Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
31 online now:
Diomedes, jar, PaulK, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (4 members, 27 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,957 Year: 18,993/19,786 Month: 1,413/1,705 Week: 219/446 Day: 17/98 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Flood Geology: A Thread For Portillo
Coyote
Member (Idle past 396 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 46 of 503 (673831)
09-23-2012 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Serg-antr
09-23-2012 7:03 PM


Re: What is flood geology?
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.

As long as you are quoting St. Augustine, here is a quotation that may apply:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. -- De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim ("The Literal Meaning of Genesis")

Unfortunately, much of what you have posted concerning flood geology seems to be covered by this quotation.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Serg-antr, posted 09-23-2012 7:03 PM Serg-antr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Serg-antr, posted 09-24-2012 2:34 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.7


Message 47 of 503 (673838)
09-23-2012 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Serg-antr
09-23-2012 5:51 PM


Re: What is flood geology?
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.

I have not read these books in Russian of which you speak (have you?) However, I can read English, for example this website of the University of California Museum of Paleontology. It clearly states:

The North American Pennsylvanian environment was alternately terrestrial and marine, with the transgression and regression of the seas caused by glaciation. [...] Glacial periods result in lowered ocean levels, while interglacial periods result in a rise in ocean levels, covering the continental shelf with shallow seas.

(Note that the "Pennsylvanian" is what Americans call the first half of the Carboniferous Period.) Now although they are talking about North American rocks in particular, the mechanism to which they attribute them would clearly be global, since it involves global changes in sea-level; hence it would explain all the characteristic cyclothems of the Carboniferous, including those of Donetsk.

This is clearly the case, for, as I say, the production of coal-bearing cyclothems was worldwide during the Carboniferous. Now, this can be explained by changes in the global climate causing changes in the global sea-level. But by your daft interpretation, this would have to involve coincidental localized epeirogenic earth movements all over the globe as separate bits of the planet somehow decided to bounce up and down in synchrony.

This would also (if any answer is needed) answer your point about erosion. There wouldn't need to be any erosion of the Donesk Basin in the Carboniferous, because there wouldn't need to be any uplift of the Donesk Basin during the Carboniferous. Just transgressions and regressions caused by melting and glaciation, the same as was happening everywhere else in the world at that time.

What is "Sheesh"

A sort of audible sigh.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Percy, posted 09-24-2012 12:04 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 51 by Serg-antr, posted 09-24-2012 5:21 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18878
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 48 of 503 (673844)
09-24-2012 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Dr Adequate
09-23-2012 10:27 PM


Re: What is flood geology?
Dr Adequate writes:

What is "Sheesh"

A sort of audible sigh.

When I use it it's an expression of frustration at bullheadedness or persistent stupidity.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-23-2012 10:27 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
Serg-antr
Junior Member (Idle past 1748 days)
Posts: 23
From: Ukraine
Joined: 05-12-2010


Message 49 of 503 (673877)
09-24-2012 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Coyote
09-23-2012 8:57 PM


Re: What is flood geology?
As long as you are quoting St. Augustine, here is a quotation that may apply (..) Unfortunately, much of what you have posted concerning flood geology seems to be covered by this quotation.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Coyote, posted 09-23-2012 8:57 PM Coyote has not yet responded

    
Serg-antr
Junior Member (Idle past 1748 days)
Posts: 23
From: Ukraine
Joined: 05-12-2010


Message 50 of 503 (673889)
09-24-2012 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Percy
09-23-2012 7:25 PM


Re: What is flood geology?
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.

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.

What evidence do you have that they were deposited by a flood?
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.

Since you reject radiometric dating and presumably other dating approaches, you have no idea how old any layer is.
Yes, I have no idea about it.

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.
Yes, he was completely wrong. A line of demarcation could not be carried out, the time is always relative.

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.
Thank you, I will try it.

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?
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.

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.
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.

Uplift and subsidence is very slow, usually inches/year
Usually, yes, but the flood is an unusual event.

not to mention leaving enormous amounts of evidence behind at the tortured interfaces with adjacent regions
If we shall have the time and energy, we (shall?) consider also a neighboring regions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Percy, posted 09-23-2012 7:25 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 09-24-2012 5:49 PM Serg-antr has responded
 Message 55 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-24-2012 6:53 PM Serg-antr has responded

    
Serg-antr
Junior Member (Idle past 1748 days)
Posts: 23
From: Ukraine
Joined: 05-12-2010


Message 51 of 503 (673896)
09-24-2012 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Dr Adequate
09-23-2012 10:27 PM


Re: What is flood geology?
for example this website of the University of California Museum of Paleontology
(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.

Now although they are talking about North American rocks in particular, the mechanism to which they attribute them would clearly be global, since it involves global changes in sea-level; hence it would explain all the characteristic cyclothems of the Carboniferous, including those of Donetsk.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-23-2012 10:27 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Percy, posted 09-24-2012 5:53 PM Serg-antr has not yet responded
 Message 54 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-24-2012 6:48 PM Serg-antr has responded
 Message 57 by Coyote, posted 09-24-2012 8:40 PM Serg-antr has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18878
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 52 of 503 (673900)
09-24-2012 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Serg-antr
09-24-2012 4:42 PM


Re: What is flood geology?
Serg-antr writes:

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.

In other words, you referenced a diagram that provides no support for your position.

You say that the uplifts were there "according to geologists." Can you please tell us who these geologists are and provide references to their work? We'd really like to know how you know these uplifts happened? They aren't mentioned in your Russian Wikipedia entry (Донецкий каменноугольный бассейн (Donetsk coal basin)).

What evidence do you have that they were deposited by a flood?
My evidence - a form of layer, a thin layer spread over a wide area. This is a typical form of layers of marine origin.

How do you know it's a flood layer and not just a normal marine layer?

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.
Yes, he was completely wrong. A line of demarcation could not be carried out, the time is always relative.

But Bishop Ussher was a great scholar, and you are not, so rather than just asking us to take your word for it maybe you could provide some, oh, I don't know, evidence in support of your position? How long ago did time become relative? We know that a hundred years ago was the year 1912, and a thousand years ago was the year 912, and two thousand years ago was the year 12, and three thousand years ago was the year 989 BC, and so forth, but you're claiming that at some point we don't actually know how long ago anything was. How far back in time do we stop knowing how long ago things were because "time is always relative"? How was this fact established? How come no one but you knows about this?

Calcium carbonate in sea water depends on many factors and may be very different from the modern.

How is the limestone being deposited on the floors of shallow quiet seas today different from the limestone layers of the Donets basin?

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.

But you said that erosion broke up the coal layers. If the layers of the Carboniferous were uplifted then only the top layer would be exposed. Erosion could not affect the still deeply buried coal layers.

And the layers above the coal layers could not have been eroded away down to the coal layers because, obviously, they're still there.

Or were you trying to say something else when you said that erosion broke up the coal layers?

Usually, yes, but the flood is an unusual event.

Unusual in the sense that there is no evidence that it ever happened.

If we shall have the time and energy, we (shall?) consider also a neighboring regions.

Why wait? Let's consider the neighboring regions now. How did the layers of the Donets basin bob up and down like a pogo stick while the adjacent layers did nothing? Or is it your idea that all the layers around the world were bouncing up and down in synchrony?

I didn't make any effort to remove the colloquialisms, good luck with your automated translator.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Serg-antr, posted 09-24-2012 4:42 PM Serg-antr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Serg-antr, posted 09-30-2012 3:09 PM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18878
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 53 of 503 (673902)
09-24-2012 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Serg-antr
09-24-2012 5:21 PM


Re: What is flood geology?
I think you're going to have to explain to us in English just what you think each diagram is showing.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Serg-antr, posted 09-24-2012 5:21 PM Serg-antr has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-24-2012 7:31 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.7


(1)
Message 54 of 503 (673907)
09-24-2012 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Serg-antr
09-24-2012 5:21 PM


Donetsk
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.

No, think about this.

Remember that those places would not all be exactly at the same level. One of them could perfectly well be underwater while the other was dry land. What changes is the sea level, in each particular place the depth to which it was submerged (or wasn't) would be a function of that (and of local subsidence and uplift, if any). And even when two of them are both below (or above) sea-level, the nature of the sediment would depend on local factors, there's no reason why you shouldn't have limestone in one place but shale in another, or peat swamps in one place and a river delta in the other. So we wouldn't expect the stratigraphy to look the same in two different places.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Serg-antr, posted 09-24-2012 5:21 PM Serg-antr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Serg-antr, posted 09-26-2012 3:14 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.7


Message 55 of 503 (673909)
09-24-2012 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Serg-antr
09-24-2012 4:42 PM


Donetsk
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Serg-antr, posted 09-24-2012 4:42 PM Serg-antr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Serg-antr, posted 09-30-2012 3:21 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.7


Message 56 of 503 (673918)
09-24-2012 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Percy
09-24-2012 5:53 PM


Re: What is flood geology?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Percy, posted 09-24-2012 5:53 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 396 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 57 of 503 (673923)
09-24-2012 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Serg-antr
09-24-2012 5:21 PM


Re: What is flood geology?
Why are you still discussing the Carboniferous in relation to the global flood?

As I pointed out in Message 42, the Carboniferous ended about 300 million years before modern humans evolved.

How can you reconcile an error of that magnitude?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Serg-antr, posted 09-24-2012 5:21 PM Serg-antr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Percy, posted 09-24-2012 8:45 PM Coyote has responded
 Message 67 by Serg-antr, posted 09-30-2012 3:47 PM Coyote has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18878
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 58 of 503 (673924)
09-24-2012 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Coyote
09-24-2012 8:40 PM


Re: What is flood geology?
Coyote writes:

As I pointed out in Message 42, the Carboniferous ended about 300 million years before modern humans evolved.

How can you reconcile an error of that magnitude?

From Message 43:

Serg-antr writes:

I doubt that dating gives the correct result.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Coyote, posted 09-24-2012 8:40 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Coyote, posted 09-24-2012 8:59 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 396 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 59 of 503 (673925)
09-24-2012 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Percy
09-24-2012 8:45 PM


Re: What is flood geology?
I saw that.

In other words, he is ignoring a massive error while arguing an inconsequential point.

But I would still like for him to address the issue instead of hand-waving it away.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Percy, posted 09-24-2012 8:45 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Portillo
Member (Idle past 2451 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 60 of 503 (673934)
09-25-2012 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Adequate
09-16-2012 10:34 AM


Thank you for your friendly and gracious post.

As truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord. - Numbers 14:21

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-16-2012 10:34 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019