Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Flood Geology: A Thread For Portillo
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 31 of 503 (673710)
09-21-2012 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Serg-antr
09-21-2012 12:15 AM


I do not like an ideological disputes. I want to understand the facts.
It is a scientific dispute, not an ideological one. If these flood models are scientific then they need to be falsifiable. If we want to understand the facts then we need a scientific model.
So what facts would you need to see in order to conclude that a recent global flood did not occur? How would you go about answering that question?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Serg-antr, posted 09-21-2012 12:15 AM Serg-antr has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


(1)
Message 32 of 503 (673711)
09-21-2012 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Serg-antr
09-21-2012 2:59 PM


Re: What is flood geology?
1. Its area is not tens of thousands of square kilometers.
It was roughly 160,000 km^2, before Europeans got there and drained/dissected it. Do your homework.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Serg-antr, posted 09-21-2012 2:59 PM Serg-antr has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 33 of 503 (673712)
09-21-2012 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Serg-antr
09-21-2012 2:59 PM


Re: What is flood geology?
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.
No.
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?
What's principally wrong with it is that you made it up.
You seem to be supposing that the uplift was the cause of the regressions. It wasn't.
Again, the problem is with your interpretation, which is stupid, rather than that of scientists, which isn't.
Look, here's what geologists think happened.
Got that?
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 ...
Again, let us point out that it may have removed many such layers. It is only in the fantasy world in your head that it didn't.
Otherwise irregular and selective erosion would make intermittent layer.
Oh, I see where you're going wrong.
It is not the case that all the layers are coextensive with the basin. Some of them are. Some of them aren't.
See, I said this was the problem with flood geologists. You don't even know what the data are that you should be trying to explain.
Now, let me explain something to you. Your inability to explain data you don't know about in terms of a theory you don't understand is not a weakness in that theory. It's a weakness in your knowledge and understanding. And your character.
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).
That could have made more sense.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Serg-antr, posted 09-21-2012 2:59 PM Serg-antr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Serg-antr, posted 09-22-2012 5:13 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 34 of 503 (673714)
09-21-2012 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Serg-antr
09-21-2012 2:59 PM


Re: What is flood geology?
Serg-antr writes:
Perhaps it is enough to form a flat plain seasoned area of ​​the peat, but:
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.
1. Its area is not tens of thousands of square kilometers.
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.
2. Her story does not know 310 uplift and subsidence.
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 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.
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.
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.
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:
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).
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?
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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Serg-antr, posted 09-21-2012 2:59 PM Serg-antr has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-21-2012 5:34 PM Percy has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 35 of 503 (673731)
09-21-2012 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Percy
09-21-2012 4:21 PM


Re: What is flood geology?
The Everglades is approximately 40,000 square kilometers, but the Donets Basin was not necessarily all swamp at the same time.
I believe (though the key does not say so explicitly) that in the diagram I supplied in my previous post the extent of the each black line representing coal indicates how much of the basin is taken up by the coal layer. If so, then it was sometimes entirely covered by peat swamps; but often it wasn't. A dotted black line presumably indicates that the coal layer, though synchronous, was not continuous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Percy, posted 09-21-2012 4:21 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Percy, posted 09-21-2012 6:11 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 36 of 503 (673734)
09-21-2012 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Dr Adequate
09-21-2012 5:34 PM


Re: What is flood geology?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-21-2012 5:34 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-21-2012 6:31 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 37 of 503 (673736)
09-21-2012 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Percy
09-21-2012 6:11 PM


Re: What is flood geology?
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.
Well, I guess it's written in Ukrainian. The Ukrainian for Donetsk Basin is Донецький басейн, so we could probably locate the website if we also knew the Ukrainian for "why are there still monkeys?"
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Percy, posted 09-21-2012 6:11 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Serg-antr
Junior Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 23
From: Ukraine
Joined: 05-12-2010


Message 38 of 503 (673780)
09-22-2012 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Dr Adequate
09-21-2012 4:00 PM


Re: What is flood geology?
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!).
Now, let me explain something to you. Your inability to explain data you don't know about in terms of a theory you don't understand is not a weakness in that theory. It's a weakness in your knowledge and understanding. And your character.
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.
Again, the problem is with your interpretation, which is stupid, rather than that of scientists, which isn't.
Look, here's what geologists think happened.
Got that?
, ?.. - 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.
You seem to be supposing that the uplift was the cause of the regressions. It wasn't.
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?
Again, let us point out that it may have removed many such layers. It is only in the fantasy world in your head that it didn't.
Erosion has left a broken relief, continental accumulation would leave a continental deposits - both of them are not.
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.
Sustained, continuous.
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.
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.
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. (...)But erosion isn't what creates mountains. Uplift creates mountains
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).
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?
Yes, it is. 310 from the Russian Wiki.
This is not improbable, you're not surprised thousands of layers in flysch?
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?
Both as a result of tectonic movements, erosion by flood waters (presumably).
I believe (though the key does not say so explicitly) that in the diagram I supplied in my previous post the extent of the each black line representing coal indicates how much of the basin is taken up by the coal layer. If so, then it was sometimes entirely covered by peat swamps; but often it wasn't. A dotted black line presumably indicates that the coal layer, though synchronous, was not continuous.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-21-2012 4:00 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-22-2012 5:26 PM Serg-antr has replied
 Message 40 by Percy, posted 09-23-2012 9:47 AM Serg-antr has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 39 of 503 (673781)
09-22-2012 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Serg-antr
09-22-2012 5:13 PM


Re: What is flood geology?
This is a stratigraphic column, but we are discussing about the history of the area. This is not the same thing.
It gives a great deal of the history. As understood by geologists, rather than made up in your head. In particular, it marks times of deposition, erosion, and uplift. You can see that geologists think that the uplift occurred after most of the coal measures were deposited in the Carboniferous. You can see that this is different from your interpretation, in which the uplift is responsible for the regressions which caused the peat swamps. That's something you made up, it's not how geologists interpret the stratigraphy.
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?
Well, yes. That's why the Carboniferous is called the Carboniferous. Sheesh. Similar cyclothems with coal beds in were being deposited all over the planet at the time when (most of) the Donetsk basin coal beds were being deposited.
Erosion has left a broken relief, continental accumulation would leave a continental deposits - both of them are not.
Your meaning escapes me. Try again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Serg-antr, posted 09-22-2012 5:13 PM Serg-antr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Serg-antr, posted 09-23-2012 5:51 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 40 of 503 (673800)
09-23-2012 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Serg-antr
09-22-2012 5:13 PM


Re: What is flood geology?
Serg-antr writes:
Something to talk about history, we need lots and lots more information.
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?
Yes, it is. 310 from the Russian Wiki.
This is not improbable, you're not surprised thousands of layers in flysch?
Did this even make sense before you translated from the Russian?
Both as a result of tectonic movements, erosion by flood waters (presumably).
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Serg-antr, posted 09-22-2012 5:13 PM Serg-antr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Serg-antr, posted 09-23-2012 7:03 PM Percy has replied

  
Serg-antr
Junior Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 23
From: Ukraine
Joined: 05-12-2010


Message 41 of 503 (673807)
09-23-2012 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Dr Adequate
09-22-2012 5:26 PM


Re: What is flood geology?
It gives a great deal of the history. As understood by geologists, rather than made up in your head. In particular, it marks times of deposition, erosion, and uplift. You can see that geologists think that the uplift occurred after most of the coal measures were deposited in the Carboniferous. You can see that this is different from your interpretation, in which the uplift is responsible for the regressions which caused the peat swamps. That's something you made up, it's not how geologists interpret the stratigraphy.
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.
Well, yes. That's why the Carboniferous is called the Carboniferous. Sheesh. Similar cyclothems with coal beds in were being deposited all over the planet at the time when (most of) the Donetsk basin coal beds were being deposited.
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"
Your meaning escapes me. Try again.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-22-2012 5:26 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Coyote, posted 09-23-2012 6:07 PM Serg-antr has not replied
 Message 44 by Percy, posted 09-23-2012 7:25 PM Serg-antr has replied
 Message 47 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-23-2012 10:27 PM Serg-antr has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 42 of 503 (673808)
09-23-2012 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Serg-antr
09-23-2012 5:51 PM


Re: What is flood geology?
Are you suggesting that the "global flood" occurred during the Carboniferous?
Would this not be wrong in a few details, such as the dating? The Carboniferous is dated roughly to 360-300 million years ago. There were no humans around back then. They evolved close to 300 million years after the Carboniferous. Most biblical scholars place the global flood about 4,350 years ago.
How do you explain the huge error?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Serg-antr, posted 09-23-2012 5:51 PM Serg-antr has not replied

  
Serg-antr
Junior Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 23
From: Ukraine
Joined: 05-12-2010


Message 43 of 503 (673813)
09-23-2012 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Percy
09-23-2012 9:47 AM


Re: What is flood geology?
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.
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.
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?
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, it is. 310 from the Russian Wiki. This is not improbable, you're not surprised thousands of layers in flysch?
Did this even make sense before you translated from the Russian?
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.
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?
Yes, right. Such processes and are now in the sea, only on a much smaller scale: a sea currents erode sediments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Percy, posted 09-23-2012 9:47 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Percy, posted 09-23-2012 8:22 PM Serg-antr has not replied
 Message 46 by Coyote, posted 09-23-2012 8:57 PM Serg-antr has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 44 of 503 (673815)
09-23-2012 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Serg-antr
09-23-2012 5:51 PM


Re: What is flood geology?
Serg-abtr writes:
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.
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:
Erosion would make a coal layers broken,...
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Serg-antr, posted 09-23-2012 5:51 PM Serg-antr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Serg-antr, posted 09-24-2012 4:42 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 45 of 503 (673823)
09-23-2012 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Serg-antr
09-23-2012 7:03 PM


Re: What is flood geology?
Serg-antr writes:
All coal seams were formed as a result of flood (presumably).
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?
I doubt that dating gives the correct result.
Since you reject radiometric dating and presumably other dating approaches, you have no idea how old any layer is.
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.
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.
The number 310 is taken from wiki (link)
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.
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.
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?
Yes, right. Such processes and are now in the sea, only on a much smaller scale: a sea currents erode sediments.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Serg-antr, posted 09-23-2012 7:03 PM Serg-antr has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024