Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8960 total)
94 online now:
dwise1, LamarkNewAge, PaulK, Tangle, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (5 members, 89 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,618 Year: 1,366/23,288 Month: 1,366/1,851 Week: 6/484 Day: 6/93 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3797
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 4 of 518 (468782)
06-01-2008 3:13 PM


Percy, from the "Absence of Evidence" topic
Percy writes:

The more familiar example is sea shells on mountain tops. Young earth creationists see this as evidence for a huge global flood lasting maybe a year, and it is. But you dig down a foot and find more shells, and that's evidence for a somewhat longer flood. Then you dig down 10 feet and find more shells, and that's evidence for a very long flood. And then you dig down 100 feet and find more shells, and now the flood hypothesis begins to feel a bit odd since these shells are encased in the mountain, indeed make up a measurable proportion of the mountain, and it doesn't make sense that the shells of successive generations of sea shelled creatures would deposit themselves on the sea floor in the shape of a mountain.

But sea shells on the surface are still evidence of a possible flood. And if digging had revealed no evidence of shells beneath the surface, guess what? The flood hypothesis would have to be considered a viable alternative, especially if other mountains around the world revealed the same pattern. So it absolutely isn't true that there is no evidence for Noah's flood. It's just that the evidence supporting the flood has more than one possible interpretation, and only when added to the other evidence does it become clear that there was never any such flood.


Source

My "bolding in red" - The difference between marine fossils merely being on a mountain topic, and marine fossils being part of the makeup of the entire mountain.

Moose


Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by deerbreh, posted 06-05-2008 3:09 PM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply
 Message 193 by Faith, posted 05-30-2017 4:49 PM Minnemooseus has responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3797
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 85 of 518 (485392)
10-08-2008 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Architect-426
10-08-2008 12:41 AM


Way off-topic, and probably very wrong
Actually, the vast majority of mountains are volcanic, and were formed via volcanic dynamics. The Colorado Rockies for example, all volcanic. Alaska and the Canadian Rockies, volcanic. Appalachians, deep volcanic roots. The Andes, probably the highest concentration of "active" volcanoes in the world (over 2,000 in Chile alone and counting....) Mexico, Japan, Indonesia, Turkey, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Iran, France, Italy (yes, even in the Alps there are volcanic dikes and the Dolomites were forced upward via volcanic action). The Himalayas, you bet those suckers blew their lids (no one lived to see it) and were then badly eroded by denudation followed by glaciation. Just north of the mountains is the Tibetan Plateau, a huge volcanic "field". Further north, the Tian-Shan mountains were known to have volcanic activity.

How about some references for these assertions? My impression is that you are pulling this info out of thin air, or perhaps just misunderstand what is volcanism.

Moose


Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

"Nixon was a professional politician, and I despised everything he stood for — but if he were running for president this year against the evil Bush-Cheney gang, I would happily vote for him." - Hunter S. Thompson

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Architect-426, posted 10-08-2008 12:41 AM Architect-426 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Architect-426, posted 10-15-2008 11:45 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 110 by RAZD, posted 10-16-2008 8:01 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3797
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 164 of 518 (489010)
11-21-2008 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Cold Foreign Object
11-18-2008 10:53 PM


Mt. Everest has 500+ feet of limestone
RAZD: your explanation of plates jutting ever upward makes ancient sea floor the mountain tops of today. If true then said mountains should be filled with layer after layer of fossilized marine life----not just the tops. How do you explain this alleged inconsistency?

RAZD, in message 1, was rather focused in on considerations of the immediate surface, but he did go a little deeper:

RAZD, in message 1, writes:

Evidence of multiple layers of mature marine environments on mountains is rather evidence of long ages -- ages to form mature marine environments, ages to cover them, ages for the other mature marine environments to form,...

Finding on-line information on Mt. Everest geology and fossils seems to be a tough thing, but I did find this page:

quote:
Layer three begins at 27,500 feet, the first 500 feet of which consists of yellow limestone known as the Yellow Band. This feature actually slices through Everest at an angle and is most pronounced on the North Face. (On the south side, it's visible around 24000 feet.) Above the Yellow Band is more limestone but here the color is dark grey; it can be seen most prominently in the First and Second Steps of the Northeast Ridge.

So we have a 500+ foot thickness of limestone making up the top portion of Mt. Everest. Now I don't have information on the fossil nature of this limestone, but the limestone itself is a considerable thickness of marine deposited sediment. Marine limestone is widely regarded as being a direct or indirect result of lime secretion by organisms.

Quoting my message 4 of this topic:

Percy writes:

The more familiar example is sea shells on mountain tops. Young earth creationists see this as evidence for a huge global flood lasting maybe a year, and it is. But you dig down a foot and find more shells, and that's evidence for a somewhat longer flood. Then you dig down 10 feet and find more shells, and that's evidence for a very long flood. And then you dig down 100 feet and find more shells, and now the flood hypothesis begins to feel a bit odd since these shells are encased in the mountain, indeed make up a measurable proportion of the mountain, and it doesn't make sense that the shells of successive generations of sea shelled creatures would deposit themselves on the sea floor in the shape of a mountain.

But sea shells on the surface are still evidence of a possible flood. And if digging had revealed no evidence of shells beneath the surface, guess what? The flood hypothesis would have to be considered a viable alternative, especially if other mountains around the world revealed the same pattern. So it absolutely isn't true that there is no evidence for Noah's flood. It's just that the evidence supporting the flood has more than one possible interpretation, and only when added to the other evidence does it become clear that there was never any such flood.


Source

My "bolding in red" - The difference between marine fossils merely being on a mountain topic, and marine fossils being part of the makeup of the entire mountain.

Comments from geologists or other geotypes welcome.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-18-2008 10:53 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Coragyps, posted 11-21-2008 10:19 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3797
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.3


(2)
Message 331 of 518 (811620)
06-09-2017 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Faith
05-30-2017 4:49 PM


Mainstream geologic theory put into hyperdrive
...but the idea is that the Flood deposited all the sedimentary layers that contain fossils, and in the case of mountains this would have happened before the mountains had been raised. After the Flood, the fossil-containing strata were pushed up to become mountains, which is why the fossils are IN the mountain and not just on it.

Essentially, you are stating the mainstream geologic theory of the sediment/rock origins and the mountain building. EXCEPT you want to compress it into a young Earth time frame.

The above quoted does not even require any sort of special flood - It works just fine with conventional sea levels.

Most limestones are the products of the accumulation of biological detritus. While it is conceivable that some of the detritus might have been "washed in" from elsewhere, there is much evidence that lifeforms were actually living and dying in the positions they are found as fossils. Years of living and dying on one horizon, followed by years of living and dying at another horizon above, followed by years of living and dying at another horizon above, etc. etc. etc. The limestone formation process does not fit into young-Earthism.

Nor does a mountain building event fit into young-Earthism.

In order to fit such into young-Earthism, you must invoke magic, because is does not work as any variety of natural process. You are saying God created with false evidence of old age.

Moose

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Call it a typo fix ("There" into "The")


Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Faith, posted 05-30-2017 4:49 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 332 by RAZD, posted 06-09-2017 10:28 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 333 by Coyote, posted 06-09-2017 11:20 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 336 by Faith, posted 06-10-2017 3:02 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3797
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.3


(1)
Message 430 of 518 (812126)
06-14-2017 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 426 by Faith
06-14-2017 10:34 PM


Sediment source
Faith writes:

Edge writes:

Faith writes:

Except that the sediments were deposited over a few months.

In the real world, there is no source for such amounts of sediment.

Funny that it's actually there then so there must have been a source for it. And if as I have suggested, a lot of it came from the land, washed off by the rain and rising water into the ocean water,...

Well, in the real world, there is a source for such amounts of sediments. It's the risings and wearing downs of mountains. What there isn't a source of, is a all at the same time vast volumes of unlithified sediments.

You are saying is that there was a vast supply of unlithified sediments, and the "flood" reworked this into a vast thicknesses of unlithified, then later lithified sediments. Which raises the question, where did the pre-flood vast supply of unlithified sediments come from? To me, this seems to be some sort of "creation with false apparent age".

Faith writes:

...plus sediments stirred up in the oceans themselves, seems to me there should be plenty.

Even if such sediments existed, how do you "stir up" sediments underneath thousands of feet of water? And even if such "stirrings" happened, why did the sediments end up on the continents instead of just settling back to the ocean basin floor?

Faith writes:

The land was apparently pretty flat too, since the sediments were deposited flat across enormous areas of geography. No mountains etc.,

But the "geologic column" does contain vast alluvial fans of material abutted up to the remains of the mountains the sediment eroded off of.

Faith writes:

Where are YOU going to get enough for what we actually see anyway? Did it fall out of the sky?

I seemed to have already covered this above. It's the (repeated) risings and wearing downs of mountains.

Faith writes:

Edge writes:

Do you agree then that there were ocean basins prior to the flood?

I don't know. I'm not talking about ocean basins, why are you? My very vague understanding of the pre-Flood ocean as suggested by some professional creationists is that it was far more shallow than today's oceans, that the "fountains of the deep" erupted from beneath the ocean floor, and when the Flood receded it was into a deepened basin because of the collapse of the ocean floor. I'm not arguing for this, just saying it's one of the creationist views and it does account for the facts.

In professional geologist circles, this is known as "arm waving". Making stuff up for no rational reason. Piling up miracles that make no worldly sense.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by Faith, posted 06-14-2017 10:34 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 434 by Faith, posted 06-15-2017 1:10 AM Minnemooseus has responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3797
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 448 of 518 (812325)
06-16-2017 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 434 by Faith
06-15-2017 1:10 AM


Re: Sediment source
I don't understand the point about the amount of sediment. If it was there in your scenario then it was there in mine. To have a mountain to erode means you had the sediments to build it. My scenario has all (or most) of the land mass, hills, the works, saturated by water and reduced to mud then separated by the water into sediments. I really do not get how there is any more of a problem accounting for the amount of it on my scenario than on yours.

My scenario is that repeated uplifts of rocks into highlands (proto-mountains) are the weathered and eroded to produce the sediments. A repeated process spread over a great amount of time. And there is evidence for such, including the remaining cores of the mountains (eg. We have areas in northern Minnesota that have metamorphic rocks that were once buried (IIRC) something along the lines of 20 Km. 20 Km of material was weathered and eroded off. By the way, those rocks are radiometricly dated at at least 2.3 billion years old, so there has been lots of time for that weathering and erosion.

You seem to be invoking very fast "catastrophic weathering" of the rocks, to produce your sediment supply. Aka, a miracle.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 434 by Faith, posted 06-15-2017 1:10 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 450 by Faith, posted 06-16-2017 1:19 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3797
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 449 of 518 (812327)
06-16-2017 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 447 by edge
06-15-2017 11:17 AM


Re: where the sediments came from
Nope. The material settle to form one single 'layer' grading from the coursest and heaviest material at the bottom to the smallest and lighter material at the top. Separate layers don't form at all.

This is a good point that hasn't entered the discussion previously. Turbidites form what are known as Bouma sequences. They consist of individual 'fining upward' beds showing continuous grading of sedimentary grains in the upward direction. The point is that these are individual density flows showing distinct points in time and reflect the passage of time with continued events.

After I posted my last message last night, it occurred to me that vast areas of repeated Bouma sequences might be the expected result of Faith's (very iffy) stirring up of ocean basin sediments / slopping the water and sediment onto the continents scenario.

Instead of what widely varying sedimentary rocks that we have, we would have vast areas and volumes of rocks looking like this:

Source of photo

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 447 by edge, posted 06-15-2017 11:17 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 451 by edge, posted 06-16-2017 1:12 PM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020