Summations Only

Got to pondering this point again. Wonder if those who determine the depositional environments from the rocks, and those who made the animation of the movements of the continents, got their information coordinated. If we find out where, say, the GC was on that animation would it correspond to the kind of environment determined for the rock in that era? Or might it for instance possibly be located near the North Pole when the rock information says Tropical Sea? I kind of have a suspicion there will be discrepancies but maybe I'm wrong and they did do all the work of coordinating such information for the entire planet for all those supposed past eras. Just a thought.

The latitude and rotational orientation where a rock formed on the globe is determined by the magnetization of the rock. The direction of the magnetic field leaves a trace magnetization in the rock at the time that it forms.The world has passed through both warmer and colder eras. The presence of a tropical sea at the North Pole has likely happened before and will happen again.About all the crashing and bashing you were talking about before, continental plates *do* collide. The Himalayas resulted from the collision of India with Asia. But the Grand Canyon is a long way from any plate boundaries, and it is at plate boundaries that tectonism is most active.--Percy

Yeah, but she's asking if someone has done the correlation between observed layers and reconstructions of position and state derived from other observations. I doubt the latter class exists in sufficient detail, but if I'm wrong I bet someone's done it.

OK, but it's nice if I'm going to be wrong to be wrong along with roxrkool, who wouldn't get reprimanded by edge. OK, though I have a feeling if I used "basement rock" he'd object to that too, even if it's correct. I think I'll go with your original "solid rock." That's probably not safe either but at least it doesn't suggest something technical. I know, but you do know a lot and you're a nice guy which is even better. Right. There is no way to be sure of any of this as you say, but I think we'd have mud soup more than anything as solid as loose mud very early on myself. I just don't see big rivers BECAUSE it's going on raining very hard everywhere, not just in the higher areas, and it's all running off the higher areas willy-nilly, most of it mudslides. I suppose small streams would run into big streams here and there but I can't see anything that organized remaining for long BECAUSE it keeps going on raining everywhere and breaking up everything, any river banks trying to form would be eroded away in the overflow before they could even get formed. It's all speculation though. OK to most of that but not sure why not limestone. If it's deposited anywhere according to the Walther's model, being present in the sea water, it should be present in THIS sea water too and deposit in its turn along with all the other sediments. Afraid "sorting process" is clearer to me than "what you get when depositional environments shift" though I'd be happy to use that description if I could understand it. Anyway, thanks for being a big enough guy to say that Faith could ever get anything "basically correct." This I don't get. If the sea water creates layers then it should layer all this too. But the way things are today IS that we have extremely thick deposits of strata in many places and the clear indication that those existed in other places too but were eroded down to much less. Some of the strata span entire continents in very thick slabs. I don't get what you mean about not having enough. And we don't know how much sediment made up the original land mass, all we can do is extrapolate from what we have now anyway. If a depth of three miles of strata were originally laid down on the rock base of the continents, and a great deal of that washed into the sea, that should be enough sediment for my scenario. OK. That's something ponder. If the multiple is correctly interpreted. Again I don't get why not limestone since it normally gets laid down as part of the Walther's sequence simply because it's in the oceans. The Flood would have been the rising of the ocean all over the planet, carrying a lot of marine material of course, but now also carrying the land sediments and creatures. Waves, tides and currents have to be involved in the great distances over which they get distributed too. I don't see why we WOULDN'T get what we see now in the Geologic Column because both should have been abundant in the Flood waters. I know you're the geologically educated one but nobody has seen a worldwide Flood, no creationists, no geologists, nobody, and what we see now WOULD have been the result of such an event if it had occurred. And you all created this same sort of scenario on that old thread you linked too, which was fun to read because it's all exactly the same sort of speculation creationists do, though of course we're going to speculate in the direction of explaining "what we actually see" by it and you aren't. Your speculations don't match up with what we actually see, but creationists' do. As long as it's all speculation, which it is, I don't see that yours have a better claim than ours. I'd be a lot more troubled by any scenario that clashes with what God has revealed than anything that clashes with what mere human beings come up with, no matter how educated or sincere. I see the Bible as giving at least the outline of a worldwide Flood within the last ten thousand years and the attempts others have made to conform the Bible to what geologists have come up with just don't convince me, I worry for those who would do that as a matter of fact. So no, I'm not troubled by contradicting geologists. I'd rather not, of course, it's not fun being at odds with those who do this work, but I don't see that I have any choice. And as along as I'm able to visualize anything that is in the ballpark of supporting the Biblical record without outright contradicting physical laws it's both interesting and fun to do despite all the opprobrium that piles up on my head for it. Not really. The surgeon isn't contradicting God's revelation, nor is any science other than where they insist on an Old Earth and Evolution. And again these are of course the sciences of the prehistoric past, as I keep emphasizing, the ONLY sciences that have little more than speculation to build on. "Little more" i say because there are some things you can prove, just not the essential things, and so many keep trying to prove they are just as testable and provable as the "hard" sciences, but they aren't. That's why we're getting so involved in these posts in constructing speculative scenarios that we can't prove but hope are plausible. That leaves a lot of science that God has no problem with. Modeling the Flood in the lab would be an impossible undertaking. I'm sure certain features of it can be modeled but I wouldn't know where to begin. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : correct quotesEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

Typically, yes. In the grand scale, things are pretty well coordinated. But it is a huge task to take every location in the world and correlate environments and plate motions, so certainly a lot is interpolated. But the point is that no global flood is indicated by the geological record. While one area may be underwater for hundreds of millions of years, others are emergent and steadily eroding away. That's probably a 'no'. Do you ever have suspicions that your interpretation of the Bible is incorrect?

I don't know if you're right or not of course, but thanks for understanding what I said. It's SO nice to be understood even if disagreed with. Not that I'm disagreeing in this case, I really don't know if the different sets of data have been coordinated.

Nope, not after a couple decades of reading and hearing the best exegetes thereof, those who are led by God, which a believer CAN usually tell.

This would be paleomagnetism and it is fairly easy to get the inclination of the field in the appropriate rocks such as lava flows or even some sediments. The steeper the inclination the higher the latitude. I don't have actual data here, but Joe Meert used to do this kind of work. I wanted to emphasize this point. We can be pretty certain that the Indian subcontinent is colliding with Asia because of actual measurements.For Faith, this is called 'evidence'. We know what is happening right now to a certainty. Now, by comparison with older mountains, we can create hypotheses ... and they are supported by (drum roll) ... the evidence.

Good. Then you can understand why I am comfortable with mainstream geology after studying it for several decades.It's NOT an easy subject, contrary to what many YEC websites will suggest, and we can't really get into details on a discussion boar like this.

You have to understand that Walther's sequence is kind of an ideal situation where there is complete transgression/regression over long periods of time. Often, the sequence is interrupted. In your scenario, the biblical flood is so rapid that it would appear to be severely distorted, with little or no time for limestone to be deposited. For instance, coral reefs should be extinct. They only occur in shallow seas with limited clastic (sand, silt, etc.) input. And we know how slowly the grow.Mainly because of what we don't see. But everything we do see is amenable to long ages and normal sedimentation. So, we really have no idea what it was like, right? We would be basing our ideas on what we don't know. In the meantime we have very robust explanations for everything that we see.Why create a fantasy?

But God has revealed it to you. The record is right there in the rocks. Well, maybe then you should question how you interpret the Bible. Maybe you've got it all wrong and God is straining to educate you by having you participate in this discussion. Your god has given you the tools and the opportunity to grow. Ultimately, you have a choice. Well, you are not in the ballpark. In fact, you are not in the right continent. You have gone out of your way to deny what your own god is telling you.

Sorry, the rocks do not speak and everything said about them is the work of fallible human minds. That is why God gave us a written revelation, because we DON'T know how to interpret nature. He's in it for sure but if you are contradicting His graciously given written word then you are wrong about what it means.

Sometimes you are talking about real evidence, and it's the same evidence creationists make use of too. But sometimes you are just reciting the Creed or invoking "Evidence" as a dogma, though not really giving such evidence. I am sure the Himalayas are being raised by tectonic force even as we speak.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

To me, they speak volumes. Just as is your interpretation of the Bible.But let's try to stay on topic here. Basically, you are rejecting all science, since it has all been contrived by fallible humans? That's a tough stance to come from if you really want to have a discussion.

I do get tired of all the straw man complaints. No I do not reject ALL science. At least try to follow what I AM claiming whether you agree with it or not. It's this sort of misrepresentation among other distortions of the discussion that makes it tedious and unproductive.The rocks no doubt "speak volumes" to you, but don't attribute their remarks to God because YOUR INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THEY SAY contradicts His written record.ABE: And stop trying to compare a written work with your own ponderings about rocks. The claim that they are subject to interpretation in the same sense is absolutely bogus.Face the fact that your trusted authorities are human scientists and mine is the word of God and those who interpret it rightly. There is an inexorable clash here and there is no point in pretending otherwise.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.