Retitled this thread because it's been taken over by Flood debunkers who mischaracterize my arguments and put up the usual straw man nonsense. No point in me participating.
=========================Original Post: ThinAir is rightly objecting to all the off-topic stuff on his thread, Earth Science Curriculum so although I really have no interest in pursuing any of it myself, since people keep posting to me I figure we need another place to let it play out.
Off Topic post on metamorphic rock in the Appalachians:
The last post directed to me was this from edge:
Properly speaking that's not a diagram, it's a chart and I have no idea what it purports to show with all its categories of rock types. An actual diagram of the mountain structures involved would possibly be more edifying ...
Since the higher-grade metamorphic rocks are present at the surface, it is reasonable to assume that they were actually once at a much greater depth.
I can't tell any of this from the chart. At what surface where?
The whole discussion with me was off topic. I can't separate my own views from the discussion itself others kept pursuing with me, most but not all of it about geological questions. I think of the side track as a hodgepodge of issues that kept going at that thread against ThinAir's wishes. Maybe it could be moved to some other forum for miscellaneous or eclectic conversations.
So the discussion is continuing over at the other thread with ThinAir offering his opinion about the Flood now, but I'm not allowed to post there apparently. Only his opinion is acceptable. Or antiFloodists' opinion anyway.
Oh well. Here's a hodgepodge of my own answers to those posts:
OK, RAZD, thanks for the clarification. That makes sense. I could have come up with it myself actually, since apparently silt, being a very finegrained sediment, would behave rather as powdery kitchen substances do, such as flour or cocoa powder. Getting them to mix into a liquid is not easy because they do like to float on the surface, due to surface tension as you say, for quite a long time, and even "turbulence" won't do much to mix them. You have to work them slowly into a small amount of liquid before adding more liquid and even then a lot of it can remain dry in the center of muddy lumps.
So since the KT boundary asteroid ribbon occurs high in the geologic column I'd suppose that the rain had long since stopped and the full depth of the flood had been reached some time ago as well, so I'd postulate that the KT boundary powder had plenty of opportunity to float for a very long time on relatively placid water before the water receded enough for it to be deposited on the surface of whatever the last sediment to be deposited was.
We'll never know for sure, anything about how the Flood worked, but it's really not terribly hard to come up with explanations that are logical and reasonable and nothing like the ridiculous stuff antiFloodists come up with.
Like ThinAir who can only imagine deposition by "settling out" of the water. That's one way some of it could have been deposited, but by the look of the enormous expanse of some of the layers across whole continents I suspect much of it was deposited the way sand is deposited on beaches as the water receded but very long waves continued to wash up over the land for a long time. It's occurred to me to consider that there could be observable differences between phases of the layering based on whether they were deposited during the rising of the water or the standing water period or the receding period.
Since there is and never will be any way to know for sure how it played out we certainly don't have to accept the kneejerk debunkery sort of thinking of the antiFloodists. There are plenty of plausible options.
ABE: Didn't answer RAZD's remark about there being layers above and below the iridium. Golly Gee, you suppose I hadn't noticed? This is typical kneejerk superficial debunkery. Just THINK a bit. ALL the sediments have sediments above and below them. This can happen by settling out or by successive deposition by waves. Just think it through with an eye to how it COULD HAVE WORKED.
The old time creationist geologists gave up on the Flood too soon because they didn't take the time to think it through. Any old kneejerk answer to a straw man scenario would throw them off the track.
This IS a site for DEBATE between creationists and evolutionists, right? Apparently ThinAir won't discuss anything with a creationist.
Now they are discussing how water sorts according to size. Yes, and so what? We'd expect to see this in the Flood wherever Walther's Law applies, and perhaps also in strata laid down by waves as beach sand is, the heavier larger particles depositing on the bottom of the layer. This would take examining a lot of layers everywhere. Just off the top of my head I'm aware of some layers of coarser material that occur higher in the column than other layers, in the Grand Canyon as well as the Grand Staircase, but this needs checking.
Thank you SO much for your thoughtful and considerate reply in which you so carefully consider the arguments I've made.
ABE: I know for a fact that you just about never read anything I write, let alone think about it, by how long it takes you to hit the Cheer button for anybody who disagrees with me. You are a sad case. And if you are telling me to get off ThinAir's thread, I respectfully request that you take your dragonfly back to Starbucks and get off MY thread.
Well, as a matter of fact he was speculating about what the Flood would do just as everybody else was doing. The evidence is available to all and I use it too. You don't know what you are talking about and you don't know how to think and you wouldn't know the truth if it poked YOU in the eye. Please get off my thread and stay off. Thank you.
ABE: Oh and P.S.: I've always been able to answer the posts you Cheer. You don't know what you are talking about.
Actually I was giving better interpretations of the Flood against superficial kneejerk interpretations. But OK, if they continue to say nonsensical things about the Flood over there I'll answer them over here.
So, you think that layers were laid down with "time gaps" but don't represent any type of "time period." What can that possibly mean? I have tried to point this out to you before that in your scenario the "time periods" are there... they just represent minutes or possibly hours rather than millions of years. But they undoubtedly represent "time periods
I don't recall you making that point, but what I mean by time periods is the millions of years currently assigned to the layers of the Geo Column otherwise known as the Geo Time Scale, the Eras and so on. Time gaps of hours or even days are something else, and would fit into a Flood scenario that takes wave action and tides into account.
You don't know what you are talking about. Third time now.
Yes I've certainly used evidence but what you manage not to consider is that everything anybody says for or against the Flood is speculation. It can't be anything else. We make use of physical principles for the speculation.