the assignments are simply 'best matches'. They frequently don't match up well. There are no continental shleves around the world producing anything like the scope of most of the flat marine strata on any of our continents. There is no analog to the vast coal fields of the East Coast of USA. Many of the fresh water beds, have land plants strewn thoughout thousands of square miles without any evidence of a river delta. There are no huge chalk beds forming anywhere. It is all simply 'just so' stories. Everything written in these books is very 'reasonable' but they are just stories. Any series of formaitions can be justified by an arbitrary series of environments. Since most of the rocks on land are due to marine inundations we ascribe them to global flood surges. The smaller freshwater beds in-between are assigned to catastrophic fresh water flooding that carved out erosional features that can be approximately matched with the dozens of modern day environemnts despite the fact that they were rapidly formed. This just-so story is no more just-so than the uniformitarian solution. Every submarine fan or river delta or eolian sand deposit can equally well be due to catastrophic flooding and drainage through soft sediment. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-29-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3852 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
The same catchments that drained the Flood waters, rapidly eroding soft sediments into gorges, are also the catchments that provide the source for these same rivers today.
How fast would they be draining? Wouldn't draining Flood waters tend to exhibit sheet flow instead of stream flow? Layers have been proven beyond doubt to form in seconds and minutes under rapid flow. (See numerous posts on this web site). I agree that there are some instances where that happens. What about layers that contain ash and bentonite deposits specific to that layer? For example if the layer below an ash deposit and the layer above don't have that ash, it is highly improbable the sequence formed in minutes. Firstly most of the geo-col comes from a single environment - marine inundation on to land. That's also true, to the best of my knowledge, but why does each inundation bring with it such widely varying fauna?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Gene
quote: I agree. Draining flood waters would begin as sheet flow and morph into stream flow as the flow shallowed. This is precisely the nature of the geological column.
quote: Some such ash flows may indicate that they were laid down in-between water action. It's aslo possible that ash mixed with water to produce ash mudflows.
quote: YE-creationists of course beleive that the the lifeforms of the fossil record all lived contemporaneously and to a certain extent in different ecologies. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-29-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1735 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Umm, TB? If rivers formed canyons by eroding soft sediments, when did those sediments lithify into the rocks we see today and how did it happen? How did gorges form in soft sediments? Why do they follow structural patterns that form in fractured rocks?
quote: SOME strata form slowly, others do not. You are making a hasty generalization here.
quote: And the problem here is what? Do you really think that you are the first person to recognize this? What unimaginable hubris!!
quote: Lots of assertions, but I see virtually no data.
quote: This is laughable. How can you have a fresh water flood while the land is covered by a marine flood? I can see that we have had no influence on your enlightenment, TB. As much as we have tried to open your blinders, you continue to rant in unsupportable and unintelligible verses.
quote: What? How can erosional processes cause deposition? Your complete ignorance of geology is obscenely exposed by your statments. I'm beginning to worry about you, TB. This latest rant makes me wonder if you are okay.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1735 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Gene quote: Hear, hear. Well said for someone who hasn't done a day's worth of field work.
quote: Let me guess, you've never seen a bentonite bed...
quote: And those ecologies never bordered on one another and no rivers ever flowed through more than one of them. And there were no migrations across boundaries. Nonsense. According to many creationists, humans lived side by side with dinosaurs... why do we not see their fossils together?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Edge
We argued about lithificaiton issues a while back. We discussed that soft sediments collapsing due to erosion would at some point stop collapsing. What else can happen?! When it stops collapsing that will harden and be eroded by normal processes. How can you be so sure tha tfracturing of soft sediments is so differnt to fracturing of hard sediments? What's your soft sediment model?
quote: I make no claim to originality at all!
quote: You have clearly not even heard our claims. The marine inundations that were part of the flood came and went just as mainstream science believes and has discovered. All we say is that these inundations were catastrophic.
quote: Your use of geological terminology must be more rigid than a computer programming language Edge. Everyone reading this knows that erosion produces sediment that gets deposited somewhere! So I'll ask you, how can we have an erosional process without deposition?(!) [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-30-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
quote: The oil industry started deliberately fracturing consolidated sediments about 1950, and unconsolidated ones about 1985. They are very differently. The physics of how they fracture has been modeled very extensively: the journals and procedings of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, which I believe are online but only pay-per-view, probably have a couple of hundred papers dealing with the differences.And consolidated sediments don't slump like sandpiles do, anyway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Randy Member (Idle past 6276 days) Posts: 420 From: Cincinnati OH USA Joined: |
quote: So there were soft sediments around before the flood to be rapidly eroded by the flood? Did God create the world with soft sediments ready to be eroded into gourges? Why weren't the soft sediments mostly washed into the oceans as the flood drained? How did these soft sediments get sorted into uniform layers?
quote:Refresh my memory please. How did huge chalk beds form during a global flood? I don't remember your answer to this question. quote: No they are explanations with evidence while you have a myth that is contradicted by evidence. Let's look at Glenn Mortons page on the geologic column in North Dakota just so you don't forget to give a flood based explanation for the layers found there
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/geo.htm Oncolites found in the Interlake prove that these deposits took some time to be deposited. There are 11 separate salt beds scattered through four ages: 2 Jurassic Salt beds, 1 Permian salt bed, 7 Mississippian salt beds, and one thick Devonian salt. Half of these salt beds are up to 200 feet thick. The top Mississippian salt is 96% pure sodium chloride! Since they are sandwiched between other sediments, to explain them on the basis of a global, one-year flood, requires a mechanism by which undersaturated sea water can dump its salt. If the sea were super-saturated during the flood, the no fish would have survived. As I pointed out it takes the evaporation of about 70 feet of seawater to produce a foot of salt. Lets say each bed as an average depth of 60 feet, though some are much thicker, and was the result of an area twice as large as the bed evaporating. You need to catch and evaporate more the 2000 feet of sea water over large areas at least 11 times between your flood surges and deposit other sediments in between. How does this happen in a year? The salt beds underling Michigan are 400 to 1600 feet in thickness and cover a large area. There are at least 10 large salt beds in the western hemisphere alone. Where is the energy to evaporate all this water? How can it be evaporated without cooking the earth to death when it condenses?
quote: So amonites were sorted by the complexity of their shell sutures because they lived in different ecologies? You also have the problem that dinosaur fossils are found on the same continents as the fossils of eocine mammals and therapsid reptiles but always in different layers. Why would dinosaurs always live in differnt ecologies than eocine mammals and theraspid reptiles and why would deposits from those ecological zones always be deposited below eocine mammals and above permian therapsids and never with any modern mammals? The fossil record falsifies the flood pure and simple and all the creations "explanations" such as those you gave on the threads on the topic generate massive absurdity. No combination of ecological zoning, hydrodynamic sorting and differential escapability can save your myth. Randy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1735 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: And just what are these 'normal processes?' How does a sediment laying around at the surface suddenly become a rock? You never did address this issue before.
quote: Does it make sense for soft sediments to carry individual fractures for miles?
quote: Okay, so all of those jaded scientists out there never thought of this?
quote: Then the non-marine part was not a flood as you stated.
quote: No. I simply do not try to redefine terminology wherever I need to, as creationists are prone to do. In case you didn't notice, the deposition usually occurs in a place different from erosion. I point this out simply to show that you have no clue as to what your are talking about, and that all of the in-depth reading that you have done is gone to waste because you do not understand the most basic principles of science. How do you expect to be taken seriously?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Coragyps
That may all be true. However, I don't even claim that the edge of the Grand Canyon was the same one exposed 4500 years ago. That is a stawman prediciton. Who knows what the original edge looked like. 4500 years has undoubtedly undermined the canyon and generated hard sediment collapse. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-01-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Randy
quote: No. We of course believe that the vast horizontal layers that cover sub-continental regons in sheets of sediment were layed down during high energy flows as revealed by paleocurrent data. Lower volume run-off carved features into these soft layers as the flow moved from a sheet to stream regime. This explains all of your points. Because of the low volume during the second stage channeling occurs and carves out features rather than removing entire layers. Fast currents have been hsown to geernate neat layers by hydrodynamic sorting. You really should get Berthualt's video from AIG for something like $10. Unless they faked more photo realisitc footage than appears in Jurassic Park, the footage shows actual layers forming under fast currents in huge experimental channels. From my reading, creationists suspect that chalk was primarily formed by chemical precipitation rather than simply organic deposition. Salyt beds? In our scenario the salt beds may have been generated due to precipitaiton due to either volcanic heating or even accelerated radiodecay. I wont pretend this is proven. It is how we would account for it at this point. Ammonites? Sorting would be by ecolocy, morphology, mobility and survival characteristics in our model. Dinosaur/mammal seperations. I know I wouldn't have spent much time on the dinosaur plains. I personally know an Australian creationst who was present as new Paluxy River dino/human trackways were uncovered. They followed the trackway layer until it ended in a river bank. This was removed and there were new dinosuar and human imprints under that. As simple as that. This is a totally normal (but creationiost )Aussie archeologist (ie not a paleontologist) who in his spare time joined the Paluxy guys. He saw it uncovered with his own eyes. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-01-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Edge
Wet sediment lying around hardens through compression and chemical processes as you know. You show me the work that shows that the sediments couldn't have hardened since the flood. Like I have posted earlier today, some fractures are post-flood times. The Grand Canyon edge has been undermined for 4500 years and of course has caused hard wall collapse.
quote: All we are saying is that you have found a certain level of consistency in gradualism and have gone out on a limb on everything. We have done the same for flood geology. Once you go flood or no flood most of the interpreaiton is ideology-based which you guys rarely admitt.
quote: The non-marine component was still catastrophic. Whatever 'the windows of heaven opened' means did something that has not occurred since. The freshwater Hermite layers of Grand Canyon have land plant material strwn through thousands of square miles with no evidence of a river delta. We have excellent eveidcnce of both catstrophic fresh and sea-water fooding. Just keep telling youself that somehow there is an envirnement that could do it today.
quote: You are completely incorrect Edge. I simply assume that the reader is aware that erosion in one place generates sediment in another. You may think it reuires a PhD in geology to know that but guess what: I knew that before I ever picked up my first geology book.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: What is doing the compression? ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
^ The upper layers. The top layers are irrelevant because they are probably not with us any more. And I am not claiming to be an expert on this anyway! The layers hardened in the same way mainstream science accounts for them. It is quite likely that the time detials have never been properly worked out. When you've got millions of years, who cares?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: I thought that might be your answer. So the flood drops enough sediment deep enough that the lower layers are compressed into rock and then the tops layers go away? In few thousand years? Something isn't looking right about that story. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024