|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Flood Geology: A Thread For Portillo | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But about these uplifts the column does not say anything, because the small scale. But they are were (according to geologists) ... Which geologists? Can you quote them? What are their arguments?
My evidence - a form of layer, a thin layer spread over a wide area. This is a typical form of layers of marine origin. But thin layers of coal are not. This is why the Ocean Drilling Project never finds any coal. This is like saying: "Dr Adequate is a bird. My evidence --- he's a biped. This is typical of birds." It overlooks the fact that I have qualities which are never found in birds.
It is unlikely that the marsh was homogeneous on a such large area ... Why? Is there some sort of probability theory relating to the size of peat swamps of which I was previously unaware?
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. Which is probably why geologists don't say that that's what happened. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Yeah, a key would be nice. The brick pattern is always limestone, but beyond that it's hard to say what we're looking at.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
If you're talking about sequence stratigraphy, there is a correlation. Which is, in fact, used to reconstruct sea-level curves. But again that doesn't mean that we will find corresponding unconformities in different places which are at different altitudes.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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 But that doesn't say what you think it does. It says that tectonic events caused subsidence in the Carboniferous, not uplift. And then "Subsequent subsidences ended with uplift during the Sakmarian" --- which is in the Permian (which is just where the diagram I showed you puts it). So if they are right, then the Carboniferous deposits are due to repeated episodes of subsidence caused by rifting, not by alternating episodes of uplift and subsidence. I can't comment on stuff written in the Cyrillic alphabet, but the paper in English contradicts rather than supports your claims.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The article compares the Moscow and Donets Basin. In the abstract states that the sedimentation at the Moscow basin was controlled by eustatic sea level, and at the Donetsk basin by tectonics. So eustatic fluctuations in the Donets Basin had no effect on the sedimentation. But if they are right, nor did uplift, which happened in the Permian, which is after the Carboniferous.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
And here's a website proving you wrong about everything. Well, so far as I know, 'cos I don't actually speak Urdu.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You could maybe give me references, preferably references that aren't written in a language I can't speak?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But this is not a reference ... Yes, that would kind of be what I was complaining about.
Written at the top the level of the sea and the time, on the left the thickness of the rocks. Possibly ... in Russian. How many times do we have to explain this to you? Instead of debating people who speak Russian, you have chosen to debate people who speak English. That's fair enough. But in order to do so, you need to present evidence in English rather than in Russian. If this is too difficult for you, go and find a Russian forum on the same topic, and talk to them. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The word "fixist" is an obsolete term for a geologist who opposes continental drift --- obsolete because such people don't exist any more. Hence there are not "many" fixists "among modern scholars".
As has been pointed out to you, this is not the right thread for you to be wrong about radiometric dating. Could we hear a little something about flood geology, please?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I believe the flood incorporated most of the Permian up until the Permian-Triassic boundary, Triassic and afterwards is post-flood. Just to be clear about this, before we go on. Do you claim that (1) All the strata earlier than the PT boundary were laid down by the flood? (2) Some of the strata earlier than the PT boundary were deposited by normal processes, and then some of them laid down by the flood? (If so, where do the normal processes end and the flood begin?) (3) The flood event corresponds to the PT boundary? (4) Other? (Please state which.) Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
To Dr Adequate, some of the Permian strata were laid down by the flood, but mainly the PT boundary corresponds to the flood. Thanks. On the other hand, this means that you're somwhat off-topic. 'Cos "flood geology" is not merely the belief that the flood happened, it's the attempt to explain away the geological record in terms of the supposed effects of the flood. Anyone who identifies the flood with the PT boundary is not trying to do this. --- Now, there's a reason why the "flood geologists" try to do this. You, it seems, are a young-Earther, and yet you ascribe most of the geological column to perfectly normal non-flood processes. But we can measure the rate of ordinary processes: for example we can measure the rate of deposition of pelagic sediment using one of these things (it's called a sediment trap).
Depending on which part of the ocean you're looking at, and which sediment, the three main kinds of pelagic sediment (pelagic clay, siliceous ooze, calcareous ooze) accumulate at a rate of about 10-50 mm per thousand years. Now here, for example, are the White Cliffs of Dover ...
... which are made of calcareous ooze. That is, they are chalk. Which accumulates at no more than 50 mm per thousand years. You see the problem? This is why young-Earthers usually turn to "flood geology" --- they are dimly aware that they can't ascribe the geological record to ordinary geological processes, because when you do that you have to concede that the Earth is not in fact young.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Could you be more specific? When I learn of bottlenecks of certain animals (cheetahs) I see this as occurring relatively recently. Yeah, but why is it always cheetahs? We point out that if the Ark story was true, every species would show a bottleneck. Creationists reply: "Well, cheetahs did, so there's your evidence of a flood". But cheetahs are singular and unique in this matter, that's why you guys only ever mention cheetahs. If the Ark story was true, every species would demonstrate a bottleneck, but in fact cheetahs are the exception and not the rule, which is why you have to go on talking only about cheetahs. --- Again, we are wandering from the topic, which was quite specific. If you'd like to start a new topic called something like" Mindspawn's Five Favorite Arguments In Favor Of The Flood", then I'm sure the moderators would promote it. But this thread is meant to be about flood geology --- the attempt to explain away the facts of geology in terms of the flood causing the geological record. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
We will have to agree to disagree on those dinosaur depictions. No we don't. Either you're wrong or I'm right. We do not have to "agree to disagree". So what does the evidence say?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You are correct. I am somewhat off-topic, because I am explaining only minimal layers formed by the flood. I can exit the thread if you like or if the moderators think it s best? Well, yes. Start a new thread. We want to hear what you have to say, but if you don't want to defend "flood geology" then you're really not talking about "flood geology". "Flood geology" is where young-earth-creationists pretend that they can explain the geological record by invoking Noah's Flood. If you don't believe that, then we are not really discussing flood geology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I dont know of any current civilizations that have artwork based on extinct skeletal remains. You don't? You don't? All of them. Every single one of them, Every singe current civilization that is a civilization.
Every single hi-tech culture produces pictures of (for example) dinosaurs --- "based on extinct skeletal remains". Americans do it, Europeans do it, the Chinese do it, the Japanese do it, everyone does it. Every culture that has gotten further than the hunter-gatherer stage produces "artwork based on extinct skeletal remains", depicting dinosaurs.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024