Back to the fundamentals

"JM: ROTFL: You need to add flood hydraulics to your reading list!"
--Yup, though this ofcourse does not mean that it is wrong, look at it this way. According to flood theory, where the K-T boundary is, that marks where dinosaurs do not exist beyond this point in the fossil record of course. The given origin of this irridium deposit at the K-T boundary is given by a meteoric origin. The deposit was created post-impact, the dinosaurs and anatomically related became extinct shortly after these impacts. I'm not sure how such hydrolics would keep such elements suspended with no ability to touch submerged ground, ofcourse it would be flying all over the place in the global abyss, but there would be no mechenism to force it not to reach bottom and be deposited.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by minnemooseus:
Disclaimer: I, minnemooseus, am one who has fallen under the influence of a college education in geology.

​

As I see it, the most fundimental exponent of the evidence of evolution (inorganic and organic) is the geologic column. It is a record of what happened through the long passage of time. The rocks at the bottom, and any contained fossils, are the earliest available record of what happened at that location. The rocks at the top, and any contained fossils, are the latest available record of what happened at that location. There are also methodologies for sequencing other events, such as faulting and folding. This is the conventional wisdom.

​

Conventional geologic and related study weaves a complex, interlocking story of the processes that resulted in the geologic record. Fundamental to this study is the idea (theory?) of uniformitarianism, which says that the processes we see happening today, are the same processes that happened in the past. This uniformitarianism certainly dosn't exclude the occasional catastrophic event. It does say that most of what we see is a result of ordinary, common processes.

​

This kicker of this discussion, of course, is the reality of the "great flood" of Noah's time. At least some believers in this event think that much of the geologic column is a result of that short term (few years?) event. As such, the geologic column is not a record of the happenings during the passage of time. Rather, the geologic column is the result of some sort of sorting process.

​

My personal opinion mirrors that of the vast majority of those trained in geology. That is, that a vast part of the geologic column could be from a short time period, single flood event, is plainly absurd. Now this statement, in itself, is (as I understand it) called "an arguement of authority (AOA)", or something like that. An AOA is considered to be a not valid method of debate.

​

Thus, I get challenged to supply specific data to support the idea that the geologic column is indeed a result of uniformitarianistic processes. Now, offhand, doing this should be easy. I have the entire history of conventional geologic study at my disposal. All I need do is post a significant portion (with references) of this history. And then further defend the details of that history.

​

As I see it, an at least equal burdon in on the "flood geology" advocate, to supply a history of geologic study, demonstrating how a single flood process can acount for the rocks of the geologic column.

​

What we need to come up with, is an example geologic column, or even better, a related set of columns (real world raw data), and then have both the conventional geologist and the "flood" geologist offer up their versions of how it happened. It would perhaps be nice if the column included some coal horizons. I am, of course, confident that the "flood" geologist would be unable to come up with a plausable explanation.

​

So, can anyone out there come up with an internet version of a geologic column? Maybe we need to track down that Grand Canyon section. The problem is finding a description that is detailed enough to study in depth.

​

Comments?

​

Moose

​

---

Figure it was time to replay the initial post of this topic.So creationists, which rocks were a result of "the flood"? All of them? Much of them? A small portion of them?I would think that a small portion of them is the only plausible possibility, but which rocks were they?John Paul posted this, way back:
http://www.trueorigin.org/cfjrgulf.aspThey didn't come up with an answer. Indeed, they specificly stated that they didn't come up with an answer.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

"John Paul posted this, way back:
http://www.trueorigin.org/cfjrgulf.aspThey didn't come up with an answer. Indeed, they specificly stated that they didn't come up with an answer."
--I'll have to read it, It may be informative, up till now, I have myself decided without knowledge of creationist papers such as the one you cited, what strata were flood deposited, right now, It is about the time preceeding single-celled deposition up till somewhere within the Quaternary period, this link may possibly shed some light on this decision.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 04-20-2002]

TC, the key is to define the exact strata (globally correlatable) marking the onset and end of the flood. You can, for convenience, use the standard geologic column to supply your answer. We will understand that from your point of view the geologic column was laid down in a short time. By naming the exact sequence of strata, we can begin to discuss things like paleosols and how the hell they formed in a global tempest (among the host of other questions you have yet to answer). By the way TC, your youthful approach to actually try and find the data is refreshing. Most creationists avoid details such as this like the plague. Perhaps it's because they learned a long time ago that the evidence is against them when details come out. You have not yet figured that out and jump gung-ho into trying to supply us with data. Right, wrong, good or bad, it is admirable for such a young person.CheersJoe MeertCheersJoe Meert

ble

TrueCreation writes:

---

I'll have to read it, It may be informative, up till now, I have myself decided without knowledge of creationist papers such as the one you cited, what strata were flood deposited, right now, It is about the time preceeding single-celled deposition up till somewhere within the Quaternary period, this link may possibly shed some light on this decision.

---

Could you possibly shed some light on where the subject and the predicate are in that sentence? Or are you practicing for the Brad McFall look-alike contest?--Percy

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 04-21-2002]

"TC, the key is to define the exact strata (globally correlatable) marking the onset and end of the flood. You can, for convenience, use the standard geologic column to supply your answer. We will understand that from your point of view the geologic column was laid down in a short time."
--After reeding, my view hasn't changed, I set Flood sediments at Cambrian --> Tertiary deposits."By naming the exact sequence of strata, we can begin to discuss things like paleosols and how the hell they formed in a global tempest (among the host of other questions you have yet to answer)."
--Yes we can, and concerning paleosols, they of course are not going to form under water, so the existance of paleosols in my view currently would show a time when water had not covered an area during the flood, not sure how many other deposits would form if the earth were totally covered with water such as evaporites and the like."By the way TC, your youthful approach to actually try and find the data is refreshing. Most creationists avoid details such as this like the plague. Perhaps it's because they learned a long time ago that the evidence is against them when details come out."
--Yes unfortunatelly, perhaps. I can say that it is a bit sad how little many creationists know of science, nor how to deal with it, most of the time I get rather frustrated when creationists bud in and attempt to support me (atleast with my chatroom experience). They really don't know much of what they are talking about. While the opponents are sometimes in the same perdicament or they do infact have a sufficient scientific background. I could say however that there are some creationists here that are or may progress in their scientific mind-set."You have not yet figured that out and jump gung-ho into trying to supply us with data. Right, wrong, good or bad, it is admirable for such a young person."
--I'll take this as complementary, thank you Joe ------------------

"Could you possibly shed some light on where the subject and the predicate are in that sentence? Or are you practicing for the Brad McFall look-alike contest?"
--I think that If I were and removed all my commas, I would win! Sorry, I wasn't paying too much attention I see.------------------

Joe, do you have any comments on:
http://www.trueorigin.org/cfjrgulf.aspThey don't really seem to accomplish much, but I am impressed with their facing up to the real problems of fitting the Noahtic flood into the "big picture". In all, probably the best creationist flood geology web page I have encountered (IMO).Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

quote:

---

Originally posted by minnemooseus:

​

They don't really seem to accomplish much, but I am impressed with their facing up to the real problems of fitting the Noahtic flood into the "big picture". In all, probably the best creationist flood geology web page I have encountered (IMO).

---

JM: Actually, I had see that discussion when it first came out. What they are basically confessing to is that there can be no useful 'flood stratigraphy'. If I understand their premise the flood deposits can be indentified by their energy requirements. This is going to lead to a whole host of problems for interpreting the flood. What happens when a sequence goes from 'high-energy' (never really defined by the way) to 'low-energy' (never really defined either) back to 'high energy'? Does this indicate the global flood waxed and waned? What about places where we only see 'low-energy' environments? Surely a global flood would affect the globe. Thirdly, if creationists switch to this definition, they lose all their (admittedly stupid) 'hydraulic sorting' arguments. The main conclusion from their paper is that creationist geology does not fit the observations! Of course, we've known this for a couple of hundred years! This paper is more damning of yec geology than I think the authors intended!CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Meert:
JM: Actually, I had see that discussion when it first came out. What they are basically confessing to is that there can be no useful 'flood stratigraphy'. If I understand their premise the flood deposits can be indentified by their energy requirements. This is going to lead to a whole host of problems for interpreting the flood. What happens when a sequence goes from 'high-energy' (never really defined by the way) to 'low-energy' (never really defined either) back to 'high energy'? Does this indicate the global flood waxed and waned? What about places where we only see 'low-energy' environments? Surely a global flood would affect the globe. Thirdly, if creationists switch to this definition, they lose all their (admittedly stupid) 'hydraulic sorting' arguments. The main conclusion from their paper is that creationist geology does not fit the observations! Of course, we've known this for a couple of hundred years! This paper is more damning of yec geology than I think the authors intended!

​

Cheers

​

Joe Meert

---

Quoting myself, from message 10:

quote:

---

I'm not really following some of their thought processes, but this paper seems to be more of a support for the "great flood" having not happened. By their own admission, they have not found evidence to support the "great flood" event.

---

I am rather amazed that such honesty would appear at True Origins.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

Moose we are saying that the flood occurred in surges - due to tectonic and tidal action we presume. The more and more I think about it our models are not that different to yours - ours just happened very quick. You guys have continents being inundated on - what - about 8 occasions isn't it? I've seen the global sea level data through geolgoical time and it tells this story. I know we have major differences but there are some similarities.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Moose we are saying that the flood occurred in surges - due to tectonic and tidal action we presume. The more and more I think about it our models are not that different to yours - ours just happened very quick. You guys have continents being inundated on - what - about 8 occasions isn't it? I've seen the global sea level data through geolgoical time and it tells this story. I know we have major differences but there are some similarities.

---

JM: Nope, the models are quite distinct. There is no time in the Phanerozoic where the entire earth was inundated simultaneously. Our models are VERY different from yours because we rely on evidence whereas yours rely on unsupported (and borrowed) mythology.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Moose we are saying that the flood occurred in surges - due to tectonic and tidal action we presume.

---

Would you say then that the world is still in flood? Perhaps we are between surges?

quote:

---

The more and more I think about it our models are not that different to yours - ours just happened very quick.

---

And that's not a big difference? You want to cramp all that geological history in to, say 2000 or 3000 years? Yes, there are similarities, but in your case we have to alter many of the physical properties of matter to achieve the present situation.

quote:

---

You guys have continents being inundated on - what - about 8 occasions isn't it?

---

Hmm, another problem for you. It depends on where you are. Some places were not innudated at all. And how do you explain all 8 innundations in a year? What is your mechanism?

quote:

---

I've seen the global sea level data through geolgoical time and it tells this story. I know we have major differences but there are some similarities.

---

Only in the broades of senses. In reality any model must explain the details such as paleosoils, evaporites, animal tracks, raindrop impressions and many other features as well.

I think I can almost agree with all of your comments Edge!My main point that I have come to believe about mainstream geology is that it does not qualitatively or deterministically account for the GC to anywhere near the extent we are led to believe.Our qualitative mechanism is that the earth was finally entirely covered but that in the processes of somewhat local surges, many continents and sub-continents were inundated on multiple occasions.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-22-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]I think I can almost agree with all of your comments Edge!My main point that I have come to believe about mainstream geology is that it does not qualitatively or deterministically account for the GC to anywhere near the extent we are led to believe.[/QUOTE]Well, if you took the time to learn, I might take your comment seriously. However, you clearly have staked out your ground with Hovind, Austin, Baumgardner and others without really learning the basice mainstream stuff. You simply ignore the details.

quote:

---

Our qualitative mechanism is that the earth was finally entirely covered but that in the processes of somewhat local surges, many continents and sub-continents were inundated on multiple occasions.

---

I thought you almost agreed with what I wrote. You model does nothing to explain the details of the data. You have ignored that paleosoils problem and we have a list for you after that!

​

[This message has been edited by edge, 05-22-2002]