Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8891 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-19-2019 6:11 PM
156 online now:
AZPaul3, Percy (Admin), Tangle, Theodoric (4 members, 152 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,698 Year: 2,735/19,786 Month: 817/1,918 Week: 104/301 Day: 22/54 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23Next
Author Topic:   The 3 catch cries of uniformitarian geology are equally well explained by the Flood
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 43 (25006)
11-29-2002 11:00 PM


The three catch cries of Lyellian uniformitarianism are perfectly explained by flood geology:

(1) Rivers follow gorges proportional to their size.

The same catchments that drained the Flood waters, rapidly eroding soft sediments into gorges, are also the catchments that provide the source for these same rivers today.

(2) Layers only form slowly

Layers have been proven beyond doubt to form in seconds and minutes under rapid flow. (See numerous posts on this web site).

(3) The formations around the world can all be assigned to a dozen or so modern day sedimentary environments.

Firstly most of the geo-col comes from a single environment - marine inundation on to land.

Secondly the assignments are simply 'best matches'. They frequently don't match up well. There are no continental shleves around the world producing anything like the scope of most of the flat marine strata on any of our continents. There is no analog to the vast coal fields of the East Coast of USA. Many of the fresh water beds, have land plants strewn thoughout thousands of square miles without any evidence of a river delta. There are no huge chalk beds forming anywhere. It is all simply 'just so' stories. Everything written in these books is very 'reasonable' but they are just stories. Any series of formaitions can be justified by an arbitrary series of environments.

Since most of the rocks on land are due to marine inundations we ascribe them to global flood surges. The smaller freshwater beds in-between are assigned to catastrophic fresh water flooding that carved out erosional features that can be approximately matched with the dozens of modern day environemnts despite the fact that they were rapidly formed. This just-so story is no more just-so than the uniformitarian solution.

Every submarine fan or river delta or eolian sand deposit can equally well be due to catastrophic flooding and drainage through soft sediment.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-29-2002]


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by gene90, posted 11-29-2002 11:18 PM Tranquility Base has responded
 Message 4 by edge, posted 11-30-2002 12:05 AM Tranquility Base has responded
 Message 8 by Randy, posted 11-30-2002 9:23 AM Tranquility Base has responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1869 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 2 of 43 (25007)
11-29-2002 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tranquility Base
11-29-2002 11:00 PM


The same catchments that drained the Flood waters, rapidly eroding soft sediments into gorges, are also the catchments that provide the source for these same rivers today.

How fast would they be draining? Wouldn't draining Flood waters tend to exhibit sheet flow instead of stream flow?

Layers have been proven beyond doubt to form in seconds and minutes under rapid flow. (See numerous posts on this web site).

I agree that there are some instances where that happens.

What about layers that contain ash and bentonite deposits specific to that layer? For example if the layer below an ash deposit and the layer above don't have that ash, it is highly improbable the sequence formed in minutes.

Firstly most of the geo-col comes from a single environment - marine inundation on to land.

That's also true, to the best of my knowledge, but why does each inundation bring with it such widely varying fauna?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-29-2002 11:00 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-29-2002 11:29 PM gene90 has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 43 (25009)
11-29-2002 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by gene90
11-29-2002 11:18 PM


Gene

quote:
How fast would they be draining? Wouldn't draining Flood waters tend to exhibit sheet flow instead of stream flow?

I agree. Draining flood waters would begin as sheet flow and morph into stream flow as the flow shallowed. This is precisely the nature of the geological column.

quote:
What about layers that contain ash and bentonite deposits specific to that layer? For example if the layer below an ash deposit and the layer above don't have that ash, it is highly improbable the sequence formed in minutes.

Some such ash flows may indicate that they were laid down in-between water action. It's aslo possible that ash mixed with water to produce ash mudflows.

quote:
But why does each inundation bring with it such widely varying fauna?

YE-creationists of course beleive that the the lifeforms of the fossil record all lived contemporaneously and to a certain extent in different ecologies.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-29-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by gene90, posted 11-29-2002 11:18 PM gene90 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by edge, posted 11-30-2002 12:09 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4451
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 4 of 43 (25011)
11-30-2002 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tranquility Base
11-29-2002 11:00 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The three catch cries of Lyellian uniformitarianism are perfectly explained by flood geology:

(1) Rivers follow gorges proportional to their size.

The same catchments that drained the Flood waters, rapidly eroding soft sediments into gorges, are also the catchments that provide the source for these same rivers today.


Umm, TB? If rivers formed canyons by eroding soft sediments, when did those sediments lithify into the rocks we see today and how did it happen? How did gorges form in soft sediments? Why do they follow structural patterns that form in fractured rocks?

quote:
(2) Layers only form slowly

Layers have been proven beyond doubt to form in seconds and minutes under rapid flow. (See numerous posts on this web site).


SOME strata form slowly, others do not. You are making a hasty generalization here.

quote:
(3) The formations around the world can all be assigned to a dozen or so modern day sedimentary environments.

Firstly most of the geo-col comes from a single environment - marine inundation on to land.


And the problem here is what? Do you really think that you are the first person to recognize this? What unimaginable hubris!!

quote:
Secondly the assignments are simply 'best matches'. They frequently don't match up well. There are no continental shleves around the world producing anything like the scope of most of the flat marine strata on any of our continents. There is no analog to the vast coal fields of the East Coast of USA. Many of the fresh water beds, have land plants strewn thoughout thousands of square miles without any evidence of a river delta. There are no huge chalk beds forming anywhere. It is all simply 'just so' stories. Everything written in these books is very 'reasonable' but they are just stories. Any series of formaitions can be justified by an arbitrary series of environments.

Lots of assertions, but I see virtually no data.

quote:
Since most of the rocks on land are due to marine inundations we ascribe them to global flood surges. The smaller freshwater beds in-between are assigned to catastrophic fresh water flooding that carved out erosional features that can be approximately matched with the dozens of modern day environemnts despite the fact that they were rapidly formed. This just-so story is no more just-so than the uniformitarian solution.

This is laughable. How can you have a fresh water flood while the land is covered by a marine flood? I can see that we have had no influence on your enlightenment, TB. As much as we have tried to open your blinders, you continue to rant in unsupportable and unintelligible verses.

quote:
Every submarine fan or river delta or eolian sand deposit can equally well be due to catastrophic flooding and drainage through soft sediment.

What? How can erosional processes cause deposition? Your complete ignorance of geology is obscenely exposed by your statments. I'm beginning to worry about you, TB. This latest rant makes me wonder if you are okay.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-29-2002 11:00 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-30-2002 2:55 AM edge has responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4451
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 5 of 43 (25012)
11-30-2002 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Tranquility Base
11-29-2002 11:29 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Gene

quote:
How fast would they be draining? Wouldn't draining Flood waters tend to exhibit sheet flow instead of stream flow?

I agree. Draining flood waters would begin as sheet flow and morph into stream flow as the flow shallowed. This is precisely the nature of the geological column.


Hear, hear. Well said for someone who hasn't done a day's worth of field work.

quote:
What about layers that contain ash and bentonite deposits specific to that layer? For example if the layer below an ash deposit and the layer above don't have that ash, it is highly improbable the sequence formed in minutes.

Some such ash flows may indicate that they were laid down in-between water action. It's aslo possible that ash mixed with water to produce ash mudflows.


Let me guess, you've never seen a bentonite bed...

quote:
But why does each inundation bring with it such widely varying fauna?

YE-creationists of course beleive that the the lifeforms of the fossil record all lived contemporaneously and to a certain extent in different ecologies.


And those ecologies never bordered on one another and no rivers ever flowed through more than one of them. And there were no migrations across boundaries. Nonsense. According to many creationists, humans lived side by side with dinosaurs... why do we not see their fossils together?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-29-2002 11:29 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 43 (25015)
11-30-2002 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by edge
11-30-2002 12:05 AM


Edge

We argued about lithificaiton issues a while back. We discussed that soft sediments collapsing due to erosion would at some point stop collapsing. What else can happen?! When it stops collapsing that will harden and be eroded by normal processes. How can you be so sure tha tfracturing of soft sediments is so differnt to fracturing of hard sediments? What's your soft sediment model?

quote:
And the problem here is what? Do you really think that you are the first person to recognize this? What unimaginable hubris!!

I make no claim to originality at all!

quote:
This is laughable. How can you have a fresh water flood while the land is covered by a marine flood? I can see that we have had no influence on your enlightenment, TB. As much as we have tried to open your blinders, you continue to rant in unsupportable and unintelligible verses.

You have clearly not even heard our claims. The marine inundations that were part of the flood came and went just as mainstream science believes and has discovered. All we say is that these inundations were catastrophic.

quote:
How can erosional processes cause deposition? Your complete ignorance of geology is obscenely exposed by your statments. I'm beginning to worry about you, TB. This latest rant makes me wonder if you are okay.

Your use of geological terminology must be more rigid than a computer programming language Edge. Everyone reading this knows that erosion produces sediment that gets deposited somewhere! So I'll ask you, how can we have an erosional process without deposition?(!)

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-30-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by edge, posted 11-30-2002 12:05 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Coragyps, posted 11-30-2002 7:57 AM Tranquility Base has responded
 Message 9 by edge, posted 11-30-2002 10:10 AM Tranquility Base has responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5376
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 7 of 43 (25022)
11-30-2002 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Tranquility Base
11-30-2002 2:55 AM


quote:
How can you be so sure tha tfracturing of soft sediments is so differnt to fracturing of hard sediments? What's your soft sediment model?

The oil industry started deliberately fracturing consolidated sediments about 1950, and unconsolidated ones about 1985. They are very differently. The physics of how they fracture has been modeled very extensively: the journals and procedings of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, which I believe are online but only pay-per-view, probably have a couple of hundred papers dealing with the differences.
And consolidated sediments don't slump like sandpiles do, anyway.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-30-2002 2:55 AM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-01-2002 5:53 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
Randy
Member (Idle past 4293 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 8 of 43 (25029)
11-30-2002 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tranquility Base
11-29-2002 11:00 PM


quote:
The same catchments that drained the Flood waters, rapidly eroding soft sediments into gorges, are also the catchments that provide the source for these same rivers today.

So there were soft sediments around before the flood to be rapidly eroded by the flood? Did God create the world with soft sediments ready to be eroded into gourges? Why weren't the soft sediments mostly washed into the oceans as the flood drained? How did these soft sediments get sorted into uniform layers?

quote:
There are no huge chalk beds forming anywhere.

Refresh my memory please. How did huge chalk beds form during a global flood? I don't remember your answer to this question.

quote:
It is all simply 'just so' stories. Everything written in these books is very 'reasonable' but they are just stories.

No they are explanations with evidence while you have a myth that is contradicted by evidence.

Let's look at Glenn Mortons page on the geologic column in North Dakota just so you don't forget to give a flood based explanation for the layers found there

http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/geo.htm

Oncolites found in the Interlake prove that these deposits took some time to be deposited. There are 11 separate salt beds scattered through four ages: 2 Jurassic Salt beds, 1 Permian salt bed, 7 Mississippian salt beds, and one thick Devonian salt. Half of these salt beds are up to 200 feet thick. The top Mississippian salt is 96% pure sodium chloride! Since they are sandwiched between other sediments, to explain them on the basis of a global, one-year flood, requires a mechanism by which undersaturated sea water can dump its salt. If the sea were super-saturated during the flood, the no fish would have survived.

As I pointed out it takes the evaporation of about 70 feet of seawater to produce a foot of salt. Lets say each bed as an average depth of 60 feet, though some are much thicker, and was the result of an area twice as large as the bed evaporating. You need to catch and evaporate more the 2000 feet of sea water over large areas at least 11 times between your flood surges and deposit other sediments in between. How does this happen in a year?

The salt beds underling Michigan are 400 to 1600 feet in thickness and cover a large area. There are at least 10 large salt beds in the western hemisphere alone. Where is the energy to evaporate all this water? How can it be evaporated without cooking the earth to death when it condenses?

quote:
YE-creationists of course beleive that the the lifeforms of the fossil record all lived contemporaneously and to a certain extent in different ecologies.

So amonites were sorted by the complexity of their shell sutures because they lived in different ecologies? You also have the problem that dinosaur fossils are found on the same continents as the fossils of eocine mammals and therapsid reptiles but always in different layers. Why would dinosaurs always live in differnt ecologies than eocine mammals and theraspid reptiles and why would deposits from those ecological zones always be deposited below eocine mammals and above permian therapsids and never with any modern mammals?

The fossil record falsifies the flood pure and simple and all the creations "explanations" such as those you gave on the threads on the topic generate massive absurdity. No combination of ecological zoning, hydrodynamic sorting and differential escapability can save your myth.

Randy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-29-2002 11:00 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-01-2002 6:21 PM Randy has responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4451
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 9 of 43 (25032)
11-30-2002 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Tranquility Base
11-30-2002 2:55 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
We argued about lithificaiton issues a while back. We discussed that soft sediments collapsing due to erosion would at some point stop collapsing. What else can happen?! When it stops collapsing that will harden and be eroded by normal processes.

And just what are these 'normal processes?' How does a sediment laying around at the surface suddenly become a rock? You never did address this issue before.

quote:
How can you be so sure tha tfracturing of soft sediments is so differnt to fracturing of hard sediments? What's your soft sediment model?

Does it make sense for soft sediments to carry individual fractures for miles?

quote:
And the problem here is what? Do you really think that you are the first person to recognize this? What unimaginable hubris!!

I make no claim to originality at all!


Okay, so all of those jaded scientists out there never thought of this?

quote:
This is laughable. How can you have a fresh water flood while the land is covered by a marine flood? I can see that we have had no influence on your enlightenment, TB. As much as we have tried to open your blinders, you continue to rant in unsupportable and unintelligible verses.

You have clearly not even heard our claims. The marine inundations that were part of the flood came and went just as mainstream science believes and has discovered. All we say is that these inundations were catastrophic.


Then the non-marine part was not a flood as you stated.

quote:
How can erosional processes cause deposition? Your complete ignorance of geology is obscenely exposed by your statments. I'm beginning to worry about you, TB. This latest rant makes me wonder if you are okay.

Your use of geological terminology must be more rigid than a computer programming language Edge. Everyone reading this knows that erosion produces sediment that gets deposited somewhere! So I'll ask you, how can we have an erosional process without deposition?(!)


No. I simply do not try to redefine terminology wherever I need to, as creationists are prone to do. In case you didn't notice, the deposition usually occurs in a place different from erosion. I point this out simply to show that you have no clue as to what your are talking about, and that all of the in-depth reading that you have done is gone to waste because you do not understand the most basic principles of science. How do you expect to be taken seriously?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-30-2002 2:55 AM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-01-2002 6:40 PM edge has responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 43 (25161)
12-01-2002 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Coragyps
11-30-2002 7:57 AM


Coragyps

That may all be true. However, I don't even claim that the edge of the Grand Canyon was the same one exposed 4500 years ago. That is a stawman prediciton. Who knows what the original edge looked like. 4500 years has undoubtedly undermined the canyon and generated hard sediment collapse.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-01-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Coragyps, posted 11-30-2002 7:57 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 43 (25163)
12-01-2002 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Randy
11-30-2002 9:23 AM


Randy

quote:
So there were soft sediments around before the flood to be rapidly eroded by the flood?

No. We of course believe that the vast horizontal layers that cover sub-continental regons in sheets of sediment were layed down during high energy flows as revealed by paleocurrent data. Lower volume run-off carved features into these soft layers as the flow moved from a sheet to stream regime. This explains all of your points. Because of the low volume during the second stage channeling occurs and carves out features rather than removing entire layers. Fast currents have been hsown to geernate neat layers by hydrodynamic sorting. You really should get Berthualt's video from AIG for something like $10. Unless they faked more photo realisitc footage than appears in Jurassic Park, the footage shows actual layers forming under fast currents in huge experimental channels.

From my reading, creationists suspect that chalk was primarily formed by chemical precipitation rather than simply organic deposition.

Salyt beds? In our scenario the salt beds may have been generated due to precipitaiton due to either volcanic heating or even accelerated radiodecay. I wont pretend this is proven. It is how we would account for it at this point.

Ammonites? Sorting would be by ecolocy, morphology, mobility and survival characteristics in our model.

Dinosaur/mammal seperations. I know I wouldn't have spent much time on the dinosaur plains. I personally know an Australian creationst who was present as new Paluxy River dino/human trackways were uncovered. They followed the trackway layer until it ended in a river bank. This was removed and there were new dinosuar and human imprints under that. As simple as that. This is a totally normal (but creationiost )Aussie archeologist (ie not a paleontologist) who in his spare time joined the Paluxy guys. He saw it uncovered with his own eyes.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-01-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Randy, posted 11-30-2002 9:23 AM Randy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Randy, posted 12-01-2002 9:25 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded
 Message 19 by Randy, posted 12-01-2002 9:33 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded
 Message 21 by Joe T, posted 12-02-2002 10:29 AM Tranquility Base has responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 43 (25165)
12-01-2002 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by edge
11-30-2002 10:10 AM


Edge

Wet sediment lying around hardens through compression and chemical processes as you know. You show me the work that shows that the sediments couldn't have hardened since the flood.

Like I have posted earlier today, some fractures are post-flood times. The Grand Canyon edge has been undermined for 4500 years and of course has caused hard wall collapse.

quote:
Okay, so all of those jaded scientists out there never thought of this?

All we are saying is that you have found a certain level of consistency in gradualism and have gone out on a limb on everything. We have done the same for flood geology. Once you go flood or no flood most of the interpreaiton is ideology-based which you guys rarely admitt.

quote:
Then the non-marine part was not a flood as you stated.

The non-marine component was still catastrophic. Whatever 'the windows of heaven opened' means did something that has not occurred since. The freshwater Hermite layers of Grand Canyon have land plant material strwn through thousands of square miles with no evidence of a river delta. We have excellent eveidcnce of both catstrophic fresh and sea-water fooding. Just keep telling youself that somehow there is an envirnement that could do it today.

quote:
In case you didn't notice, the deposition usually occurs in a place different from erosion. I point this out simply to show that you have no clue as to what your are talking about, and that all of the in-depth reading that you have done is gone to waste because you do not understand the most basic principles of science. How do you expect to be taken seriously?

You are completely incorrect Edge. I simply assume that the reader is aware that erosion in one place generates sediment in another. You may think it reuires a PhD in geology to know that but guess what: I knew that before I ever picked up my first geology book.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by edge, posted 11-30-2002 10:10 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by John, posted 12-01-2002 6:46 PM Tranquility Base has responded
 Message 20 by Randy, posted 12-01-2002 9:38 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded
 Message 25 by edge, posted 12-02-2002 11:40 PM Tranquility Base has responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 43 (25166)
12-01-2002 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Tranquility Base
12-01-2002 6:40 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Wet sediment lying around hardens through compression and chemical processes as you know.

What is doing the compression?

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-01-2002 6:40 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-01-2002 6:57 PM John has responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 43 (25167)
12-01-2002 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by John
12-01-2002 6:46 PM


^ The upper layers. The top layers are irrelevant because they are probably not with us any more. And I am not claiming to be an expert on this anyway! The layers hardened in the same way mainstream science accounts for them. It is quite likely that the time detials have never been properly worked out. When you've got millions of years, who cares?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by John, posted 12-01-2002 6:46 PM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by John, posted 12-01-2002 7:13 PM Tranquility Base has responded
 Message 23 by TrueCreation, posted 12-02-2002 7:23 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 43 (25169)
12-01-2002 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Tranquility Base
12-01-2002 6:57 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ The upper layers. The top layers are irrelevant because they are probably not with us any more. And I am not claiming to be an expert on this anyway! The layers hardened in the same way mainstream science accounts for them. It is quite likely that the time detials have never been properly worked out. When you've got millions of years, who cares?

I thought that might be your answer.

So the flood drops enough sediment deep enough that the lower layers are compressed into rock and then the tops layers go away? In few thousand years? Something isn't looking right about that story.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-01-2002 6:57 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-01-2002 7:17 PM John has responded

  
1
23Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019