Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 345 of 519 (811676)
06-10-2017 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 335 by Faith
06-10-2017 2:59 AM


I worked it all out a few years ago. The tectonic movement would have been imperceptible to normal observation after a few hundred years. During the first weeks you could have stood on the western edge of Europe and watched the Americas sail away a few feet per day, but there was nobody there at the time to see it. Probably too much volcanism there at the time anyway.
So, with all of this catastrophic tectonism, there were no tsunamis and no noticeable earthquakes?
And, about all of that volcanism... you really think that no one noticed? I mean if you compressed 4 ga of volcanism into a couple thousand years, that would make the planet permanently toxic. Add to that the extraterrestrial impacts and solar events. Do you have any idea where we would be now?
And animals didn't change at any unusual rate at all, same as today. But they did spread out far and wide, and within a few hundred years of the Ark's landing would have reached the ends of the earth.
So, all kinds of animals including large mammals could repopulate the earth, but humans couldn't record so many global catastrophic events?
You have just annihilated YEC.
Maybe you should work it out for a few more years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by Faith, posted 06-10-2017 2:59 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 346 by Faith, posted 06-10-2017 2:48 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 349 of 519 (811706)
06-10-2017 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 346 by Faith
06-10-2017 2:48 PM


One possibility is that the volcanism was mostly underwater since the continents split at the end of the Flood and in association with whatever caused the waters to recede.
But that's not how continents split. The volcanism is subaerial as we see in the East African Rift, or the Great Basin.
On top of that, you have the fact that extensive volcanism means high heat flows and high heat flows expand the mid-ocean ridges so that they displace water back onto the land. This is not a marine regressive situation.
Also the Flood would have brought on the ice age.
So, you say.
And yet we've never seen an explanation of how that happened, just that it did, period.
Mitigating factors to the effect of the volcanism perhaps.
Unlikely.
And that's just the volcanoes.
Remember there were only eight human beings on earth at the end of the Flood when I'm saying the continents split. A few hundred years later the population would have grown greatly and they would already have spread quite a bit just like the animals. Some by that time may have already started settling in Europe, others in Asia, others in Africa etc.
More bald assertions.
What is your evidence that this happened. You can say whatever you want (and you do), but there is never any evidence to support your assertions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by Faith, posted 06-10-2017 2:48 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 352 of 519 (811751)
06-11-2017 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 351 by 14174dm
06-11-2017 1:21 PM


Re: Remember this Faith?
Wouldn't that moving sediment up from the depths of the ocean basins onto the continental plates require velocities so high that the sediment would just be washed back off the continents?
This is a problem that Faith does not seem to recognize, but it is very important. The Faith scenario would seem to defy gravity and everything we know about sedimentation and hydrodynamics (basically that water flows downhill). It also fails to explain how fossil communities transported in a turbulent state (and it would have to be turbulent to rise out of the abyss and cover a continent in the timespan of a year) and yet be preserved and perfectly sorted into very distinct layers. This kind of transport would almost have to be some kind of a mudflow without any particular dynamic explanation.
I think her response the last time I brought this up was something like, "Well, it wasn't like a mudflow everywhere." And yet these events/strata seem to cover entire continents ...
It's all very inconsistent (even internally) and disorienting to the reasonable audience. There are so many things wrong with the Faith scenario, that one has no idea where to start.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by 14174dm, posted 06-11-2017 1:21 PM 14174dm has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 353 by Coyote, posted 06-11-2017 3:29 PM edge has not replied
 Message 354 by PaulK, posted 06-11-2017 3:34 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 356 of 519 (811759)
06-11-2017 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 355 by Faith
06-11-2017 8:01 PM


Re: Time Scale is Disproved, Flood is Well Supported, Summary Statement
Where would you put Siccar Point on this section?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by Faith, posted 06-11-2017 8:01 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 357 by Faith, posted 06-12-2017 3:00 AM edge has not replied
 Message 358 by Tangle, posted 06-12-2017 3:26 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 373 of 519 (811811)
06-12-2017 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 358 by Tangle
06-12-2017 3:26 AM


Re: Time Scale is Disproved, Flood is Well Supported, Summary Statement
quote:
It's an odd section of the UK to a Brit's eyes as it's a diagonal drawn through the bottom of England and Wales - missing almost all of the country. Draw a line from London (bottom right) to Wales (slightly higher up on the left) and you've got it.
But maybe there's a geoligical reason for it. But like Faith I haven't a clue about geology.
My point here was rhetorical. Faith says that all deformation was post flood (post-geology, if you will) and yet at Siccar, we have deformed Ordovician rocks stratigraphically overlain by relatively undeformed Devonian rocks. The standard interpretation of this would be that the older rocks were deformed, eroded, and then buried by the younger rocks. Then the entire package of rocks was tilted. But however you look at it, the picture is very different from that on William Smith's cross-section.
But you make a good point. The cross section does not represent all of Great Britain. It is selected data that Faith tries to extend not just to all of Great Britain, but to the rest of the Earth. That is why I brought up Siccar Point. It presents a very different picture.
The cross section's particular orientation is probably due to the fact that that direction is perpendicular to the stratigraphic succession in the region, and it might have been the area that William Smith was most familiar with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by Tangle, posted 06-12-2017 3:26 AM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 375 by Faith, posted 06-12-2017 10:21 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 377 of 519 (811815)
06-12-2017 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 375 by Faith
06-12-2017 10:21 AM


Re: Time Scale is Disproved, Flood is Well Supported, Summary Statement
quote:
Siccar has to be interpreted as I've done many times, as tectonic tilting of the lower section while the upper were in place.
But you provide no evidence in support of this scenario.
It is a loser from the start.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by Faith, posted 06-12-2017 10:21 AM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 378 of 519 (811817)
06-12-2017 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 376 by New Cat's Eye
06-12-2017 10:22 AM


Re: Time Scale is Disproved, Flood is Well Supported, Summary Statement
In the Faith scenario, she would be correct since she needs to deposit astronomical amounts of sediment in one year.
But, once again, there is absolutely no evidence to support this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-12-2017 10:22 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 382 by Faith, posted 06-12-2017 5:24 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 404 of 519 (811974)
06-13-2017 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 399 by Coragyps
06-13-2017 8:12 PM


Re: Crabs
Faith, please answer me a question: trilobites and crabs are both shelled sorts of seafood, at least for some consumers. They are similar in size. They seem to be somewhat similar in dietary preferences. But they have NEVER been found fossilized together. Why is that?
Intelligent sorting.
The floodwaters were special. They could tell Olenellus from Glossopleura and put the former at the top of the lower Cambrian and the latter at the top of the middle Cambrian.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 399 by Coragyps, posted 06-13-2017 8:12 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 406 of 519 (811977)
06-13-2017 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 405 by Faith
06-13-2017 8:55 PM


Re: Crabs
So you say, and that's all you guys have, your own unprovable opinion. It is known that water sorts things and makes layers of sediments And as long as the Time Scale is the utterly irrational interpretation of the strata that it is, and as long as there is other evidence of the Flood, which I've given, it's reasonable to assume it sorted things exactly as we see them in the strata.
And that, everyone, is evidence a' la Faith!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 405 by Faith, posted 06-13-2017 8:55 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 407 by Faith, posted 06-13-2017 9:06 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 412 of 519 (811990)
06-13-2017 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 410 by Faith
06-13-2017 9:27 PM


Re: Crabs
Oh good grief. I'm talking OF COURSE about a layer of sediment in a stack of sediments, where there is no evidence whatever that anything ever lived. The strata stretch across huge distances, FLAT, now ROCK. If anything ever did live there the next sediment would have buried them alive, they would have had nowhere to go. They are rocks, nothing ever lived there.
Which is kind of a weird statement since we have found animal tracks and other trace fossils on those surfaces...
How do you explain that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 410 by Faith, posted 06-13-2017 9:27 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 413 by Faith, posted 06-13-2017 9:35 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 414 of 519 (811994)
06-13-2017 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 413 by Faith
06-13-2017 9:35 PM


Re: Crabs
You're right, things DID live there at one time, way underneath the first layer anyway, and the sediment depositions killed them. We see their tracks scurrying across the latest deposition in a futile attempt to escape.
Oh, right.
Now I remember the tracks of trees and coral reefs racing across the flat expanses of sediment, attempting to escape a flood.
Oh, wait ... the flood was already there, wasn't it? Hmmm...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 413 by Faith, posted 06-13-2017 9:35 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 424 of 519 (812115)
06-14-2017 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 420 by Faith
06-14-2017 9:50 PM


Re: Crabs
Except that the sediments were deposited over a few months.
In the real world, there is no source for such amounts of sediment. So, in the Faith scenario, the sediment has to come from the ocean basins, is that correct?
Do you realize the complications of such a scheme?
Do you agree then that there were ocean basins prior to the flood? Some YECs say no. I'd like to get the straight story and then go from there.
If such basins existed, did they contain a huge amount of sediments along with the seawater?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by Faith, posted 06-14-2017 9:50 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 426 by Faith, posted 06-14-2017 10:34 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 427 of 519 (812120)
06-14-2017 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 422 by Faith
06-14-2017 10:05 PM


Re: water deposition
The evidence is in the tight contacts between the layers, ...
I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean that the contacts are sharp or that they are tight as in hard to separate?
In either case, what would you expect would be the difference from the mainstream interpretation? Why would the contacts not be 'sharp'? In other words, we have a nice flat surface of deposition for black shale and the environment changes to silt deposition. Why would that change not appear sudden resulting in a quick change to silt?
... their flatness and straightness before tectonic deformation, ...
So, how would this be different in the mainstream explanation and why?
... the accumulation in some places of the whole sequence from Cambrian to Holocene without tectonic disturbance, ...
What do you mean 'in some places'? Or do you think that the stratigraphic package of rocks is the same everywhere in the world?
... the absence of any erosion on a scale that would imply conditions for a time period at that level in the geological column, ...
So, the flood eroded the land sending sediments to the ocean basins(?), which then coughed it all back up on to the land?
I only ask because you say there was no erosion and (I think) you have said that there was no rain before the flood. The question is, where did sediments come from if there was no erosion?
... the fact that the sediments cover enormous areas of geography layer after layer which would kill anything that had lived there, ...
Please explain.
Why does having layer after layer mean that the layers would have killed everything? Why does it mean that everything happened quickly? Most people would say that the layers represent different time periods. How would that be different from what you see?
... in other words the evidence shows deposition one layer after another, ...
Okay, but why do you use the term 'after'? Aren't you implying a time factor?
... which implies deposition by an enormous amount of water over a short period of time.
But why is it a short period of time? Why not an enormous amount of water over a long period of time?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 422 by Faith, posted 06-14-2017 10:05 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 429 of 519 (812124)
06-14-2017 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 426 by Faith
06-14-2017 10:34 PM


Re: Crabs
Funny that it's actually there then so there must have been a source for it.
That's kind of my point. You have to conjure up sources such as erosion from the land masses to the ocean basins, which may or may not have existed and may or may not have already had sediments in them, then you have to return those sediments to the land masses in nice flat, straight, huge sheets.
And if as I have suggested, a lot of it came from the land, washed off by the rain and rising water into the ocean water, plus sediments stirred in the oceans themselves, seems to me there should be plenty.
But where did the sediment in the ocean come from? You said there was no erosion prior to the flood.
And how much sediment was eroded from the land masses? There must have been miles of it, agreed? If so how did that much weathering occur in 2000 years from the creation of the planet? Certainly, basement rock does not erode that fast unless it is very deeply weathered.
The land was apparently pretty flat too, since the sediments were deposited flat across enormous areas of geography.
So you had these deeply eroded continental masses that were essentially flat after torrential rains removed miles of weathered rock. We see that all the time, right?
No mountains etc.,
You know what creates mountains, don't you? Erosion.
Where are YOU going to get enough for what we actually see anyway? Did it fall out of the sky?
That's easy. I had mountains forming continuously along with erosion depositing sediments on and adjacent to the continents.
Just like what we see today.
See above.
Okay so sediment rose out of the oceans to spread across the continents. And it removed all of the sediment from the oceans? And deposited them evenly across the continents? In nice even layers with well-defined contacts? Along with limestone beds? In less than a year?
Sure, Faith...
When the main truths are known the complications will eventually be explained.
So you can just ignore them, yes?
In the meantime, we have an explanation.
I don't know.
I see that.
I'm not talking about ocean basins, why are you?
Well, it's kind of critical isn't it? I mean, if your sediments are coming from there and being transported back onto the continents, against the gradient, there must be something unusual about these oceans.
My very vague understanding of the pre-Flood ocean as suggested by some professional creationists is that it was far more shallow than today's oceans, that the "fountains of the deep" erupted from beneath the ocean floor, and when the Flood receded it was into a deepened basin because of the collapse of the ocean floor. I'm not arguing for this, just saying it's one of the creationist views and it does account for the facts.
Yes, there are reasons for not advocating this mechanism.
However, you should work in this problem.
Well, how do you account for the sediments that form layers according to Walther's Law? Sand, Mud, Carbonates and Coccoliths?
Another easy question: transgressing seas. We've been over this a number of times.
The latter certainly originate in the oceans, and sand is formed in the oceans too, though it originally came from the land, running down streams and rivers into the sea, then abraded into sand grains, I forget how, islands? or something, before being deposited as beach sand.
Which raises another whole question. How do you have beach sands if you don't have a land mass? I thought this flood was at least global if not even greater.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by Faith, posted 06-14-2017 10:34 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 432 by Faith, posted 06-15-2017 12:10 AM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 431 of 519 (812127)
06-14-2017 11:48 PM


So, the Faith scenario is to erode the continents to a flat terrain in 40 days, evenly all over the earth to a flat plain.
I'm wondering what material was being eroded. We presently see very hard rocks of basement complexes such as granite and a host of hard metamorphic rocks below the ostensible flood sediments. Is that the original source of sediment, or did God create the earth with miles of easily erodable soil at the surface?
If the former, how did the bedrock weather so deeply to get all of the sediment necessary for the Phanerozoic rock series? What kind of rapid weathering occurred, especially if there was no rain prior to the flood?
Okay, so this sediment was transported to the sea in raging torrents that swept the surface of the land down to a flat surface. In 40 days. Leaving no trace of canyons or stream courses.
Then then the ocean regurgitated these sediments along with other original ocean sediments back up onto the land, somehow going against the slope of the earth's surface to deposit nice layers of sand, silt, mud and limestone. Where did the limestone form? How did it get sorted out into nice layers, sometimes with intact reef environments growing in them? After all the fountains of the deep, in their rather unknown powers have stirred the sediments. Maybe they also forced the sediment charged water back up onto the continents?
What was this transport like? Streams, mudflows, street paving machines? How did the layers get to be so regular and extensive? And yet all of this sediment was removed cleanly from the modern ocean basins to be perched upon the continents. Are there no relict deposits of unregurgitated sediment in the oceans?
I'm having a hard time visualizing the process.
And I haven't even tried to fit in the fossil evidence yet.
Faith states all of this as a simple matter of fact and yet the questions multiply like rabbits with every new post and revelation. And yet, she asks why I am concerned with the ocean basins ...

Replies to this message:
 Message 433 by Faith, posted 06-15-2017 12:54 AM edge 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