|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
|
| |
| ChatGPT | |
| Total: 916,475 Year: 3,732/9,624 Month: 603/974 Week: 216/276 Day: 56/34 Hour: 2/2 |
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Seashells on tops of mountains. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
TheWay Junior Member (Idle past 5867 days)  Posts: 27 From: Oklahoma City, Ok Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
TheWay Junior Member (Idle past 5867 days) Posts: 27 From: Oklahoma City, Ok Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
TheWay Junior Member (Idle past 5867 days) Posts: 27 From: Oklahoma City, Ok Joined: |
Hi Razd, thanks for replying.
razd writes: No, it assumes first that the evidence is true, all the evidence, and then looks at how that evidence is best explained. So far the best consistent explanation found is in the science of geology. I'm not sure what your saying is directly related to my question, perhaps you could rephrase it? My question:
quote: razd writes: Tell me, have you ever heard of a flood making a mountain? Can you explain how water could do this?  I highly doubt physics would be on my side if I claimed such a thing. I apologize for not being more specific, as I was referring to the Flood as an event rather than the rainy day most critics think of. First, I would like to add that water would have came up from the ground and from the air. I don't think I would invoke supernatural physics in the processes of the Flood. Although, I am inclined to suggest that since we have never seen something of the Flood's magnitude it would be hard to test against an actual control model.
genesis8 writes: 11In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. As we can see, the Bible clearly states that there were fountains in the far reaches of the earth and that these were broken up (which could mean a few things, I will return to this later). Also that the windows of heaven were opened. We could assume many things just from this verse, allow me to provide my hypothesis, this is off topic so I will figure out how to make a thread pertain to the basic fundamentals of the Flood; how it could have happened. I hope you will join me. 
Razd writes: btw - what do you think "uniformitarianism" means? My opinion is irrelevant except in contextual usage.Uniformitarianism - Wikipedia(science) Where and how I think this fails is a completely unrelated subject, perhaps we could discuss this in another thread? {Added by edit by Adminnemooseus - See Uniformitarianism} Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added "Uniformitarianism" topic link.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
TheWay Junior Member (Idle past 5867 days) Posts: 27 From: Oklahoma City, Ok Joined: |
Jar writes: Where is your evidence that the mountains were lower? Seashells on tops of mountains! It's even the topic heading!  "Sometimes one pays most for the things one gets for nothing." --Albert Einstein
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
TheWay Junior Member (Idle past 5867 days) Posts: 27 From: Oklahoma City, Ok Joined: |
Hello,
iceage writes: 1. Deposition of marine deposits. Many of these deposits include bioturbation or signs of living marine animals stirring things up and burrowing. This voids a violent deposition. Not to mention most are classified as "low energy" depositions meaning there are not signs of stream flow like you see in floods. Are these in order? Bioturbation doesn't necessarily rule out the possibility for rapid uplift of mountains due to tectonic plate activity. Infaunal and perhaps some epifuanal organisms could have survived the rapid uplift and burrowed while the rock was in plasticity. Mountains during uplift would have almost no deposition of rock.
2. Burial of marine deposits miles deep. Could you elaborate?
3. Dewatering of sediments. Are you referring to a process of lithification? Is this through percolation?
4. Void reduction, cementation, recystalization. Are you repeating yourself for the sake of making a larger post? This seems to indicate another attempt to describe lithification. Am I wrong?
5. Uplift at a dizzying rate - miles in fact. Consider the magnitude and frequency of earthquakes required for this to occur even over a few thousand years. Underwater earthquakes form a substantial part of the Flood Event.
Consider the tsunami's that would have been recorded from this event. Consider the heat generated at faults from the frictional forces. Consider the fact that the Himalayas foothills consist of the gravels, conglomerates and eroded parts of the lithified mountains and even containing fossils all of which attest to long periods of existence. The heat from radioactive decay? How do fossils attest to their age?
And you can't use the flood to explain those secondary deposits as the flood excuse was already used up to explain the formations of the original sediments. Secondary deposits?
6. Erosion of the upper layers that were required to lithify the peaks we see today. Could you explain this for me?
7. Ice build up from year to year to thousands of feet high. Varves, ice rings, and dendrochronology are sketchy at best. It seems almost too easy for science, a rarity. Here Lambart and Hsu indicate the questionable variable of "annular" varves in sediment. Mount St. Helens demonstrated that varves can form rapidly. Micheal Oard has shown how assumptions can lead science into logical traps of old earth delusion. I would appreciate that only iceage respond, unless He or I have missed something and it would further discussion. Please no unnecessary rudeness or arrogant comments. I have seen how eager everyone is to jump the creationist. Thanks "Sometimes one pays most for the things one gets for nothing." --Albert Einstein
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
TheWay Junior Member (Idle past 5867 days) Posts: 27 From: Oklahoma City, Ok Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
TheWay Junior Member (Idle past 5867 days) Posts: 27 From: Oklahoma City, Ok Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
TheWay Junior Member (Idle past 5867 days) Posts: 27 From: Oklahoma City, Ok Joined: |
Hello Iceage,
I am ignoring Dr. Adequates post because it is a bit too crass for me. I wish this forum wouldn't allow this behavior.
bioturbation rules out rapid burial I honestly fail to see how. Your explanation is:
You cannot have organism burrowing, nesting, disturbing layers when rapidly being covered by tens, hundreds or thousands of feet of overburden. Yet I wonder how you know this? I am not saying your wrong, it just seems that it could be possible. If the case were that the top of Everest, for example, was in fact lithified as conventional geology would have us believe.
To create metamorphic rock you need pressure and heat Could tectonic plates slamming into each other create enough pressure and heat?
The implies that the peak of Everest was at one time buried by sediments of the order of thousands of feet. Lower layers of Everest are sedimentary in origin. It implies this through conventional uniformitarian geology.
And remember these sediments have to be lithified/metamorphosed prior to uplift so there is an order sequence of events that are required each involving durations of time. Perhaps they do not? I am only asking you to please humor me, Is it possible?
Estimate the wave heights resulting from huge land mass moving miles vertically and horizontally world wide and entire continents motoring around planet. Then try to assume a mythic boat was riding those waves. As I am relatively new to this and since this is an open thread could someone perhaps supply some numbers or equations I could check as I have never heard of this before. Thanks.
The heat from good ole fashion work. Work = Force x Distance. Here the force is the frictional resistance along fault lines under massive pressure. The distance is the miles and miles of fault displacement. The Mt Everest faults are shallow angle faults so that to achieve several miles in the vertical would have required several 10's of miles along a low angle. A bit rusty on the physics, but isn't speed a necessary factor in this equation? Or is distance what you are using to denote this? I can imagine that placed on a graph with the right calculations that everest could be conceived, although it's initial slope could have been more obtuse at first and then subsequently what we see now. Just an idea. Thanks for the discussion. "Sometimes one pays most for the things one gets for nothing." --Albert Einstein
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
TheWay Junior Member (Idle past 5867 days) Posts: 27 From: Oklahoma City, Ok Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
