Trying to average out plate movement over a few thousand years in a gradually slowing scenario still leaves an enormous amount of seismic and volcanic activity in the last 2000 years when people were writing about experiencing these things. Faith, PEOPLE WOULD HAVE NOTICED!
There are core records of significant eruptions in the last 2000 years, and writings about the atmospheric and weather effects, but these eruptions are piffling compared to what you need to fit in - e.g. flood basalts of 1000s of c km per year, year after year. Remember the significant eruption of one volcano, Toba, is readily identified in lake cores, and dated 74,000 years ago.
The Seventh-day Adventist Church's Geoscience Research Institute was set up to find evidence of YEC. They reported at a major church meeting in 2010 that after 50 years of study, they could not explain the evidence in the Earth as YEC without invoking miracles, i.e. more than just bringing and taking away water.
That is what you have left : Creation and the Flood occurred in the last 6000 or so years, but the miraculous way it happened just managed to make it look like long ages were involved.
A single flood can explain a single layer. It cannot explain two or more layers, because multiple deposition just do not occur. You get one layer with sediment sorted from biggest particles to smallest particles. You do NOT get multiple layers with big dense particles on top of fine particles -- what is seen in the geological record -- from the deposition of flood sediment.
quote:One of the things that affects rhythmite and varve formation is the sedimentation rates of different particles, and varves can have different layers with different size particles, some that settle faster than others:
Sand and gravel are both large and dense. In addition, they have a small surface area per unit volume since they are roughly spherical. So these types of particles have a high suspension velocity.
Stoke's Law: V = (D^2g(d1-d2)/(18n)
The formula shows that the settling velocity, V, is directly proportional to the square of the particle's effective diameter, D; the acceleration of gravity, g; and the difference between the density of the particle, d1, and density of the liquid, d2; but inversely proportional to the viscosity (resistance to flow) of the liquid, n. The density of water and its viscosity
Stoke's Law can be condensed to V=kD^2 ...
... by assuming that g(d1-d2)/(18n) is relatively constant. High suspension velocity means the water needs to be very turbulent to pick up sand and gravel -- usually not a problem for a flood -- and it also means that any smaller particles are also picked up and mixed in the turbulent flow. Then, as the turbulence subsides, the large heavy dense particles are deposited followed by smaller and smaller particles, sorting them by size: large at the bottom small at the top. We see this pattern of deposition at river mouths with increasingly smaller particles being deposited further and further from the mouth of the river. Multiple layers of large particles over fine particles is just not possible with a single flood event.
Ergo a single Flood does NOT explain the observed sedimentary layers better than geological age and multiple deposition events.
It also cannot explain how sediments are deposited with radioactive elements sorted by their parent/daughter ratios, with sediments with the lowest parent/daughter ratios at the bottom and those with the highest parent/daughter ratios at the top. The ratios don't change the particle size, shape or density of the material.
quote:Absolute Time Radiometric Dating: the source of the dates on the Geologic Time Scale
Actually a simple technique. Only two measurements are needed: 1. The parent:daughter ratio measured with a mass spectrometer. 2. The decay constant measured by a scintillometer.
Basis of the Technique
As the parent element decays, its amount decreases while the amount of the daughter element increases. This gives us a ratio of parent:daughter elements. The decay rate is geometric rather than linear. Unaffected by heat or pressure.
Parent and daughter particles would be separated in the turbulent mud, but once the sediments are deposited the daughter particles would occur next to the parent particles (in zircons and similar crystals). Dating measurements show the "geometric rather than linear" pattern consistent with geological age with the parent:daughter decreasing with increasing depth of sediments, layer by layer.
So -- irrespective of radiometric age calculations -- a single Flood does NOT explain the observed sedimentary layers better than geological age and multiple deposition events.
The same issue for fossils found in the sediments, not sorted by size/density, but sorted by traits and their development, and sorted so that there is a temporal/spatial matrix showing evolutionary development over time with related fossils nearby in time and geographical location.
Add to this the fact that deposits of marine environments show mature growth of the marine ecology gradually being covered by silts and the continuous growth of marine animals, corals, seaweeds and the like: brachiopods growing on top of older brachiopod shells and attached by their stalk/stem, fragile fan coral preserved whole, etc. etc. (see Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood? for more).
So once again, a single Flood does NOT explain the observed sedimentary layers better than geological age and multiple deposition events.
And as you have been informed in return many times, rocks DO harden by drying, especially under compaction, which would have been the case with all the lower strata in the Geo Column as the upper strata would have been piling up for a sufficient period for that.
Of course sediments on the surface do not turn to rock when they dry, and buried sediments cannot harden by drying because drying is an evaporative process, and water cannot evaporate from buried sediments. At an undetailed level, rocks form by compaction from the weight of overbearing material that forces out any water and eliminates pores resulting in cementation. Drying through evaporation has nothing to do with it.
Drying is a huge part of lithification, and others with some expertise have agreed on former threads, but I've never said it's the ONLY way rocks harden.
Drying has nothing to do with lithification. Look it up.
Faith, you live in a region where you should have no trouble visiting extensive regions of sunbaked sediments just lying on the surface. It is bone dry and none of it has turned to rock. The only rock you'll find is rock that was already there.
Your claim that you never said the Grand Canyon Supergroup tilted while buried beneath at least a mile of layers and without affecting those overlying layers shouldn't need documentation, though it can easily be provided if you're still denying it. You've argued for this idea at great length many, many times over years. I'm sure it's indelibly etched on everyone's memory.
But let's say you no longer believe that the Supergroup tilted while buried. If that's truly the case, then how do you believe it happened now?
To summarize, you were neither misrepresented nor misunderstood. You said precisely what I said you said, and they are all examples of how the specifics of your views do not align with any other YECs. They certainly share your general view that the Earth is young and that a global flood is responsible for world geology, but they do not share any of your views of how it happened. In other words, your lack of understanding of how common physical processes work is not only clear to us, but even to other YECs.
The average as I recall was closer to 11 feet per day, and it was 4300 years instead of 6000 years. And it makes a difference to thlnk in terms of gradual decrease in speed from twenty feet per day down the present speed.
There is zero evidence for this idea. You're just making things up.
The age of the Atlantic sea floor ranges from 0 years at the mid-oceanic ridge to around 140 million years at the North American and North African coastlines. The evidence of these ages comes from deep sea cores and magnetic sea-floor striping. They show that sea floor spreading rates have ranged between 1 and 5 cm/year for millions of years.
Sometimes somebody does come along and overturn the established wisdom.
In this case the "established wisdom" was the legend of the great Flood.
The people who came along and overturned that established wisdom were the natural philosophers, geologists, paleontologists, chemists, physicists, etc etc etc, who showed that the Flood could not have been anything but a local event, if it even was a particular event and not merely a memory of various floods over the ages. "Speak to the Earth and it shall teach thee."
They did not overturn it on any scientific grounds. It was James Hutton's wild speculations that started that ball rolling but it was only wild human speculation and did not deserve scientific standing. Also their interpretations of the Flood were just as silly as they are now. No sense of the magnitude of the thing for starters.
And they accepted what seems to me to be the utter abbsurdity that time periods of millions of years of earth's history are memorialized in slabs of rock of identifiable sedimentary content, each bearing a peculiarly distinct set of dead things, fossilized in a remarkably consistent way over hundreds of millions of years despite the fact that fossilization needs very specific conditions which are not all that easy to come by. This is a truly abbsurd science, sorry. Sometimes the scientific romance we've all learned from grade school is just that, a romance.
But if you agree that fossils did fossilize, as you seem to, and you agree that it takes a long time for a fossil to fossilize, to say nothing of such processes as clay becoming shale and then becoming slate, how can you think the mud and carcasses of the flood could become the geological strata we see now in only a few thousand years?
The Bible does not contradict itself. If it clearly teaches a worldwide Flood it isn't going to turn around and imply that if we study the earth it will tell us something different.
The many flood stories from many cultures, even with all their distortions, are not going to be memories of a merely local flood which occur all the time all over the earth. They wouldn't bother. So their existence is evidence of Noah's flood, as remembered by his descendants all over the world with the usual distortions we should expect of human storytelling. Only the Bible is presented to us as an accurate accounting of history, and its circumstantial details alone give credibility to that claim.
I thlnk the enormous weight of something like three miles depth of strata would have forced the water out of the lower layers and hardened them quite rapidly. Lithification proper may have taken a lot more time, but even hundreds of years should have been enough. The compression of the strata should also have intensivied and speeded up the fossilization process.
The other theory is what takes so much time, the aabsurd theory. The sediments had to build up slowly in contant exposure to the elements, and keep their straight flat form, and fossils had to form in the same kind of very iffy conditions, an uncertain security of burial without compression, and subject to predators among other things, and again all without the straight flat form of their peculiarly identifiable sedimentary gravebed maintaining its amazingly flat straight surface. PaulK keeps trying to claim this doesn't describe ALL the strata. Fine, but it certainly describes the whole stack in the Grand Canyon and most in many other places.