quote:It is recognized by volcanologists that water acts as a heat transfer source or flux to melt rocks.
Really? As something of a volcanologist myself, I find this to be a remarkable statement. You are saying that water will transfer enough heat from one place to another to melt rocks in that new location?
quote:This makes perfect sense as water deep within the earth would be at super-heated and super-critical temperatures due to enormous pressure.
Actually, it doesn't make sense at all. Most water in volcanic rocks is bound water. It is not a separate water or steam phase untill the body cools.
Neither of these say anything like what you seem to be talking about.
quote:This depends on the amount of water/magma mixture. The most powerful water/magma contact ratio is understood to be 1:10. If there is more water, the eruption is "wetter", if less, then its "dryer".
Do you know that most of the mid-ocean ridge tholeeites and hawaiian-type basalts are among the dryest volcanic rocks on the planet? Why do you supppose that is?
quote:The deep abyss of the earth we don't know much about and can only assume by reading P and S seismic waves unless there is another method I'm not aware of Other than exploration drilling).
I'm not sure what the 'deep abyss of the earth' is. Are you talking about the abyssal ocean? Do you really think that seismology has found bodies of water in or below the crust of the earth?
quote:There could be, and probably is, a lot more deep abyssal waters. Psalm 136.
Ah, good! A biblical reference to tell us about the structure of the earth. Now that makes sense. However, I'd like to see some data.
quote:The waters for phreatomagmatic explosions comes from either ground water, aquifers, subterranean rivers, etc.
Have you ever seen a subterranean river? Do you understand what an aquifer is? Do you think there are aquifers at the base of the crust or in the mantle? And why would any of these not be dexcribed by a mainstream model?
What? I read through your OP and some of the responses to it and don't get how any of this is a problem for the Flood. What you are interpreting as "mature marine growth" means what?
A couple of things if I can interject.
Mainly, it means that the bottom of the sea had time to go from a featureless, unpopulated surface to a community of organisms. In other words it became an ecosystem. Considering the growth layers in brachiopod shells or the slow development of coral reefs and other such features, this takes a certain amount of time, certainly exceeding year.
But even more importantly, how do you get a layered sequence of such communities one after another in the geological record if it is caused by a one-year flood?
A bunch of marine fossils collected together in a rock, isn't that all it is? "Without the water existing there" means what?
No, it is a lot more than that. It is information that tells us something about the past.
The marine fossils in rock layers at the tops of mountains suggest deposition by the Flood before those mountains existed.
Or deposition by normal marine sedimentation before mountain building.
But this is all from the Old Earth/evolutionist point of view.
No, it's from a logical point of view. See below.
From the Flood point of view all that was already there and the Flood just picked it up and buried it in this or that layer of sediment.
Where is "there"?
So, you are going to pick up this ecosystem and move it to another location during your turbulent flood and then reassemble it in life position?
That is not logical.
Nothing would have formed or grown during the Flood, it would have already been in whatever condition we find it in the fossil record, and all the Flood did was uproot it and move it and bury it.
Sure, all that transport by turbulent currents and there's no mixing with material from other ecosystems?
And you are going to do this dozens of times at one location in one year?
Sorry, but this stretches imagination beyond the elastic limit.
But this is all from the Old Earth/evolutionist point of view. From the Flood point of view all that was already there and the Flood just picked it up and buried it in this or that layer of sediment. Nothing would have formed or grown during the Flood, it would have already been in whatever condition we find it in the fossil record, and all the Flood did was uproot it and move it and bury it.
If all the supposed ordering of the fossils in the geological record is in fact merely the accidental effects of a Flood that simply moved around whatever was already there, then this idea that they are clues to an ancient past is an illusion, sort of like reading tea leaves. (except of course the antediluvian ancient past -- THAT you can learn about from the fossils).
Sorry, but it doesn't look accidental to me. There are no documentable violations of the fossil record that would suggest an accident.
An that's a mighty big 'if" that I think we can pretty much rule out.
Yeah, well, that "normal marine sedimentation" has to be fudged to explain the actual strata with their fossils. But my point of course is that it can be accounted for by the Flood followed by mountain building so that the objection that fossils within the rocks can't be explained by the Flood is in fact answered.
So, how is it 'fudged'? What is not 'normal about it?
No one is disputing that the fossils were deposited before mountain building (except for some YECs). It is exactly what mainstream science is saying. But that has nothing to do with the ordering of the fossil record.
But of course that isn't what I said. Dead and dying sea creatures were picked up along with LOOSE sediments and buried with them in layers.
And those currents never mixed clams with brachipods???
That's the main thing the Flood would have done.
It's a wonder that the flood does whatever YECs say that it does.
The strata covered those hundreds of thousands of miles and were hundreds of feet thick, and were compressed quite a bit just by the weight of those that were subsequently laid on top of them.
The problem being?
AFTER the layers with their contents were all in place as the complete stack we call the geological column, AFTER THAT, tectonic movement pushed up sections of it that became the high mountains. This would have added greatly to the compression of the strata already caused by the weight of the stack, so that they retained their parallel form as they were lifted, almost rock already by the time the mountain was there.
Well, basically, this exactly what we are saying.
The point is that you have all of these mature communities and ecosystems sitting atop each other, suggesting very long ages of deposition. In your scenario, all of the ecosystems would be mixed up and all fossil communities would be in transported appearance. It would also be exceeding fortuitous for them to be in the correct same order everywhere. Once again, your logic fails.
The evidence is too obviously solid for the Flood -- the layers themselves that are utterly absurd on the Time Scale interpretation but demonstrated to form by water in many different states, the bazillions of fossils that fit the Flood to perfection -- so that this apparent correlation has to be explained some other way. I grant the logic of the position but I expect there is another explanation.
Not at all. For the reasons mentioned.
I think you are trying to say that you are forced to another explanation by strict adherence to a fable.
Why are these features you mention only suggestive of a single, recent, global flood and not supporting the mainstream viewpoint? Just your opinion that it is absurd is not evidence.
The logic accounts for it.
The only logical things you have said support an old ages scenario.
The only other thing you can say is that it is 'absurd'. Why is it absurd?
Evidence concerning the unwitnessed past is always subject to interpretation you know.
And I suppose you think that all interpretations are equal.
They are not.
There is nothing open and shut about the isotope argument. But what I've been answering to this point is conjectures that are logically deficient, not evidence.
The 'isotope argument' is evidence. You should not just dismiss it.
No, these fossils are found part of the way up into the flood sediments. How did they have time to grow roots and form footprints and coral reefs part way up in the flood stratigraphic column?
So you claim you do claim to find an intact ecosystem within a rock "in life position?" Can you demonstrate this?
Can I use YEC sources?
I already said I assumed you were talking about the various elements of such a system being found randomly buried in the rock, but that the whole system would not have been like an intact diorama, which is what you now seem to be saying it would. For this I need to see the evidence.
The study of fossil assemblages rather than individual fossils has been recognized as a more powerful tool in chronostratigraphy and paleoecology for a long time now. Here are a few articles to make the point.
The third one might be the most pertinent to this discussion.
quote:"1. (1) Fossil communities from localities with a similar lithology have a similar ecological structure, with respect to trophic type and life position.
2. (2) Dominant species in a fossil community are more or less segregated in feeding type and/or life position.
3. (3) There is a tendency toward habitat segregation among the dominant species sharing a common trophic type and life position."
Not necessarily turbulent. Are the layers formed by Walther's Law formed in turbulence?
No and that's kind of the point.
Aren't you the one who sees the geological record as a bunch of mudflows?
But Taq imputed that absurd idea to me -- that they were deposited after the mountains were in place.
That is the normal YEC position on the topic. So, you are an anomaly.
But all the ordering of the fossil record is, anyway, is the silly evolutionist ideas of what evolved from what. Since nothing but variations and races of a Kind evolved from a Kind the whole idea of an evolutionary ordering is artificial to begin with.
Then maybe you can show us a Cambrian giraffe-kind.
You can't rule out the whole creationist argument, sorry.
This sounds to me like the usual hyperanalytical tea-leaf-reading approach to the contents of sedimentary rocks. In any case it's all analysis and you made it sound like there is practically an extant ecosystem within a rock that isn't just a bunch of dead things. But this is clearly just a bunch of dead things that may have existed together in life but are now just a bunch of dead things in a rock. As I originally said. There is no "ecosystem" here, just overzealous analytical geological types as usual trying to make a living scene out of a mere fossil-bearing rock.
I can see you as an investigator arriving at the scene of a multiple murder and saying, "Oh, it's just a bunch of dead people."
And you are misinterpreting the data. I don't have a problem with the idea that the rock contains the elements of a former ecosystem, there's nothing wrong with that idea. I do object to the idea that you can practically see the functioning ecosystem as it existed in life in the same positions and relationships. What's there is dead things that are elements of that former system and the intact diorama-ish ecosystem talk is just the usual OEGeo hyperbole.
I'm not sure how that got to be the point. No one says that there is a snapshot of a functioning ecosystem. I was saying that there are distinct fossil populations that suggest previous ecosystems and contain no fossils from higher or lower strata. And they are often in life position suggesting that there has been no transport. This does not relate to a rapid flooding event that laid down thousands of meters of sediment in a year.
How do these distinct populations develop in life position with sedimentation rates that a year-long flood would require?
And I note you haven't tried to defend the impression that you find something more than random dead things in the rock, what amounts to an actual intact ecosystem. I guess I can safely ignore that impression now.
This is just your interpretation of my original statement.
Why do we not see mixed communities of what I would call Cambrian and Holocene creatures?
The data no doubt shows what existed before the Flood, and that would be a worthwhile thing to research.
Not really. There is no evidence to suggest that there were cows, elephants, clams, bryozoans and dolphins present on earth before the flood. Why is that?
No problem if you want to designate by some kind of name a system of rocks that occurs at a certain position in the Geological column, that seems very useful. It's the Time Scale idea that's nonexistent, the rocks are quite real and interestingly always found in the same position in the column.
Yes, and the fossils are always found in the same order.
So, if the oldest rocks are at the bottom of the column, why are there no mammals or dinosaurs or even clams there?
Why do we find rooted trees and dinosaur footprints farther up in the geological column if they were around before the flood?
I mean, if the sediments were deposited in one year to a thickness of thousands of meters, there should be some evidence somewhere that humans and trilobites coexisted.
"In life position" is also problematic. What can that mean? And "often" suggests something other than reliably in life position. I have no problem with the elements of an ecosystem being found together in the rock, just the suggestion that they somehow appear just as they did in life.
I say often to mean exactly what it says. Many times we see fossils in life position, not 'always' or not 'unreliably'.
I'd grant the logic of the idea except that the idea that anything occurred in situ within the geological column is too absurd.
But of course, you won't say why.
I've got to suppose that "in life position" is a bit of an exaggeration for starters.
Okay, so tree fossils with roots in coal seams are not in life position.
As for sedimentation rates the Flood carried a LOT of stuff, what can I say, and it deposited it by various means as it progressed. Which would deposit the most, rising sea level deposition a la Walther's Law, deposition by tides and waves, or deposition by precipitation from standing water?
Not the point. The point is that you've got sedimentation occurring at an unbelievable rate and yet in the middle of it all trees are growing with roots in coal seams.
I don't know. There are lots of things that the Flood must have done that I am not in a position to know.
As long as evolution is not the explanation, eh?
Maybe some creationist ministries do but I'm not up on all their arguments.
My position is basically that the Flood makes sense of the facts at the most general level, the layered sediments, the superabundance of dead things contained in them, the Flood no doubt providing exceptionally good conditions for fossilization compared to any slower and drier event, as well as observations I've made about the strata themselves in various former posts, the absence of the kind of erosion between layers that would indicate time on the surface for instance.
Everything you have stated is exactly as we would expect in the mainstream view. Except for the lack of erosion. We know that erosion has occurred between some of the layers.
Since the Flood is the best explanation for what is seen,...
Except for all of the evidence against it.
... and the Time Scale is a ludicrous explanation, ...
According to Faith.
... requiring time periods to be defined by rocks among other nonsensical weirdnesses (for instance the allotment of millions of years for a microevolution that can be observed to occur in normal time is a weirdness), I go with the Flood and don't expect to answer all the ways the Flood did some unaccountable things.
Other than the fact that this ignores the evidence, sure.
You would prove something by a lack of evidence?
Did I say 'prove' anything?
No, you did.
Anyway what is this evidence that is lacking?
Exactly as I said. There is a definite, global, invariable order to the fossil record. This cannot be expected as a result of a catastrophic, one-year flood. If you think otherwise, it would be good to get some contradictory evidence. Just saying that it's nonsensical or weird or absurd isn't going to cut it.