The weight of the stack, some two miles deep or so, put pressure on the lowest layers in conjunction with the volcanic magma and heat from below, to form the granite and schist.
And what mechanism brought these schists and granites back to the surface Faith? I am aware of some eclogites in Australia which were formed at depths of 45km. I'm sure there are some which have probably formed even deeper. If these are now at the surface and were formed, as you contend, during the flood they have thus risen at rates of 5-10m per year. But nobody noticed. Even more mysteriously they have now completely stopped rising. But before you go too far down the track of telling me how they got where they are I suggest you do some research on depressurisation melting - strange things happen to rocks when you rapidly reduce them from high pressures.
Tell me Faith - does the flood model refer to the entire geological column as you purport, or does it only apply to the Grand Canyon? If it is the entire geological column how do my ecglogites get from 45km burial depth back up to the Earth's surface in 4000 years without melting again as geophysics tell us they will.
I have NO idea what you are talking about. Again, I am responding to a particular shallenge about Vishnu schist. Period. Yes, the geological column all over the world had to have been formed by the Flood.
OK, lets take this step by step. 1) There is a type of metamorphic rock called 'eclogite' - here is the wiki page. This rock is found in a variety of locations around the world (see the section on 'distribution'). 2) Scientists can tell from the minerals in the rock that it must form at pressures of >1.2 GPa. This means it forms at burial depths of at least 45km and (according to wiki) up to 150km. 3) According to you, the entire Geological Column was formed by the Flood. Thus Eclogites were formed during the flood 4000-6000 years ago (you seem confused on this). 4) It follows that, 4000-6000 years ago the eclogites were at 45-150km depth (see points 1) and 2).)
My question to you is How, according to the flood model, did they get to the Earth's surface (where they are now) from those extreme depths in 4000-6000 years? In your answer you must consider why noone noticed this sudden exhumation and also why these rocks did not melt as aresult of sudden depressurisation.
People are always trying to explain SOME of the layers, or just one, as formed by the Flood and the others by other means. There is no difference in their appearance one from another when you see a deep stack of them, such as in the Grand Canyon especially where the stack is a mile deep (it is clear that originally there was at least another mile of strata above that originally). Different mechanisms for the formation of identical layers makes no sense. Also, the extent of the layers horizontally with such flatness doesn't fit anything that occurs now that I'm aware of. Besides, the scale of a worldwide Flood requires such evidence, WORLDwide.
Hi again Faith. Are you aware that similar geological layers occur on Mars. Do you contend that these are the result of a global flood on Mars? Why would God do that?
You are pretty much asking me to take a course that I don't have time for at the moment. Perhaps tomorrow I can put some time in on it.
No - I am asking for you to reserve judgement in fields where you do not have the appropriate expertise. Unfortunately you seem all too happy to disregard the input from a vast variety of professionals and academics in various fields in which you freely admit you have no significant knowledge. I wonder do you ever have the urge to barge to the front of a 747 to tell the pilot how to land?
Anyway - study up! I'd be very interested to hear your response.
I'll try to get back tomorrow to answer your question.
Thanks. After you've had a bit of a look at eclogites take a quick look at the NASA website on Mars, particularly the new Curiosity rover images. Lots of pictures of conglomerates (sedimentary rocks). Then we can discuss why God caused a flood on Mars.
Let's get one thing straight. I believe the Bible is the word of God who made you, me and this entire Creation. His word has been understood for centuries by people just as "expert" as all you scientists, to show that He brought a great Flood on the earth to punish the sins of humanity and that this occurred about 4300 years ago. I do not feel I'm being arrogant in my pursuit of this because my aim is to serve Him, my Master, my Creator, and to be true to His word, and in fact if there's any arrogance in this project it's on the side of those who have the effrontery to tell God He's wrong. THAT is REAL arrogance.
Well let me get one thing straight Faith. There is no global conspiracy. The geologists are not secretly emailing the geneticists who are not in covert meetings with astronomers who are not making late night calls to palaeontologists all to make sure they are getting their lies right. They are simply and plainly reporting what is being evidenced to them in the rocks, genes, fossils and stars. The real question is - if the Earth, life and indeed the universe are all circa 6000 years old, why has God done his best to make it all look so damn old. Why is he such a liar?
Way back in In message 99 you made this statement:
...I'm probably the only one here, or maybe that ever was here, who believes the ENTIRE geological column was formed in the Flood...
...I can't see how any, some, many or most of the strata could have been formed by the Flood and the rest formed by some other means...
We are discussing the ENTIRE geological column, and I asked you to show me this column. Your response was
The Grand Canyon is the best example of it I know of.
I think we need some clarification here: Do you claim that rocks formed outside of the Grand Canyon are not part of the Geological Column? Was the global flood localised to Arizona? IF the answer to any of those questions is NO, then please give me more information about this "ENTIRE geological column" so we can progress this discussion.
Not the paltry effects so many here seem to insist on despite all the evidence of the enormous destruction that occurs even in local floods.
There's no reason to believe the Flood was violent in itself
Not if the flood was magical anyway.
But while I'm here could you please respond to message 273. I am really interested to learn more about the "ENTIRE Geological column". You must have referred to it a dozen times on this thread, amd you claim it was entirely created by the flood, but I can't find any information on it. Please help.
I emphasize "the entire geological column" in opposition to the notions that locate the Flood in a particular layer -- or "time period" as most geologists think of it. The point is that it either made all the layers or it made none...
OK, so I'm a creationist geologist out looking at some rock layers. Within these layers I find some high grade metamorphic rocks (like eclogites or maybe granulites which show burial depths of 20-30km). How do I work out which are a part of the 'geological column' and which aren't? Is there some criteria? When I asked you about eclogites before you said they weren't part of the geological column. Are high grade schists? What about shales? Are tilted layers part of the column? What are the determining factors for what is in or out?
OK, so I'm a creationist geologist out looking at some rock layers. Within these layers I find some high grade metamorphic rocks (like eclogites or maybe granulites which show burial depths of 20-30km).
What do you mean "show a burial depth of" that many kilometers when you have found them within a layer of the geological column -- the layers, the strata -- which as far as I am aware doesn't go anywhere near that deep? You mean apparently that they had to have been FORMED at that depth and then somehow got into the higher layer and I just keep wanting to say "So?"
Do you know what a metamorphic rock is Faith? A metamorphic rock is a rock which has had its initial mineralogy altered due to being exposed to high pressure and/or temperature. The rocks I am talking about were not formed at depth - they were formed at the Earth's surface. Some of them even have fossils in them, or cross bedding. But they also have minerals in them which only form under high pressures, indicating they have been buried to depths of 35km. Are these rocks part of your 'Geological column'? What about the eclogites then - how would I distinguish?
Is there some criteria? When I asked you about eclogites before you said they weren't part of the geological column.
I still haven't grasped your question because it seems to me that if they are found on the surface at all you have just as much of a problem explaining that as a Floodist would.
Not really, because if I want to exhume a rock from 35km depth to its current position I can use the mechanism of plate tectonics and erosion. The floodists have no mechanism, plus they have these rocks rising from those depths in only 4000 years. As I mentioned before under these timescales you have massive problems with depressurisation melting, which is not a problem under known geological timescales.
My argument about the Flood is almost completely based on the Grand Canyon area
Which you have been shown to have completely misunderstood. If you can’t understand the geology of the Grand Canyon, how can you apply your knowledge to the rest of the world? Yet you have the gall to criticise professionals who study rocks for a living. Take the word of those who have looked at rocks all around the world: THE FLOOD DOESN’T MAKE SENSE.
I find it interesting and encouraging that you are asking questions about DNA and genetics. Maybe you should do the same with geology – start going through Dr Adequate’s Introduction to Geology thread and start asking questions.
OK, perhaps sedimentary rock says it but isn't that just another way of describing the geological column? If so, why insist on the different term? Yes I know igneous rock was formed AFTER the strata were laid down, that's a major part of my argument as a matter of fact.
That's exactly the question I have been asking you Faith. You introduced the term 'geological column'. I am unfamiliar with the term so I asked you to describe it for me. Why has it been so hard? So now we can confirm - the geological column is any rocks we see in layers correct?
By the way igneous rocks appear above and below and within the layers, meaning they were layed down before, during and after strata was being layed down.
No, because it includes igneous rock. Why should a stratum created as a magma flow be excluded from the column? The column is usually based on the rocks as they exist today, isn't it? (Actually the term seems to be unclear and mainly used by creationists, if my google search has any bearing!)
E.g geological column in Northern Ireland - the best I could find quickly, excluding sites dealing eith creationism from either perspective, includes basalts, for instance.
Yes, this is the problem I have been having PK. As a geologist the term "geological column" is not a phrase I use - I have used the geological time scale, and I might produce a local stratigraphic column in preparing my maps. But not "geological column", and I certainly have never found any reference to am ENTIRE geological column that Faith refers to. Thanks for helping to extricate some answers!