|
Author
|
Topic: Origin of the Flood Layers
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
|
Message 173 of 409 (752730)
03-12-2015 3:29 PM
|
Reply to: Message 165 by Faith
03-12-2015 2:55 PM
|
|
It's not IMplausible, they can't say for sure can they? No, they only say it LOOKS LIKE stuff they've seen on the surface.
Actually, we are pretty certain. What is your level of acceptable certainty?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 165 by Faith, posted 03-12-2015 2:55 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 175 by Faith, posted 03-12-2015 3:33 PM | | edge has replied |
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
|
|
Message 174 of 409 (752731)
03-12-2015 3:31 PM
|
Reply to: Message 167 by Faith
03-12-2015 3:08 PM
|
|
I would think that even a diehard science pedant MIGHT, just once in a while, be able to understand the GOOD reasons why a creationist does what we do.
Oh, we understand why you do what you do. But it isn't good...
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 167 by Faith, posted 03-12-2015 3:08 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 176 of 409 (752734)
03-12-2015 3:34 PM
|
Reply to: Message 168 by Faith
03-12-2015 3:12 PM
|
|
Tectonic movement of rock underground, ...
Do you have any idea what you just wrote?
... water running between layers. Guessing.
And that would give you a dendritic drainage pattern that cuts through multiple layers of rock? So, how do those underwater rivers produce valleys that open upward, and then allow themselves to be filled in? And yes, you are guessing. Actually, I would call it wishful guessing.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 168 by Faith, posted 03-12-2015 3:12 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
|
|
Message 178 of 409 (752737)
03-12-2015 3:37 PM
|
Reply to: Message 175 by Faith
03-12-2015 3:33 PM
|
|
Oh I'm sure you're pretty certain, you usually are.
That is because I speak of things that I know.
But I'm not arguing this point. I put out a suggestion, not meant to definitively answer anything, just to suggest that MAYBE there's another way to look at it. If it ever comes to arguing it, THEN I'll research it and assess your evidence. Is there something wrong with making suggestions?
In a forum such as this one is usually expected to support his/her points. If you are unwilling to do so, it probably would be good to refrain from attempting that point.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 175 by Faith, posted 03-12-2015 3:33 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 180 by Faith, posted 03-12-2015 3:41 PM | | edge has replied |
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
|
|
Message 181 of 409 (752741)
03-12-2015 3:41 PM
|
Reply to: Message 177 by Faith
03-12-2015 3:35 PM
|
|
There's some truth to that. I don't want to let too many assertions go by without some kind of response.
There is nothing wrong with assertions as long as they are backed up. This is something that YECs do not seem to fathom. The sad thing is that, yes, sometimes the 'evo' side makes assertions without support, but YECs almost never pick up on it. In fact, I often make unsupported assertions trying to draw out YECs, but they (usually) simply do not have the reasoning power to recognize this ad attempt an response.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 177 by Faith, posted 03-12-2015 3:35 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 182 by Faith, posted 03-12-2015 3:45 PM | | edge has replied |
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
|
|
Message 183 of 409 (752744)
03-12-2015 3:48 PM
|
Reply to: Message 180 by Faith
03-12-2015 3:41 PM
|
|
It was supported by the fact that you aren't absolutely certain it was once surface. That leaves it open to interpretation.
Okay, I do not deal with absolutes in this context. It is possible that someone fabricated the chart. I seriously doubt that, but until I research the data, no, I will never say anything is absolute. That's the department of religious dogma, which you adhere to (and I'm absolutely certain of that). But realistically, no, my lack of absolute certainty is not evidence to the contrary. I'm sure that you can always find someone out there who will disagree with something no matter how certain you are (sounds familiar, eh?). For instance, would you accept my uncertainty about the correctness of the Bible suggest that there is an alternative interpretation?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 180 by Faith, posted 03-12-2015 3:41 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 184 by Faith, posted 03-12-2015 3:49 PM | | edge has not replied |
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
|
|
Message 186 of 409 (752750)
03-12-2015 3:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 182 by Faith
03-12-2015 3:45 PM
|
|
If nothing else, such a long drawn-out discussion about absolutely nothing, as we've been having for pages now, is convincing me to avoid making ANY kind of remark off the cuff. Sheesh.
Hey, you are in control. You could have exercised good judgement in the beginning and kept your fingers off the keyboard. You could have avoided making outlandish statements.
It won't make a difference though. It doesn't matter what I say I always get a bazillion objections to it that require endless laborious explanations. Support or no support, I don't think it matters, I'll be subjected to a barrage of complaints and objections.
Puh... lease...!! try to stay on topic.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 182 by Faith, posted 03-12-2015 3:45 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
That is how underground rivers form, water runs down through cracks in easily erodible material, such as limestone, and carves out caverns and tunnels until it finds a place to escape. Cross sectional shapes are generally rounded. Flow patterns are random since they follow cracks and the most erodible materials. They tend to form in stacks as the water works it's way down through the layers.
I think that one important take away here is that the pattern of dendritic tributaries with upstream branching is very different from the trellis-type pattern of caverns where you can see closed loops and geometric patterns. The former is a surface pattern of coalescing streams, whereas the latter are patterns of selective dissolution of limestone; and are readily visible in your example. I would differ on the point of underground 'rivers' being random, however, since they tend to follow fracture sets that are not just geometrically related to regional stresses, but are sometimes predictable.
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
Recognizable features, yes... but I think random is appropriate to describe them, unless you have a word that works better?
Random means 'no pattern'. I would say that there is a strong NE-trending orientation to the pattern of caverns in the Lechuguilla map.
In geology, there is almost always some kind of control. That is what makes the two patterns that we have been discussing so different. Even in detail, there are probably some kind of fracture sets that control the directions of cavern formation. Whether a specific fracture actually develops an open space may appear random but that probably depends on other factors such as the presence of faults, preferred flow directions or variable cementation or location within a fold. Nevertheless, at some scale, there is a pattern. There are other details we could discuss such as intersections and pipes, etc. This is how we do exploration for certain types if ore deposits. I admit that some features are hard to see.
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
|
|
Message 200 of 409 (752820)
03-13-2015 12:16 PM
|
Reply to: Message 199 by Faith
03-13-2015 12:09 PM
|
|
I may come back to this later but for now I never said and don't believe that the system was created by RECEDING Flood waters EITHER. Water continues to run underground all over the earth long since the Flood came to an end. AND such valleys on the surface have formed after the Flood so I see no reason to suppose there wasn't time for it underground. I'll think about the sediments that filled it all in later.
When you get a chance, could you describe for us what an underground valley would look like?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 199 by Faith, posted 03-13-2015 12:09 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 202 by Faith, posted 03-13-2015 12:27 PM | | edge has replied |
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
|
|
Message 201 of 409 (752821)
03-13-2015 12:24 PM
|
Reply to: Message 197 by jar
03-13-2015 7:57 AM
|
|
Re: because no one has presented a model
You ask why no thinking person has ever considered that a river valley system might develop underground is that no one in the history of science has ever presented a model, method, process, procedure or mechanism that would allow a river valley to develop under ground.
Until you present a model, method, process, procedure or mechanism that would allow a river valley to develop under ground there is no reason to think it was not formed at the surface.
Faith has already decided the outcome of such an analysis. She cannot have erosion prior to the present (other than 'itty bitty' stuff); so intellectual contortionism becomes necessary. So, really, it all stems from her denial of erosional unconformities; which, of course is standard YEC fare.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 197 by jar, posted 03-13-2015 7:57 AM | | jar has seen this message but not replied |
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
|
|
Message 203 of 409 (752826)
03-13-2015 1:34 PM
|
Reply to: Message 202 by Faith
03-13-2015 12:27 PM
|
|
You know what would help a lot? Seeing what the surface above this underground phenomenon looks like. Any way to show that? Also it would help to know the depth of the formation and the situation of the rocks above it.
I do not have that data, but there should be some available online. However, here is an excerpt from Glenn Morton's paper on the subject regarding a location in China. I have added some bold to give you some numbers.
quote:
The third picture I have is of an eroded surface in the Ordovician of China. This is due to the careful mapping of an erosional event on a three dimensional seismic volume. It is in the Tarim Basin in far western China and this erosional surface is buried 5200 meters (that is, 17,000 feet deep). It shows a branching drainage pattern as well. Such features could not have formed in the global flood in just a few years. The rock being eroded into is hard limestone. Since as Russ Maatman writes: "But a cup of water dissolves only two ten-thousands of an ounce of limestone." (The Impact of Evolutionary Thought: A Christian Perspective
(Sioux Center: Dordt College Press, 1993), p. 55) That must be fresh water because sea water already has all the limestone it can hold dissolved within it. The surface shown below has had thousands of feet of limestone removed by erosion and that would take time with numbers like this. It would take 100,000 years of constant rainfall to erode a ditch about 6 feet deep. Yet on this erosional surface taken from a sonogram of the earth, we find hundreds of feet of relief. Note also the branching channel patterns due to drainage on this picture.
And here is a paper by Glenn showing a diagram of an erosional surface between deformed Paleozoic sediments and overlying Mesozoic sediments. http://erv-faq-for-creationists.wikispaces.com/...th%27s+Age. In it, he states:
quote:
After the deposition of 18,500 feet of strata, and it's hardening (it takes lots of time for shales to de-water, yet we see no mega water escape structures in this sedimentary pile either), we must then have the time to thrust the paleozoic section creating huge mountains (the Appalachians). After this, we must have time for the erosion of 10,000 feet of HARDENED sediment, which then becomes the unconformity surface. Then we must cover, in a gentle way, the entire area with 3,500 feet of Mesozoic sediment. This is a rate of 19 feet a day assuming that the Mesozoic here represented 180 days of flood deposition. One could hardly say that 19 feet a day of sedimentation is 'gentle'. 19 feet of sediment where I live would nearly cover my 2 story house.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 202 by Faith, posted 03-13-2015 12:27 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 204 by Faith, posted 03-13-2015 4:37 PM | | edge has replied |
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
|
|
Message 205 of 409 (752850)
03-13-2015 6:12 PM
|
Reply to: Message 204 by Faith
03-13-2015 4:37 PM
|
|
First I don't know why he thinks anybody thinks it would have formed IN the Flood.
Because that is what you floodists say. The Ordovician and succeeding rocks were deposited during the flood, but this surface represents a major erosional event during that period. The erosion is younger than these rocks but older than the succeeding rocks.
Who has said such things?
Practically every YEC that I know of.
If some have, then I disagree with them. There is no need to think of these things as forming IN the Flood, and every reason to think not. I do think of them as being the result of water running underground and don't know why that isn't a possibility.
Then you should propose a way of creating a false topography within a solid rock edifice.
At 17,000 feet deep it is about where the Ordovician layer should be, I suppose, though in the Grand Canyon it's not that deep even counting all the layers above to the top of the Grand Staircase. But I don't suppose that matters. It would be very nice to know what the rocks above it look like though, and the surface of the earth at the top.
Well, if you want them to be post flood, then you need to have a way of depositing 17kfeet after the flood. Okay, what's your model, other than wishful thinking to prop up your religious dogma.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 204 by Faith, posted 03-13-2015 4:37 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 206 by Faith, posted 03-13-2015 6:36 PM | | edge has replied |
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 208 of 409 (752922)
03-14-2015 2:52 PM
|
Reply to: Message 206 by Faith
03-13-2015 6:36 PM
|
|
I was not talking about the formation of the rock but of the erosion of the rock which I'm thinking occurred after the Flood.
But if you read carefully, you will see that, according to your own story, the flood had to continue depositing a huge thickness of sediments.
You are asserting that the erosion is older than succeeding rocks but how do you know that?
I know it because of the principles of superposition and cross-cutting structures. There isn't much else in the way of alternatives. Although I do not have information on this locality, we usually see that the post-unconformity rocks are made up of eroded and redeposited pre-unconformity rocks. This provides us with a bullet-proof sequence of events.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 206 by Faith, posted 03-13-2015 6:36 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 209 by Faith, posted 03-16-2015 3:51 PM | | edge has replied |
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
|
|
Message 210 of 409 (753094)
03-16-2015 5:27 PM
|
Reply to: Message 209 by Faith
03-16-2015 3:51 PM
|
|
You have misread something. In this whole discussion I've assumed all the strata were already in place and that what happened to a layer low in the stack happened afterward.
But the image clearly shows that the Ordovician rocks were deposited, then eroded, and then sedimentation continued. You cannot create valleys and canyons underground.
You are assuming the erosion occurred at the same time the layer was deposited. I am not. If it occurred after the layers above were deposited then the principle of superposition is not violated.
Actually, I make no such assumption. My only assumption is that superposition is valid. Sedimentation was interrupted by erosion after the Ordovician rocks were deposited and then sedimentation continued.
I'm afraid that whole paragraph makes no sense to me.
In that case, never mind. It is additional information that will probably confuse you.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 209 by Faith, posted 03-16-2015 3:51 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 211 by Faith, posted 03-16-2015 7:32 PM | | edge has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2
