Is the Global Flood Feasible? Discussion Q&A

"Informed Creationists blush when they see such things."
--I do, I do, I do!------------------

I can agree on all your statements, though these are worth slight further commenting:"Why do the professional creationists not explain how plate tectonics can form mountain ranges?"
--Well it may depend on the scenario given, in most cases as I have read through geology papers from creationists. It like would be in a geology journal be assumed that the reader has previous knowledge on atleast basic or higher type geologic concepts."Plate tectonic theory includes the concept of hot spots. And many stratovolcanoes are related to conververgent plate boundaries."
--Well yes, though they are not the cause nor have any large impact on plate boundaries or their tectonics when present in these locations. They are self-conceptual magmatic plumes, though they would be included in a conventional plate-tectonics education, they just are not directly related.------------------

"I've just done some searching (both Google and Scirus) for information on the geology of Mt. Ararat. Other than that it's a stratavolcano, information seems to be remarkably scarce. So, Philip, I must again ask, where did you get your information on Mt. Ararat and the pillowed volcanics?"
--Interesting indeed! So if most magmatic activity were propelled by the effects of the flood. Where would Noah's ark be hiding? Under a lot of alternating layers of lava and ash, what the heck are they on the look-out for? They should be looking for structural patterns of Carbon or something like that if anything. There may still be structural patterns or nails or if water were present, possibly even chunk of wood inclusions in stratigraphic lava flows. Just speculation of course.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-13-2002]

"And 2 of every created kind (7 each of the clean kinds) barbecued....Think TC think....."
--Yes think outside the box , It wouldn't necessarily be Barbecued if they were cooled lava flows, the presence of water rigorously hastens this process.------------------

"Or it could be that they don't want you to know. It could be that they are taking advantage of the layman's ignorance of geology."
--Thats a pretty bold 'could be'."Otherwise why would they ask why marine fossils are found on the tops of all mountains. Do you think they want you to say that it happens because the rocks have been uplifted at convergent plate boundaries? No, they want you to think that there were floods that covered the mountains."
--I think your getting Hovind or walt brown mixed up with other Creationist scientists..."Of course not. They do not affect the boundaries, the boundaries affect them."
--Exactly."Hunh? "Self-conceptual?" Even if they are independent of the boundaries they are still part of plate tectonics. In fact they provide good evidence of plate tectonics. "
--Yes, they provide good evidence of plate tectonics by indicating directional plate motion, however they are not directly linked by the cause of their action.------------------

"I was looking at it from your viewpoint. From mine, there is no question. You are being deceived. Almost certainly intentionally. "
--I think I know considerably enough conventional geology to be quite sure I am not being deceived. Also, this is also a bold assertion, support? Where is the deceit?"Yeah, well that's a distinct possibility. But it sounds like you get them confused also. "
--I have my doubts!"But then, what is your answer to this question?Hey, that's clear to me! What is their action and what is the cause?"
--To get a larger visual on hotspots, they are a locus of volcanism which remain stationary relative lithospheric plate motion. This feature can form a long chain of volcanoes as stated before with the example of the hawaiian islands, that become progressively older as one moves farther away from the current site of active volcanism. Because they appear to be mostly stationary relative tectonic motion, they are believed to be expressions of the mantle plumes of hot rock originating somewhere in the more viscous lower mantle, probably near the core-mantle boundary in most cases. Was this your question?------------------

"(1) No creationist has told us what specific rocks were deposited by the flood. They make sweeping and vague statements so as to not be caught by:"
--I thought I remembered saying some time ago that I currently go with Cambrian --> Tertiary deposits."Paleosols-ancient soil horizons found throughout the geologic record. Specifically, soils that form when exposed to the elements means that they could not have been part of a global flood sequence."
--I also stated in that same post:

quote:

---

...and concerning paleosols, they of course are not going to form under water, so the existence of paleosols in my view currently would show a time when water had not covered an area during the flood...

---

"Fossil Sorting: Fossils are found in a regular order. Floods are chaotic.
--The fossil record is a bit chaotically ordered in a sense, even though this is expected by both uniformitarian and Flood theory."Continental glaciations throughout the geologic record- Evidence that glaciers have covered different parts of the earth many times in the past does not fit with a global flood."
--Foraminifera?"In short, creationists have not presented any evidence for a global flood other than to assert it happened. They won't be specific because the specifics challenge their assertions."
--I have been specific as the questions ask, your geophysical arguments, however, are highly sophisticated and take much more knowledge than general geology might ask of me.--Also, I think it would be nice for clarification for us to define what is accepted as 'evidence'. There have been arguments around when I discuss the flood that something is evidence uniformitarian geology but is not to a Flood, though I have never heard any expansion on this. That is, I haven't heard examples to discuss that could be used in support of this assertion.------------------

For a very rudimentary illustration on how fossil succession is basically found:---This is expected by both uniformitarian and Flood Geology, it is evidence by interpretation. Of course any critique is urged.-------------------

"JM: Your diagram makes no sense. By Nich do you mean Niche or is nich supposed to be some 'representative fossil'. Honestly though, I have no clue what your diagram is supposed to be representative of. It certainly has nothing to do with uniformitarian geology. By the way, what is your definition for uniformitarian?"
--Probably would be best to define it as a 'representative fossil'. As TB has slightly pointed out with his input, that quantities of fossils of the same type of fossilized organism is not just found in 'blocks', but linear decreases and increases in quantity.--Lighter pigments in my diagram would indicate less quantities. Of course this is not all near perfect data and I must put emphasis on it being a rudimentary sketch. For many organisms there are sudden jumps and decreases in quantities, by extinctions or (assuming uniformitarian geologic time) the effects of punctuated equilibrium. Of course extinctions are one reason compatible with either view in accounting for sudden loss in fossil find for a specific organism.
--The reasoning behind fossil depositions and why they are, in the majority, found similar to how this diagram shows is explained in the ToE by the factors of natural selection and a progression in establishing dominance back and forth through evolutionary decent with modification between species as they develop. However in Flood theory this would indicate that there were stages which the biospheres inhabitants suffered though what they could not live through and slowly died out. I, however, may tend to differ on TB's notion that this were due to hydrologic sorting, hydrologic sorting may have only taken much effect at all in small isolated places on the earth at short times, as well as possible slight mobility as sediment deposited and preceding the process of lithification. This will thus render hydrodynamics as it applies to fossil deposition highly minute.------------------

"Did anyone else read recently how most of the dinosaur tracks (there are hundreds of sites in the US now) found are (i) almost always in straight lines - escape IMO not hunting and (ii) are often in the same direction! The dinoasur graveyards are also often in the direction of the running. I will try and be a good boy and track down my sources."
--That would be a nice thing to consider, I had been wondering about exactly how water run-off would go. This could be a good addition in an argument for submarine canyons as evidence of the world Catastrophe. Along with other implications on hydrodynamics during the flood. I have seen an article that ICR had on estimated oceanic water currents at the climax of the flood. However didn't have the chance to read it.------------------

BTW, I've seen talks on Paleomagnetism sprucing up in areas, thought these links may be helpful to anyone interested in geo/paleomagnetism.General: http://www.grisda.org/origins/10066.htm
1997 Computer Modeling of the Geodynamics of the Dynamo: http://www.igpp.lanl.gov/Geodynamo.html--The first one I listed I had just plucked out of my favorites, I havent gotten to read it and had forgotten about it. What I was looking for was right under my noes maybe ------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-16-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-16-2002]

"Hmm, one of the problems of an incomplete education."
--I for one am getting a big annoyed at the intensity of the negative rhetoric being thrown at Tranquility... I was not aware that Evo's were all wise and all intelligent in the vastness of scientific fields. I also do recall them getting rather edgy that Creationists will post work on a topic that is not 'directly' related to their field of study whether or not it is a bit related or not. I do not find this prejudiced bias figure at all pleasing which is spreading like a virus here. Could we ease up on the sarcasm a little whether or not you think anyone's assertions are erroneous or not. (I'm speaking generally, not just you edge)------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-16-2002]

Reply - Edge #330 & Joe Meert #331--I know what your saying, and whatever is going to be presented in the future or already may have been will be as is. What I addressed was just a courtesy tip to be a bit less sarcastic. We all have great questions here and have great answers to them, though sometimes it seems as if a silent flame-war is beginning to break out in the background.------------------

"Please assume that my ridicule and sarcasm are directed at the professional creationists who have led you astray. I apologize if it seems otherwise."
--Whichever your opinion, no problem.------------------

I think this thread is about to die if someone doesn't start a discussion and will end up back at the bottom of the list. Anyone have anything interesting they might want to present here? Any data on some sort of find in the Geologic column somewhere in the world, anything on plate tectonics or whatever. Just want to get a discussion or opposition heard. I've seen Mark24 still around, lithification? Or maybe back to something that is specific.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-20-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-20-2002]