Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Noah's Flood and the Geologic Layers (was Noah's shallow sea)
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 213 (83125)
02-04-2004 6:48 PM


Water covered Alberta, and many areas are said to have been in a shallow sea there, what is the basis for a sea to be thought of as shallow?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Joe Meert, posted 02-05-2004 1:01 AM simple has replied

Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 2 of 213 (83238)
02-05-2004 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by simple
02-04-2004 6:48 PM


In order to be a shallow sea, it could not have been deep. LOL. Actually, the evidence comes from the types of marine deposits found in the region. These include beach sands, oolitic carbonate rocks and other pieces of evidence that indicate nearshore environments. Some regions (such as the St. Francois Mountains appear to never have been inundated by the shallow seaways. Of course, these observations don't fit the global flood model of Walt or any other ye-creationist.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by simple, posted 02-04-2004 6:48 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by simple, posted 02-05-2004 1:13 AM Joe Meert has replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 213 (83245)
02-05-2004 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Joe Meert
02-05-2004 1:01 AM


Glad you answered, a little bird told me you were the one (or one of the ones) qualified to get it on with Walt! I better be careful in my answers.
..the evidence comes from the types of marine deposits found in the region
I'm also glad you said that! I suspected as much. So then, would it not be true that IF there was a flood, that all sorts of marine deposits would be found just about anywhwere? Also, Ben Gadd's book (I think it was handbook of the Rockies) tells us of how the mysterious huge block of chert is seen (I seen it) by the side of a road, and is normally thiught of as being formed in DEEP water. In this case, of course they try to tell us it was a shallow sea. Ever heard of that one?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Joe Meert, posted 02-05-2004 1:01 AM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Joe Meert, posted 02-05-2004 1:31 AM simple has replied
 Message 5 by edge, posted 02-05-2004 2:48 PM simple has replied

Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 4 of 213 (83257)
02-05-2004 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by simple
02-05-2004 1:13 AM


quote:
Glad you answered, a little bird told me you were the one (or one of the ones) qualified to get it on with Walt! I better be careful in my answers
JM: Yes, funny thing that Walt requires something of his opponent (a Ph.D. in applied or basic science) which he does not possess. He's an engineer. Not only am I qualified to debate Walt, he has held onto a signed agreement from me for over 4 years now. If the debate takes as long as waiting for Walt to choose an editor, the debate may never happen. Before this thread takes off in the wrong direction, I will simply point out that my position on this is adequately explained at Walt Brown and I'll not comment further. Lastly, you should be careful in your answers no matter who you are replying to.
quote:
I'm also glad you said that! I suspected as much.
JM: What? You were expecting people to lie to you?
quote:
So then, would it not be true that IF there was a flood, that all sorts of marine deposits would be found just about anywhwere?
JM: Yup, and if it was the flood of Noah, I would expect deep marine deposits and lots of chaos in the fossil record. Unfortunately, there are not marine deposits found everywhere and the fossil record is well-ordered in a manner that cannot be explained by the usual creationist excuses (hydrodynamic sorting). Unfortunately, no creationist has never defined the strata marking the pre, syn and post flood deposits and so they can avoid uncomfortable evidence like paleosols, glacial deposits, aeolian deposits, fossil termite mounds and bee hives all of which should not be found in the midst of a global flood. Do you want to be the first creationist EVER to answer the following questions?
a. Where can a geologist find, on a global basis, the pre-flood/flood boundary? You will not find a continent-by-continent listing of formational names and type sections for this boundary in the creationist literature.
b. Where can a geologist find, on a global basis, strata laid down during the peak of the global flood (i.e. globally correlatable strata all deposited under water)? You will not find a continent-by-continent listing of formational names and type sections for these rocks in the creationist literature.
c. Where can a geologist find, on a global basis, the flood/post-flood boundary? You will not find a continent-by-continent listing of formational names and type sections for this boundary in the creationist literature. To be fair, creationists have a little more leeway in defining this boundary since the flood waters receded over a slightly longer time interval, but it still should be possible to provide considerable detail.
quote:
Also, Ben Gadd's book (I think it was handbook of the Rockies) tells us of how the mysterious huge block of chert is seen (I seen it) by the side of a road, and is normally thiught of as being formed in DEEP water. In this case, of course they try to tell us it was a shallow sea. Ever heard of that one?
JM: If you look at the list of people acknowledged in Ben Gadd's book I think your question will be answered. Yes, there are deep deposits in addition to shallow deposits as one would expect in a normal marine environment with basins of varying depths. The problem for you is the lack of these deep marine deposits everywhere along with the complete lack of marine deposits in regions supposedly covered by the flood. Of course, until you define when/where the flood occurred in a comprehensive geologic model, you can always find some weasel room. You willing to contribute something in-depth based on your own thoughts or are you content to uncritically cut-and-paste material from Walt's book? We've all seen his book and would much better appreciate some intelligent original thought from creationist posters. Are you willing?
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by simple, posted 02-05-2004 1:13 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by simple, posted 02-05-2004 4:30 PM Joe Meert has not replied
 Message 8 by simple, posted 02-05-2004 5:11 PM Joe Meert has replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 5 of 213 (83422)
02-05-2004 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by simple
02-05-2004 1:13 AM


Actually, one of the more compelling arguments for shallow seas is the widespread occurrence of limestones in the interior seaway. These will not occur in very deep water. Also, one should look at the fossil assemblages that suggests relatively shallow water.
quote:
I'm also glad you said that! I suspected as much. So then, would it not be true that IF there was a flood, that all sorts of marine deposits would be found just about anywhwere?
Are you saying that because there are marine deposits such as the Great Barrier Reef occurring today that there is a global flood going on right now? Do you undestand that evidence of a rise in sea level does not mean that all the land was innundated?
quote:
Also, Ben Gadd's book (I think it was handbook of the Rockies) tells us of how the mysterious huge block of chert is seen (I seen it) by the side of a road, and is normally thiught of as being formed in DEEP water. In this case, of course they try to tell us it was a shallow sea. Ever heard of that one?
Clearly, there are different types of chert. Deep sea cherts are usually thin and interbedded with pelagic sediments. The type you see probably occur under specific shallow water conditions. I also believe that there are fresh water cherts in some places. I'm not sure about all this, but will check into it if you wish.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by simple, posted 02-05-2004 1:13 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by simple, posted 02-05-2004 4:39 PM edge has replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 213 (83475)
02-05-2004 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Joe Meert
02-05-2004 1:31 AM


..If the debate takes as long as waiting for Walt to choose an editor..
OK so we can't discuss it here, but I didn't like the pictures on the thread the "moderator" put me. I don't think he or she (I'm not sure if it's an 'alter ego' or two different people) would let me start a thread on that myself. Anyhow, I guess you would have me assume Walt has some message in hand, and despite you being willing to go the extra mile, and debate (the way he seems to insist it be done) he's simply held up the thing because he's taken years to pick an editor! wow, that's all news to me.
What? You were expecting people to lie to you
Well, no, not on purpose, at least, but I feel a little like in the Wizard of OZ, when they finally come face to face with the scary wizard, and find out he (in this case your pet theory) is actually not as formidable as was feared.
Actually it seems a rather interesting and meaty post you made, so, I'll make it 2 different replies, in the interest of post length.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Joe Meert, posted 02-05-2004 1:31 AM Joe Meert has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 213 (83484)
02-05-2004 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by edge
02-05-2004 2:48 PM


flint stones
Actually, one of the more compelling arguments for shallow seas is the widespread occurrence of limestones in the interior seaway
I heard there was more limestone than uniformism can account for, as it is now produced. I guess if we want to ASSUME the limestone had something to do with shallow seas-we could.
Are you saying that because there are marine deposits such as the Great Barrier Reef occurring today that there is a global flood going on right now
No. I would think a flood would have a greater and more widespread effect.
The type you see probably occur under specific shallow water conditions
Well, It was a 'regular' geologist I think who wrote the book, and there are high cliffs full of the stuff. He calls it the "most mysterious rock" in the mountains.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by edge, posted 02-05-2004 2:48 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by edge, posted 02-05-2004 5:29 PM simple has not replied
 Message 10 by Coragyps, posted 02-05-2004 5:36 PM simple has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 213 (83493)
02-05-2004 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Joe Meert
02-05-2004 1:31 AM


reply 2 (Hey if there's any creationists out there, if they kick me off, you're welco
Unfortunately, there are not marine deposits found everywhere and the fossil record is well-ordered in a manner that cannot be explained by the usual creationist excuses
So, then, why would we expect a world wash of water to leave dead fish in every inch of the planet? I could see there would be concentrations, exceptions, etc. --unless you tried to say they were swimming around for 'millions of years' which I think would require what you DON'T find!
so they can avoid uncomfortable evidence like paleosols, glacial deposits, aeolian deposits, fossil termite mounds and bee hives all of which should not be found in the midst of a global flood
So called glacial deposits, I think include a lot more than some morraines in high mountains, (they had to change their veiw of some lakes they tried to say were formed by morraines up there, as they ween't after all) Some like to say the 'till' was caused by a big ice sheet (goin uphill and down and all around unlike today's ice can do )
OK bug houses were found. So how would that be a problem? Were no nests washed around, buried, floated on debris, or reintroduced after the flood that would explain it?
Where can a geologist find, on a global basis, the pre-flood/flood boundary?
I suspect I'd be rich if I knew that one. Let's start with the process of elimination, which layer of fossils (dead creatures) usually buried in old mud, hence fossilized, would the flood NOT account for? As far as coming up with a creationist strata list, I don't know. Reminds me a little of the so called fossil index, of which, were I a fisherman, I could go out and catch at least one fish that was on the index! [qs]Where can a geologist find, on a global basis, strata laid down during the peak of the global flood (i.e. globally correlatable strata all deposited under water)? First thing that comes to mind is where can we not find some?
The problem for you is the lack of these deep marine deposits everywhere
that's not a problem for me. I figure they are everywhere they ended up, and it would be a shame to pick some poor spot you havn't found certain marine victims (yet) and assume it was shallow!
Of course, until you define when/where the flood occurred in a comprehensive geologic model, you can always find some weasel room
glad to hear it! Seems like your phantom column could use more than a little weasel room!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Joe Meert, posted 02-05-2004 1:31 AM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by edge, posted 02-05-2004 5:44 PM simple has not replied
 Message 13 by Joe Meert, posted 02-05-2004 6:10 PM simple has replied
 Message 15 by JonF, posted 02-05-2004 7:00 PM simple has replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 9 of 213 (83497)
02-05-2004 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by simple
02-05-2004 4:39 PM


Re: flint stones
quote:
e: Actually, one of the more compelling arguments for shallow seas is the widespread occurrence of limestones in the interior seaway
s: I heard there was more limestone than uniformism can account for, as it is now produced.
Please try to stay focussed on the topic.
quote:
I guess if we want to ASSUME the limestone had something to do with shallow seas-we could.
Well, you wanted an explanation. This is not an assumption.
quote:
e: Are you saying that because there are marine deposits such as the Great Barrier Reef occurring today that there is a global flood going on right now
s: No. I would think a flood would have a greater and more widespread effect.
But your example was local. Why are you extrapolating to the rest of the world?
quote:
e: The type you see probably occur under specific shallow water conditions
s: Well, It was a 'regular' geologist I think who wrote the book, ...
What does that have to do with it? Please try to stay focussed.
quote:
...and there are high cliffs full of the stuff. He calls it the "most mysterious rock" in the mountains.
So what? Someone has given you an opinion. Ask someone else and they will give you a different one. These rocks are not so rare nor mysterious. I've seen them, too. They may appear odd, but not 'mysterious.'
What is the point of this thread?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by simple, posted 02-05-2004 4:39 PM simple has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 10 of 213 (83500)
02-05-2004 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by simple
02-05-2004 4:39 PM


Re: flint stones
I heard there was more limestone than uniformism can account for,
Where'd you hear that? Here beneath my house there's perhaps a mile of limestone and dolostone, all seemingly of organic origin. Do you, simple, think it's more probable that all the various organisms that grew shells and tests to make all that died in a single year, or over a slightly longer time? How fast can a reef grow? Can you or Dr Brown provide some data on that rate?
More than Uniformism can account for? Is that less than a year of Waltian limestone deposition?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by simple, posted 02-05-2004 4:39 PM simple has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 11 of 213 (83504)
02-05-2004 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by simple
02-05-2004 5:11 PM


Re: reply 2 (Hey if there's any creationists out there, if they kick me off, you're welco
quote:
JM: so they can avoid uncomfortable evidence like paleosols, glacial deposits, aeolian deposits, fossil termite mounds and bee hives all of which should not be found in the midst of a global flood
s: So called glacial deposits, I think include a lot more than some morraines in high mountains, (they had to change their veiw of some lakes they tried to say were formed by morraines up there, as they ween't after all)
Who is 'they'? Please be specific.
quote:
OK bug houses were found. So how would that be a problem?
Good grief! Simple, is your family name 'Minded'?
quote:
As far as coming up with a creationist strata list, I don't know. Reminds me a little of the so called fossil index, of which, were I a fisherman, I could go out and catch at least one fish that was on the index!
What utter gibberish! I think you are a troll.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by simple, posted 02-05-2004 5:11 PM simple has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by roxrkool, posted 02-05-2004 6:05 PM edge has not replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 12 of 213 (83528)
02-05-2004 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by edge
02-05-2004 5:44 PM


Re: reply 2 (Hey if there's any creationists out there, if they kick me off, you're welco
edge writes:
What utter gibberish! I think you are a troll.
That's why I'm ignoring him/her. Well, that and the annoying attitude.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by edge, posted 02-05-2004 5:44 PM edge has not replied

Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 13 of 213 (83532)
02-05-2004 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by simple
02-05-2004 5:11 PM


Re: reply 2 (Hey if there's any creationists out there, if they kick me off, you're welco
quote:
I better be careful in my answers
JM: You should heed your own warnings!
quote:
So, then, why would we expect a world wash of water to leave dead fish in every inch of the planet?
JM: No, but we also wouldn't expect to find desert deposits, paleosols and evidence for grounded glaciers.
quote:
I could see there would be concentrations, exceptions, etc. --unless you tried to say they were swimming around for 'millions of years'
JM: You were not careful. Name ONE geologist who has claimed they were swimming around for millions of years? Creationists are the ones who claim long life spans.
quote:
So called glacial deposits,
JM: You have evidence that they are not glacial deposits? How do you explain these features in your 'model'?
quote:
I think include a lot more than some morraines in high mountains, (they had to change their veiw of some lakes they tried to say were formed by morraines up there, as they ween't after all) Some like to say the 'till' was caused by a big ice sheet (goin uphill and down and all around unlike today's ice can do )
JM: Umm, what the he?? are you rambling on about? I thought you were going to give careful answers? That includes making your answers coherent.
quote:
OK bug houses were found. So how would that be a problem?
JM: In a global flood? How exactly do you preserve fine structures like these in a global flood?
quote:
Were no nests washed around, buried, floated on debris, or reintroduced after the flood that would explain it?
JM: It's your model. When did the flood end in your model? That's why I asked you to define limits so we can examine your flood model in some detail. Anyone can handwave vague assertions away. Do you have any original thought in that head of yours that can answer the questions I ask?
quote:
I suspect I'd be rich if I knew that one.
JM: Now that's interesting. Petroluem companies (who are all about getting rich) don't give a rats patoot about the model they use so long as it brings results ($$$$). If the flood model is such a superior explanation for the sedimentary deposits in the world, why is it that they use the old earth evolution to find the oil? Now, back to the real question. Your ye-creationists have had 200+ years to create a detailed model that would answer the questions I asked. Why have they not come close?
quote:
Let's start with the process of elimination, which layer of fossils (dead creatures) usually buried in old mud, hence fossilized, would the flood NOT account for?
JM: How about the termite nest shown above? How about these?
Permian age sandstone (250 million years old) from the Elgin area, showing tracks and tail drag marks made by animals that inhabited an ancient desert environment.
quote:
As far as coming up with a creationist strata list, I don't know.
JM: Neither does Walt or any other creationist! 200 years of work and nothing.
quote:
Reminds me a little of the so called fossil index, of which, were I a fisherman, I could go out and catch at least one fish that was on the index!
JM: Remember your promise to be careful? There is no such thing as a fossil index. Is this how you pay attention in class? What fish did you catch that is an index fossil? Be specific, genus species.
quote:
that's not a problem for me.
JM: Only if you close your eyes, ears and yell 'na-na-nana'.
quote:
I figure they are everywhere they ended up, and it would be a shame to pick some poor spot you havn't found certain marine victims (yet) and assume it was shallow!
JM: It's not that they have not been found, it's that they don't exist and/or desert deposits, glacial deposits and paleosols are found in their stead. Remember your promise to be careful in your answers? Specifics would be a good place to start with your promise.
quote:
glad to hear it!
JM: So is every creationist glad to argue in handwaving non-specifics. The flood falls apart when you look at details. Is this a tacit admission on your part that you are not, in any shape or form, ever going to document specific data to support your model?
quote:
Seems like your phantom column could use more than a little weasel room!
JM: What phantom column? Is this something you read on Walt's page and you swallowed it hook, line and sinker without checking facts for yourself? In your own words, explain how the geologic column was developed and how it is used in modern geology.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by simple, posted 02-05-2004 5:11 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by AdminNosy, posted 02-05-2004 6:17 PM Joe Meert has not replied
 Message 16 by simple, posted 02-05-2004 8:40 PM Joe Meert has replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 14 of 213 (83544)
02-05-2004 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Joe Meert
02-05-2004 6:10 PM


Geologic column
That would be an off topic explanation. If it is important to discuss then it can have a new topic.
{Adminnemooseus addition - I remind all, that this topic has a very clear cut theme of shallow seas, on the continents. Can we stay on or close to that theme?}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-05-2004]

Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Joe Meert, posted 02-05-2004 6:10 PM Joe Meert has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 15 of 213 (83579)
02-05-2004 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by simple
02-05-2004 5:11 PM


Re: reply 2 (Hey if there's any creationists out there, if they kick me off, you're welco
Where can a geologist find, on a global basis, strata laid down during the peak of the global flood (i.e. globally correlatable strata all deposited under water)?
First thing that comes to mind is where can we not find some?
Everywhere. In other words, there are no globally correlatable strata that were deposited under water.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by simple, posted 02-05-2004 5:11 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by simple, posted 02-05-2004 8:44 PM JonF has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024