|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Motley Flood Thread (formerly Historical Science Mystification of Public) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
But I'm not objecting to the wreckage of the strata, I'm objecting to the general appearance of wreckage and desolation. The whole world is wrecked in ways I don't think we can ever really grasp. The strata are what is left of the sediments from the original world, the fossils are the dead creatures the Flood killed. The world of today is built on top of that worldwide cemetery and although God has allowed a great deal of recovery (well, considering all the inhospitable places not really that great) there can never be anything again remotely like the original Creation with its extravagant fertility and beauty and order.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Erosion makes it possible to see the wreckage more clearly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Golly maybe they would pay attention when I say I didn't mean that instead of insisting that I do.
If there hadn't been erosion there would be flat surface on top of all the strata. Tectonic deformation and erosion expose the strata. But it's ALL wreckage, strata plus deformation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Putting volcanism under the water to wash away the evidence does not work, because the world's volcanoes are obviously built above the water because they are still here. well but the water was a few miles above sea level at the height of the Flood, meaning at the point I'm guessing it started to recede, triggered by or accompanied by the tectonic movement and volcanism. Much volcanism even today is underwater though it may also surface onto the land. So SOME was no doubt under water then too. We didn't stop having volcanoes of course and after the Flood they went on erupting on land and spread the ash you are talking about.
And not just the volcanoes but the land they are on is also substantially built by volcanoes - think Indonesia, Japan, etc. Hawaii.
Ash from historical eruptions in the last 2000 years or so can be found around the world. Where is the massive layer that would be produced by jamming all this volcanism into a short time? That's why I postulated that much of it could have been under water at the beginning.
Most of these volcanoes are caused by tectonic plate subduction. The plate has to go several 100 km deep to melt and produce magma, which then has to work its way up to the surface to erupt. Well, but wouldn't the very first movement of subduction apply pressure that would affect everything beneath it -- amd besides the subduction is caused by the movement of this enormous continent which in itself would affect the deep crust, wouldn't it? -- and wouldn't that be enough to trigger a volcano deep underground? I don't get what you mean though about having to "melt" anything: isn't magma just there beneath the crust ready to be released if something disturbs the crust above it? And of course I don't know how long it would take to work its way up but the stuff is hot and melts rock and also pushes up mountains so why would it take some enormous length of time?
The sheer physics of this means it takes a long time. Well, please forgive me but time according to standard geological thinking is just way too long for most processes.
For it all to happen at the end of the Flood, picture miles of plate diving underground every day, melting like crazy at a rate that defies physics, and the magma speeding up through 100s of km of rock to erupt out of the way before the next bit comes. The first volcanoes between Europe and the Americas would have occurred in the Atlantic, Right/ And would have occurred deep under the Atlantic, first in the rift between those continents. There are a lot of dead volcanoes along the rim of the Atlantic. But around the Pacific they are very active where the plates are subducting. The first ones would have been under water.
Faith, it ain't gonna work! Well, you could be right, but it does seem to me there are other ways of explaining it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Lithospheric plates ... move at about 10cm per year. I appreciate your information, thank you, and obviously you know what you are talking about, and I'll give it more thought, but..... I always have a problem with the uniformitarian assumption, that what is happening today is what always happened -- and in this case the speed of the movement you describe. I know it is assumed that the speed required by YEC timing is physically impossible, but someone who believes in YEC timing because it comes from God isn't going to be able to accept that and will look for alternatives that make it possible. So the speed we see now has to be the end speed of a movement that started out much faster and has slowed to its present rate. And there have to be unknown mitigating factors involved to explain why it didn't burn up the planet as it is claimed that it would. Ice age being one perhaps. I'm sure you want to throttle me now. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The thickness of the descending plate means it takes a long time for heat to penetrate it to melt it. This is the first time I've ever heard of the subducting plate having to melt and being the source of the magma. I've always understood that the magma is always present beneath the crust and that a volcano is the releasing of that magma to rise through the rock to the surface.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Hi Faith You maybe do not understand the scale of what is required to speed up geologic processes to fit in the Flood year. You go on to talk about tectonic movement but I don't fit that into the Flood year, it starts at the end of it.
The deduced movements of the tectonic plates forming and reforming supercontinents are known in good detail back 600,000,000 years and to a lesser degree much earlier. So an acceleration factor of many hundreds of million is required. I'm aware of the whole idea of forming and reforming of continents, but on the Flood model there is only room for one, and the accepted timing of the breakup of Pangaea I've shown to be wrong because there should be tectonic disturbance in the Jurassic if it were true and the UK cross section shows no such disturbance, the strata continue through the Tertiary on the same pattern as all the rest..
You cannot stretch tectonic movement out into recorded history because people would have noticed the earthquakes and volcanic effects. But we do notice them. The Flood model merely suggests that most of them occurred before the population had grown enough after the ark for it to be a major problem. And I'd argue that there must have been many mitigating factors anyway at the very beginning such as the fact that it started out under water, and then the ice age would have been another factor suppressing the worst effects.
It is not just the movements that have to be fitted in. There is the associated volcanism, and the laying down of sedimentary rocks formed from the products of now-eroded-away volcanoes. I've acknowledged the volcanism every time I describe the Flood scenario. Not sure what the sedimentary rocks imply in your framework.
Add in the fossils which have to be formed from animals and plants which show that continents now separated were once joined. I'm well aware of that and don't see a problem.
Don't forget the rapidly changing RA decay needed without cooking everything to produce the consistent RM dates; and madly oscillating magnetic pole reversals. Yes and I don't try to deal with these things, but I assume they need rethinking outside the uniformitarian frame of reference and that will eventually be done.
Would you like to know about the problems from large igneous provinces for YEC? I've encountered that before; it's not as big a problem as you think it is. The problem with all this is your basic paradigm. Since you have all the usual assumptions and have no interest in reassessing them you are just going to continue with the usual ideas about the Flood and leave it to the YECs to try to deal with it. That's understandable but you are throwing the products of many different disciplines, understood within the prevailing paradigm of course, throwing them at a few YECs, and while some are no doubt fairly well quipped for that task,, I'm certainly not in any position to try to answer it all, and I don't try. That's why I limit my argument to a few things I think show the Flood and don't try to deal with the multiplicitous stuff you all throw at us, such as you are doing in this post. I've proved to my own satisfaction that there is enough evidence for the Flood events and their timing to expect that all the rest of the problems invented by the Old Earthists will fall into place eventually.
You really wish to cling to YEC but defending it is analogous to stopping a waterfall with a rake. See above.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
There is no point in continuing to bring up the order of the fossils. I've said all I have to say on it. There is an order that is consistent but what that order is interpreted to mean is imaginary. And since I believe I've proved the Flood timing and events well enough I don't feel any need to try to answer anything else.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined:
|
Some of those you list I've already answered, and some, like Tangle's, don't deserve to be acknowledged let alone answered.
But I'm ready for Summation Mode. This thread became too unwieldy for me to deal with long ago. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I guess if it's comforting to surround yourself with all your wealth of facts and evidence and just sit there counting it all, go for it. It's just a matter of time before the Flood will wash it all away.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Most obviously the result of the Flood or the tectonic events afterward.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Why do you have the silly idea it should be in the Bible?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Why do you have the silly idea it should be in the Bible? Why do you have the silly idea that the Bible wouldn't mention such a momentous event immediately after and directed related to the momentous event of the Flood? Obviously because it wasn't momentous. The ark was floating on a sea that stretched from horizon to horizon. The boat may have rocked some or maybe not, nothing momentous. The Bible does mention earthquakes when they affect people.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
First of all, you once again commit the error of extending the geology of Great Britain to the rest of the world. Great Britain happens to be right where the split occurred and probably suffered a lot of bashing and crashing in ways that aren't evident. Perhaps it wasn't even an island before the split? But since the event was worldwide, as are the strata, I don't see th problem of extending the example.
Beyond that, you make a superfluous point since there are no Jurassic rocks in the parts of GB that are close to the Paleozoic or Mesozoic plate boundaries. I would expect little disturbance. The deformation seen in the island had to be the result of that tectonic action, and if so there would not have been any strata laid down after the Jurassic at the time of its occurrence according to the standard idea of when Pangaea broke up, and if that were the case, after it broke up and the strata continued depositing according to the usual time scale, the strata of the Tertiary would have deposited flat, and would have deposited ON TOP OF the strata already present and already deformed. Instead they are part of the whole stack of strata, deformed as a unit with all the rest of them.
In fact, we do see that the lower Cretaceous sediments in southern GB overlie a nonconformity in the Jurassic in southern GB. No idea what this is supposed to mean, or any of the rest of what you say here:
Both occurrences however are interpreted as transgressive deposits infilling NW-SE palaeovalleys cut into Jurassic basement. https://www.sciencedirect.com/...e/abs/pii/S0016787808801617 The point is that there was little deformation of the Jurassic sedimentary rocks of Great Britain for a reason. They were deposited after the earlier Caledonian Orogeny and still remained far from the continental rifting that formed the Atlantic Ocean. These Jurassic sedimentary rocks are just as I would expect them. Far from the continental rifting that formed the Atlantic Ocean???? Great Britain is where the rifting had to have occurred, there is nothing between it and North America except the Atlantic Ocean, and that means the Atlantic Ridge developed right on what is now its western edge. Here I've got people telling me all this movement would have affected Noah who was floating on the sea over a mountain range in the Middle East at the time, but you are saying Great Britain which was where the continental rift occurred was not disturbed? Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The Flood laid down all the strata seen in any of the formations that are composed of strata, and then they were shaped by tectonic and erosive forces afterward,. though the salt was obviously carved out by human beings.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024