|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Continuation of Flood Discussion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Here is a discussion of dessication cracks by Glenn Morton. Some of these cracks are in salt and some in other sediments. Whatever the rock, the cracks show dessication, which, of course would not be possible under global flood conditions.
http://glennmortonspages.wikispaces.com/...+the+Global+Flood
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 878 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined:
|
HBD seems to think something of the sort, says he even gave me advice about how to go about it. Maybe I saw his advice and didn't see anything usable in it or maybe I didn't see it, I don't know, but this whole complaint from you guys is incomprehensible so I just keep on pressing on as best I can. My guess is you didn't find it useful. But even so, I re-posted it here Message 281 along with some additional comments. I know you don't consider me any kind of authority on this, and that's just fine. But I am trying to explain to you WHY no one here is considering your ideas to be scientific. Whether you agree with the process or not, if you want to be considered scientific, then you have to play the game. That's how it works. If you want to do something different, no problem. Just don't expect us to consider it scientific, that's all. HBD Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Questions came to mind while I was reading that, especially when I got down to the dessication cracks in the wells:
1) I thought some of the layers of the Geologic Column were considered by standard Geology to never have become surface but were always under water, so that the next layer deposited on it under water. Yes/No/Which? That's one question. 2) Another is if you are seeing the cracks in exposed surfaces, as in the walls of a well, how do you know when the cracks formed? (Unfortunately that is one of the many pictures on that page that I'm unable to see on my computer for some reason). Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
ABE Rewrite: I'm having a hard time reading your dissertation for many reasons. One is that you give me no credit for doing exactly what you are recommending at times. Another is that you don't distinguish between contexts in which I say various things, as if EvC were a genuine scientific establishment or half the responses I get weren't just trash.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I know you know the answer before I've even begun to think about it but save it until you know what I do think, which at this point I don't even know myself. ABE: Oh and please refrain from garbage talk such as about filtering through gopher wood.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Some of these cracks are in salt and some in other sediments. Whatever the rock, the cracks show dessication, which, of course would not be possible under global flood conditions. Nor, presumably, if the layer was always under water and never at the surface, which as I said in the earlier post I thought was considered to be a common occurrence. But I'm writing this post because as usual I get a headache when I read about depositional environments. Please translate this stuff into actual factual observational statements:
"This study shows that the mudstone was deposited in environments that ranged from saline- and dry-mudflat to distal alluvial-eolian plain, and that the dolostone formed in a Coorong-like environment. Oh yeah? And what exactly are the observed facts that led to this bit of interpretive mystification? What is actually SEEN in the mudstone and the dolostone? And if it's seen IN the stone, what does the term "environment" mean?
New evidence shows that the lower Burr Member was deposited in an oxygen-restricted environment. Uh huh, and that evidence would be what?
Data indicate that the environment in central Saskatchewan was more oxygen- restricted. From base to top, the depositional environment of the Neely Member changed from relatively deep, offshore settings, through higher energy, shallower water conditions represented by domical stromatoporoids, to intertidal and supratidal conditions. The Hubbard Evaporite Member was deposited in salt pan to saline mudflat environment, and the overlying First Red Bed formed in environments that ranged from saline mudflat, dry mudflat to distal floodplain. " C. Gu, Ph.D. thesis, 1998; DISS. ABSTR. INT., SECT. B v.59, no.6, p.2633-B, Dec. 1998. There isn't a single fact about these Members in this entire paragraph. Where are the facts, in other words the evidence, that justifies the recurrent phrase "was deposited in" this that or the other "environment." Do you get the question or is this kind of mystifying jargon so standard that you can't see the facts for the interpretations that have swallowed them up?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2126 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Data indicate that the environment in central Saskatchewan was more oxygen- restricted. From base to top, the depositional environment of the Neely Member changed from relatively deep, offshore settings, through higher energy, shallower water conditions represented by domical stromatoporoids, to intertidal and supratidal conditions. The Hubbard Evaporite Member was deposited in salt pan to saline mudflat environment, and the overlying First Red Bed formed in environments that ranged from saline mudflat, dry mudflat to distal floodplain. " C. Gu, Ph.D. thesis, 1998; DISS. ABSTR. INT., SECT. B v.59, no.6, p.2633-B, Dec. 1998. There isn't a single fact about these Members in this entire paragraph. Where are the facts, in other words the evidence, that justifies the recurrent phrase "was deposited in" this that or the other "environment." Do you get the question or is this kind of mystifying jargon so standard that you can't see the facts for the interpretations that have swallowed them up? You have cited the abstract of a Ph.D. dissertation. That is not where data normally appears. Perhaps if you read the dissertation you would find the data there, you think? Dissertations are readily available sometimes free but otherwise for a small price. Maybe you should do some real research for a change?Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It was part of what was presented to me as is. But I pretty much know what sorts of things are interpreted as "depositional environment" anyway, I think the term itself is bogus. and serves only to obscure the facts. Present the facts if they are important, but they aren't "environments."
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
So a deposit that was laid down in the middle of a Great Fludde was not laid in a flood environment?
Do you really think that silt deposited along the Nile during a flood (back before they dammed the river up) and a mud + boulder slide on the California coast are not "environments" that can be told apart from each other? Of course they are different depositional environments!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
How's about you provide some of the missing facts in the paragraph I was complaining about and we can go from there? It shouldn't be too hard. Or even from your own examples if you prefer.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
OK - without looking up the source, I can be fairly confident about a few parts...
Data indicate that the environment in central Saskatchewan was more oxygen- restricted. From base to top, the depositional environment of the Neely Member changed from relatively deep, offshore settings, through higher energy, shallower water conditions represented by domical stromatoporoids, to intertidal and supratidal conditions. The Hubbard Evaporite Member was deposited in salt pan to saline mudflat environment, and the overlying First Red Bed formed in environments that ranged from saline mudflat, dry mudflat to distal floodplain. " Near the base, I would say that the sediments were very fine-grained and didn't show ripples. (Deep water, below wave action). Likely very few burrows (low oxygen, little life crawling or digging). Higher energy environments are likely larger-grained sediments (the silt washes away...) and may well have ripple marks. Stromatoporoids were relatives of our modern sponges - presumably they all died in the Flood, though. Intertidal and supratidal deposits are going to show ripples, etc. A real geologist can go from here....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Whatever the rock, the cracks show dessication, which, of course would not be possible under global flood conditions. Well, there is such a thing as Syneresis cracks:
quote: The main syneresis cracks wiki page Of course, as they say, you can tell desiccation cracks from syneresis cracks. Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Nor, presumably, if the layer was always under water and never at the surface, which as I said in the earlier post I thought was considered to be a common occurrence.
I don't understand this statement. Why would all layers be underwater at all times?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Why not? That's what I thought some have said, that many layers in the column were laid down underwater and never became surface. Which ones I don't know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Let's put it this way: If you have silt along the Nile then that's its depositional environment, no problem. The problem is when you have a stack of strata and you claim a different depositional environment for each layer based on its contents, as if the environment had changed from one level to the next. THAT's what makes no sense. I do expect a rational person simply to see why it doesn't make sense, and beyond that I don't know how to prove that it doesn't, so since you won't see why it doesn't there is probably nowhere to go with this from here.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024