Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why the Flood Never Happened
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 58 of 1896 (713410)
12-13-2013 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by RAZD
12-12-2013 8:36 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
I am not aware of any undisturbed strata anywhere ... so I don't follow what you are trying to say.
Some layers are due to sedimentary deposition when they were below sea level, and are disturbed by marine animals and plants, some were eroded by wind when they were exposed, others were tilted by tectonic forces, earthquakes, or volcanic forces (you don't lift a mound of rock up without tilting it around the sides of the mound. There are records of animal tunnels and burrows, plants growing, roots penetrating.
What do you mean Faith?
I'm talking about long sections of the strata you can see in many views of the canyon from a distance where the horizontality of the layers is all intact, which I claim show the original condition of the layers when they were laid down; the interfaces between the layers are all straight and level, they are all identical as to form, all of this showing they were laid down by the same processes and not over millions of years of varied processes.
I'm talking about disturbances that would occur on the surface of the earth where a layer was supposedly exposed over a very long period of time. There would be erosion visible from across the canyon, not erosion you have to get up close to see. Tectonic disturbances would not have left a layer or stack of layers like that intact, you would see a layer buckled between other layers all over the canyon, and any layer that was laid down on top of it would not be neatly flat and straight at the connection with the buckled layer but would conform to its; and in fact tectonic upheavals only occurred after all the strata were in place. Animal burrows don't affect the structure of the layers which is what I'm talking about.
The disturbances that occurred to the canyon did distort and tilt the layers in the immediate area but AFTER they were all in place, not at different periods in time. I've argued that the uplift of the entire canyon was caused by the volcanic disturbance beneath the canyon, which tilted the lowest strata beneath a mile deep stack of sediments already in place above, causing the wide band of erosion just above the Great Conformity, between it and the horizontal layer above. It was no doubt tectonic movement that brought about the underground volcano and contributed to the whole picture here. That upheaval uplifted the stack, and you can see the strata in cross sections follow the contour of that uplift, showing they were all already in place. Some of the stack remained intact, all lifted up at once. At the very top, however, the strata would have cracked from the strain of the uplift stretching them over the mound. The cracks were then scoured out by inrushing Flood water carrying chunks of the uppermost strata (to the height of the current Grand Staircase at least) into the widening gap, eventually carving out the canyon. Not your little river but a huge cataract of water.
I've explained this so many times I'm tired and may not be getting all of it said.
I also keep trying to gracefully leave this thread and even EvC for a long break but as usual it's hard to do when people keep raising questions and you so clearly know absolutely nothing about what I've been arguing I figured I'd better try to say some of it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by RAZD, posted 12-12-2013 8:36 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Pollux, posted 12-13-2013 3:42 AM Faith has replied
 Message 76 by RAZD, posted 12-13-2013 9:19 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 59 of 1896 (713411)
12-13-2013 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Atheos canadensis
12-12-2013 10:08 PM


Re: Muddy Water
Really, I'd just like to exit this thread but I feel I have to stay and deal with some things as they come up.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-12-2013 10:08 PM Atheos canadensis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-13-2013 7:37 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 61 of 1896 (713417)
12-13-2013 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Pollux
12-13-2013 3:42 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Three questions Faith.
Wouldn't it be nice of you first to acknowledge the reason why a Bible believer would reject an Old Earth defense?
1. How does a layer of sediment turn to rock?
Weight or pressure should turn them to rock. The lower levels in a stack of sediments that were all laid down in succession over a relatively short period of time, weeks, months, years or something like that, should lithify fairly rapidly from the weight above, particularly where the stack is quite deep, say in the Grand Canyon where the stack is a mile deep (it was originally at least a mile deeper but the upper strata washed away before it all hardened into rock), would lithify from the weight of the stack above. So the pressure turns them to rock. I'd suppose they were pretty solidly lithified in hundreds of years.
2. How long does it take?
Under the circumstances I've described I'm quite sure it doesn't take anywhere near as long as it would on the theory of long long ages. In fact it's hard to see how aerially exposed sediments would ever lithify into true rock. It would take a great weight pressing on them to accomplish that, and according to OE theory that doesn''t happen for many millions of years.
3. Why does a huge cataract of water in cracked rock produce such marked meanders in the GC?
I suppose you are referring to my theory of the cataract that carved the canyon? The original inrushing wouldn't create the meanders, it would simply scour the walls of the canyon until all the abrasive material and water had drained down to river size. Then the river would do its own carving on a smaller scale. Meanders are created by rivers.
Hint : Wonderly's book may help you with 1 and 2.
Hint: I doubt it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Pollux, posted 12-13-2013 3:42 AM Pollux has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Pollux, posted 12-13-2013 4:13 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 63 of 1896 (713422)
12-13-2013 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Pollux
12-13-2013 4:13 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
What is with the snarky insinuations if I may ask. I've answered your questions, I've given a clear and reasonable explanation for why the book you recommended isn't of interest to me, I've been straightforward and polite about it.
Why are you asking about cementation, which is the last stage in rock formation, and especially why asking in that snide tone? I really don't get it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Pollux, posted 12-13-2013 4:13 AM Pollux has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Pollux, posted 12-13-2013 4:37 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 65 of 1896 (713432)
12-13-2013 5:29 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Pollux
12-13-2013 4:37 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
I apologise if I came across as snarky. The Wikipedia article explains how your rock-forming process is not the way it actually happens. It mentions millions of years so that will not be acceptable to you. Wonderly goes into more detail in how the chemical processes actually bind the grains of sediment to form rock. You or I imagining a process does not replace the careful study of generations of geologists.
Thank you for your apology.
The problem is that you cannot "study" millions of years of rock formation, and your insistence that I accept that rock formation takes millions of years merely means I am not allowed to come up with alternative explanations. Or at least nobody will give them any credence if I do. There is nothing wrong with the scenario I described but because it isn't the accepted scenario you don't even bother to think about it.
The chemical binding of the grains takes how long? Why should it take millions of years? A hundred or much less ought to do it quite nicely.
I know you think this is all about the "careful study of generations of geologists" so there isn't any way at all I could suggest they are wrong and get taken seriously, is there? Geologists are human, they are going to go with the current theory because everybody else is. Before Hutton they all believed in a young earth, after Hutton's stuff was finally accepted they all believed in an old earth. And all Hutton did was look at a formation and give his best subjective guess about its age. His reasoning can be answered too, but by now the whole field has gone on assuming an Old Earth and adding millions upon millions of years until the idea that it's really not anywhere near that old can't get a hearing. Even though it's all just one huge subjective belief system. Yes, even your dating methods aren't hard and fast objective measures. I know you think it's all true science but a lot of it is just solidified guesswork that's become habit.
Yes, I dare to think I can explain the formation of the strata and the Grand Canyon a lot more reasonably in Floodist terms than it is customarily explained in Old Earth terms.
But as I said earlier I'm still trying to exit this thread. I stick around to answer questions like yours only to get ignored and dismissed anyway.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Pollux, posted 12-13-2013 4:37 AM Pollux has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Pressie, posted 12-13-2013 7:02 AM Faith has replied
 Message 67 by Tangle, posted 12-13-2013 7:22 AM Faith has replied
 Message 74 by Theodoric, posted 12-13-2013 8:36 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 69 of 1896 (713448)
12-13-2013 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Tangle
12-13-2013 7:22 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Cementation occurs primarily below the water table regardless of sedimentary grain sizes present. Large volumes of pore water must pass through sediment pores for new mineral cements to crystallise and so millions of years are generally required to complete the cementation process.
I find that absolutely laughable. BUT given the idea that the strata were laid down in the Flood water they certainly would have had plenty of pore water continuously, even dripping down through the stack and from runoff between the layers and so on and so forth, until the entire stack dried out, and while that hasn't had millions of years to develop, 4300 really ought to be sufficient.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Tangle, posted 12-13-2013 7:22 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Tangle, posted 12-13-2013 7:56 AM Faith has replied
 Message 75 by JonF, posted 12-13-2013 9:08 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 78 by Percy, posted 12-13-2013 10:07 AM Faith has replied
 Message 80 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-13-2013 3:43 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 70 of 1896 (713449)
12-13-2013 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Pressie
12-13-2013 7:02 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
The problem is that you cannot "study" millions of years of rock formation..
We sure can. We can study how rocks form. For example; ever heard of the Bowen reaction series? http://jersey.uoregon.edu/...rick/AskGeoMan/geoQuerry32.html
Nothing about that sequence, which is very interesting by the way, suggests any need for millions of years of time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Pressie, posted 12-13-2013 7:02 AM Pressie has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 72 of 1896 (713451)
12-13-2013 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Tangle
12-13-2013 7:56 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Surely you noticed that they didn't even give an estimate of how much time any of it involves, any measurements they actually made, they just gave their wild millions of years total.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Tangle, posted 12-13-2013 7:56 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Tangle, posted 12-13-2013 8:14 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 79 by petrophysics1, posted 12-13-2013 11:17 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 83 of 1896 (713489)
12-13-2013 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by petrophysics1
12-13-2013 11:17 AM


Re: How did you determine this?
The original horizontality of the layers, which of course is easily determined if they are still horizontal, but is to be assumed even if they have been tilted or buckled; depending on the local situation the fact that completely different sediments are laid one upon another, which defies any slow normal-time explanation, the fact that the interface between the layers, which may be totally different sediments, most often shows a knife-edge close contact, no blurring between them, whatever small degree of erosion that may be seen there being explainable as runoff between the layers; and the fact that any distortion such as buckling or folding, explainable by tectonic or volcanic force, always affects a whole block of strata at once while the strata themselves remain parallel to each other, raising the question why the disturbance waited millions of years to occur (the individual strata always being explained in terms of such long time frames). Then if the contents of the individual layers are dug out, this usually shows a particular collection of fossils gathered within, which always suggests that they died en masse in a catastrophe that provided ideal conditions for fossilization rather than one by one in any normal scenario of life and death.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by petrophysics1, posted 12-13-2013 11:17 AM petrophysics1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by RAZD, posted 12-13-2013 4:51 PM Faith has replied
 Message 85 by herebedragons, posted 12-13-2013 5:20 PM Faith has replied
 Message 111 by Percy, posted 12-14-2013 8:07 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 130 by petrophysics1, posted 12-14-2013 5:26 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 86 of 1896 (713498)
12-13-2013 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Percy
12-13-2013 10:07 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Contrary to what you seem to expect, I love those cross sections of the Grand Canyon-Grand Staircase area and got a lot of my inspiration from them.
The Kaibab Limestone is the top layer at the Grand Canyon, but it is deeply buried at Bryce Canyon. How is it that it is just as firmly lithified in both places?
It seems clear from that cross section itself that the layers that cover the Kaibab at the Grand Staircase also originally covered it at the Grand Canyon but were subsequently eroded away, I believe most likely when the volcanic disturbances which are usually illustrated on those cross sections by magma dikes and intrusions, but for some reason aren't in that diagram, uplifted the area into which the canyon is cut, and also the northernmost stack of the Grand Staircase. Tectonic movement is what probably triggered the volcanoes and added its own force to the breaking of the strata and the uplift and the distortion of the layers.
My argument has been that the great weight of the rapidly accumulated strata is what promoted at least the initial hardening into rock, and the Kaibab seems to have been the point at which that hardening had proceeded enough for it to remain in place under the higher mile or so of strata that had compressed it, while those hgiher strata were cracked and broken up by the stretching caused by the uplift which was brought about by the volcanic and tectonic disturbance underneath the canyon.
This diagram also contradicts your belief that the layers are as flat as can be - obviously they're not flat over long distances (the diagram isn't to scale so the slope of the layers is exaggerated).
This is why I asked that those particular view from within the GC where the horizontality and flatness are clearly preserved, be the subject under consideration, to demonstrate the lack of disturbance to the individual layers, which should contradict the idea that they were laid down individually over millions of years. But nobody wanted to do that and the cross sections actually demonstrate the same principle anyway as the layers are shown to be individually undisturbed, the distortions having occurred to the stack as a whole. I have no problem with these cross sections anyway which I've posted myself at my blog and possibly even here.
The diagram also shows how layers can both bend and fault, which was another of your concerns, that there should be more faulting. On a scale of miles rock is very pliable, and when heated it is pliable on a scale of feet.
I've assumed the malleability which is shown in the distortion of strata in groups reflects the expectable condition of dampness right after the Flood, but it isn't crucial to my argument. The main argument is still that they distort, bend and fault AS A BLOCK, in this case as a block hundreds of miles long and a few miles deep, whereas if such disturbances had occurred to single layers anywhere along the line of their deposition, which according to OE theory took millions of years per layer, you would not have the appearance of neat parallel conformity of one layer to another you see in the diagram, you would see individually distorted layers that would lose their neat conformability to one another; you would see individually distorted contact lines between layers, and you would see irregular thicknesses over short lengths as deposition of new sediments would have had to fill in the irregularities of the lower disturbed layer.
You would not have the neat parallel flatness in the view I wanted people to consider, OR the neat parallel regularity you see illustrated in the cross section you have provided, either one.
I don't remember mentioning faulting, but perhaps I did, but the point would be that over millions of years on the OE model you would expect multiple volcanic events and much more faulting of layers that would show the disturbances to those individual layers I was just describing, rather than what is clearly illustrated in this diagram: which is clearly an effect to the entire stack as a whole, brought about by a couple of volcanic incidents that must have occurred in roughly the same time frame AFTER the entire stack was laid down over two miles deep.
At the north end of the Grand Staircase some cross sections show that the strata north of where this diagram ends are tilted as a block at the fault line that has also pushed up the end that you see in the diagram. They also show a magma dike from the bottom of the strat to the top just south of the point where the diagram ends. The strata on the other side shown in other cross sections are quite a bit lower and tilt downward as a block away from the fault line, though they are identifiably the same strata in the same order as those in the Staircase. \
The conclusion is that one volcanic event caused one faulting event at that point that split the strata into two sections, ALL the strata at one and the same time. No volcanic or tectonic events occurred to any of the layers before the entire stack was in place.
I could also describe the volcanic event under the Grand Canyon in the same terms but it takes too much time for now.
I hope I've been clear; I do get rushed and misspeak at times.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Percy, posted 12-13-2013 10:07 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-13-2013 6:25 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 114 by Percy, posted 12-14-2013 11:28 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 87 of 1896 (713499)
12-13-2013 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by RAZD
12-13-2013 4:51 PM


Re: How did you determine this?
Moving water creates layers in rapid deposition, and tides and long waves that wash across thousands of miles of land mass would give a fair amount of time between waves too.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by RAZD, posted 12-13-2013 4:51 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-13-2013 6:03 PM Faith has replied
 Message 93 by RAZD, posted 12-13-2013 8:06 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 88 of 1896 (713500)
12-13-2013 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by herebedragons
12-13-2013 5:20 PM


Re: How did you determine this?
I don't assume the Flood created layers as your mason jar would, except perhaps here and there in some particular situations, but laid them down by currents and waves and tides over some period of time but certainly no millions of years. If knife edge contacts, which are visible in the actual strata, are a problem for deposition by moving water, which I don't think they are, they are a million times more of a problem for a slow deposition over millions of years.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by herebedragons, posted 12-13-2013 5:20 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by herebedragons, posted 12-13-2013 7:30 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 92 of 1896 (713507)
12-13-2013 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Atheos canadensis
12-13-2013 6:03 PM


Re: How did you determine this?
Moving water creates layers in rapid deposition, and tides and long waves that wash across thousands of miles of land mass would give a fair amount of time between waves too
You keep saying this and it keeps making no sense. Perhaps you are simply not communicating effectively so try to be as clear as possible this time. Based on what you've said e.g.
During the Flood there would have been SHORT periods of exposure at the surface BETWEEN WAVES
...you believe that during the Flood there were huge waves that a) went down deep enough that the substrate was exposed at the base of them
I can't make sense of this. "Went down deep enough" in relation to what? "Substrate exposed?"
The idea I have basically in mind is that the first part of the Flood would have dissolved and moved most of the land mass down to the substrate, even scouring the substrate, and all of the dissolved stuff would have been mixed into the water along with dead and dying creatures which would have been together in their groups, then carried in the water in currents and at different levels and however ocean water sorts things and redeposited on the land as separate sediments in successive depositions. Of course I don't know exatly how this would have happened but I know from Wikipedia articles I read some time ago that oceans have layers and currents and wave action and tides so all of it must have contributed to the final effect.
The idea of very long waves is built on observations of 1) waves depositing sand on beaches, and Dr. A. gave a good illustration of a depth of sand that was built up in layers by wave action even preserving the ripples of former depositions, which I find very helpful; and 2) the information that some of the strata extend for huge distances across the land, the Coconino Sandstone for instance, which is easily seen at a distance in the Grand Canyon as a white band near the top of the Canyon, extends over a number of states in the Southwest; and the Redwall Limestone extends clear across the US and is found even in the UK. This information I got from a British creationist ministry lecture by Paul Garner about the Grand Canyon, a video of which I posted here sometime in the last year or so.
The waves would have brought in sediments over the sediments already laid down. I am able to imagine some problems with ALL the layers having been created this way, since the water would have been deeper earlier in the Flood and then become shallower as the Flood waters receded, but I'm not clear what different effects that might have had if any. When deeper I'd expect more precipitation from the water, or deposition from underwater currents rather than waves. Etc.
and b) had enough time between them to allow ephemerally-exposed sediments in which animals left tracks. Is that right? You think that there was ground exposed between waves during a flood that covered the tops of mountains?
No, between deposits what would have been exposed is the previous deposit, and one thing creationists agree on is that there were no very tall mountains before the Flood, that these were created by the tectonic action that occurred after the strata were all in place and pushed up the high mountains because of the movement of the continents which we expect was a lot faster at the beginning than the usual idea and then gradually slowed to their present inch or two per year. And yes we're aware of the objections to this.
The Flood started with something called the "fountains of the deep" being released, which is interpreted to have something to do with the break up and movement of the continents apparently shortly after the strata were built up, toward the end of the Flood or afterward.
It does appear that after all the strata were laid down various forces disturbed them, tectonic, volcanic etc. I think the way the strata are exposed here and there in the UK in a sort of colorful patchwork shows the scouring off of the strata that had originally been laid down above them, scoured off as the Flood waters receded, which is also how I've explained the disappearance of the strata above the Permian / Kaibab plateau, which were originally over the Grand Canyon.
Two points about this. First, it makes absolutely no sense. How could a wave have exposed substrate before or behind it? This is not how waves work.
I don't know what I said that gave you that impression.
Second, this is completely extra-biblical and in fact un-Biblical. You have made it clear that you think the Bible is the only way to know anything about the past, but here you are averring something (dry land during the Flood) that is definitely not in the Bible.
No idea what I said that gave you that impression. None of it was dry until long after the Flood had completely receded, but the long wave action I picture as exposing the previous (very wet) layer of sediment as it went back out to sea I picture happening more toward the end of the Flood during the receding of the whole volume of the water, but I do figure it had to create a great depth of the strata.
And where exactly did the track-makers come from? You're claiming that in the middle of a global flood there were still animals that were paddling around, waiting for these fantastical waves to expose the substrate so they could walk around for a little while, then be engulfed again by the next wave.
I don't know, that's also a question I have, but it seems to have been the case that in some of the layers there is evidence of still-living creatures. The burrows of course would have to be explained by creatures that were buried in the sediments and tried to burrow out. The long waves at least allow a period of time in which footprints could have been registered in the wet sediment. Some are said to be dinosaur footprints but they look rather similar to bird feet. Birds could of course fly between waves.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-13-2013 6:03 PM Atheos canadensis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-13-2013 11:49 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 113 by RAZD, posted 12-14-2013 8:21 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 94 of 1896 (713510)
12-13-2013 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by RAZD
12-13-2013 8:06 PM


Re: tides, waves current
Moving water creates layers in rapid deposition, ...
So the moving water in your flood runoff filled the Grand Canyon in rapid deposition?
No, the water laid down all the layers to a few miles in depth and then the canyon cut through them, by the means of a great volume of sediment-laden water that rushed into cracks in the upper strata, the water possibly coming from a large post-Flood standing lake above and to the east of the canyon area, or Flood water that was in the process of receding and was still quite deep.
... , and tides and ...
In an open ocean there would be two tides per day for the sun, one just after local noon and one just after local midnight, and you would also have two slightly larger tides for the moon with a 50 minute later per day period compared to the sun.
These tides would be comparable to tides in the middle of the ocean today -- 3 to 4 ft. -- and generally so insignificant that you cannot observe it when in the open ocean.
But toward the end of the Flood when the water had receded quite a bit, those tides would have had the effect of sending sediment-laden water farther onto the land mass than the normal waves would.
... long waves that wash across thousands of miles ...
Indeed, with an open ocean the reach for the buildup of waves is virtually infinite, however long waves do not mean high waves ... then length of the wave is determined by the reach, the height by the energy and a 20 ft long wavelength (peak to peak) 3 ft high would not be significantly different from a 200 ft long wavelength 3 ft high or a 2000 ft long wave 3 ft high.
But the height isn't a big part of the picture I'm trying to create here. Think of the Indonesian tsunami that flowed an enormous distance over the land area. That's what I would expect of the waves toward the end of the Flood, especially during high tide.
... would give a fair amount of time between waves too.
Now you are talking about speed of the waves, which is related to the wavelength ...
Waves go out, waves come in . Tidal waves go way way out and take a long time to come back in. In the case of the last stages of the Flood the water's edge would still be high on the land, and the land was relatively flat too, I do picture a lot of tidal wave sized waves that would suck way out before returning with new cargo they deposit over thousands of miles of the land area. Before there wree high mountains.
BUT the water doesn't flow with the waves, it travels in a circular path with the circles decreasing in size with depth, and when the bottom is shallow compared to the wave height then the wave piles up -- this is what causes breakers at the beach, the waves trip over their stationary bases.
Yeah but you are getting way too specific for this simple scenario. I'm sure anyone can dream up objections but the basic idea doesn't depend on such particulars as you are concerned about. Think of a VERY VERY LONG "beach," the entire just slightly hilly land mass before the continents split apart, with ocean water that is slowly receding stage by stage from covering the entire land mass, wave action starting to make a difference (that it didn't make when all the land was completely covered, though there would still have been movement in the water, currents and so on) the waves started to be an issue, as I say, as the water recedes and the land starts to be exposed.
What causes erosion and deposition is the interaction of waves and shore, with rip-tides and transverse currents.
In the case of the Flood we're talking interaction between deep water with currents and layers interacting with entire land mass, and then waves as the water recedes interacting with land mass.
No shore means no rip-tides and no transverse currents ... that's why you get such "horizontal" depositions in ocean bottoms ...
It doesn't take too long to get deep enough off shore for the impact of waves to be negligible.
Even when Hurricanes come inshore they do a lot of damage at the shoreline, but offshore there is little effect.
Again, I'm not talking about waves during the deep water part of the Flood although I realize I wasn't being specific enough. I do have in mind the period when the water was receding. I suspect I've been clearer in former discussions along these lines.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by RAZD, posted 12-13-2013 8:06 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-13-2013 10:24 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 102 by RAZD, posted 12-13-2013 11:20 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 95 of 1896 (713513)
12-13-2013 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by herebedragons
12-13-2013 7:30 PM


Re: How did you determine this?
You think that just because we weren't there to see any of this happen that you are free to make up anything and it will be sufficient to explain the phenomenon.
Actually, that's what the Old Earth theory amounts to, something just made up that is taken as sufficient to explain it all.
Well it's not! It has to be something that could actually work.
And the OE theory is so far from "actually working" it's a joke. That's what I'm trying to get across. This is the past that NOBODY was there to see, all anyone can do is come up with plausibilities. The plausibility factor with the Old Earth is pretty low it seems to me. The Flood is far more plausible just looking at the way the strata lie as I keep saying and describing ad nauseam.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by herebedragons, posted 12-13-2013 7:30 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by herebedragons, posted 12-14-2013 12:08 AM Faith 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