|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,793 Year: 4,050/9,624 Month: 921/974 Week: 248/286 Day: 9/46 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Quick question on the world flood | |||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1733 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
I see that, once again, TB has decided to enter the realm of sedimentology where he has been thoroughly trounced several times on this board. Sure doesn’t say much for his being a quick learner. I think the gist of what TB is saying is that since it is possible that sediments can be deposited rapidly, then the entire geological record should be reinterpreted to reflect a global, one year flood. He further states that the understanding of rapid sedimentation is somehow ‘new’ and was previously misunderstood by geologists. How those geologists missed storm deposits and turbidites and mass wasting deposits, is beyond me, but since TB is so certain and SO well-versed in mainstream geology, I will just accept that for now.
However, TB has touched upon one of my pet peeves of creationist ‘geology’ in pointing out that some laminations can form rapidly. This is not a great mystery. But, just how we get from laminations that can form in seconds to the Navajo Sandstone being deposited in a matter of days is quite a reach. It is as though creationists have found some minor factoid of geology that appears to support their position, then promptly put on blinders to every other fact of geology. This is an egregious case of selective data presentation. Perhaps a few question would be in order. 1.Do any of the empirical data you are fond of quoting, suggest exactly how long the time interval is between catastrophic lamination-producing events? 2.Do they have any suggestions how long it takes to produce a set of laminae? How about a bed of laminated sands? How about an entire formation of laminated sands? If not, why not? And do you think this just might be important? 3.Do you have any idea how to account for the rapidly produced laminations that have been formed and then destroyed by erosion? How many seconds do you think are represented by those lost laminae? 4.If we have laminated sediments forming today, under non-flood conditions, why is the presence of rapidly formed laminations considered to be evidence of a global flood? Does this really make sense to you? You quote Blatt, Middleton and Murray as saying: p132 "Many strata must have been deposited very rapidly. In terms of geological time, they represent essentially instantaneous events, usch as floods, that had durations ranging from a few seconds to several days." I agree. Many strata are deposited rapidly, but it is a logical leap to then suggest that all, or even most, layers are rapidly deposited. Do you understand that if even one formation in the thousands of meters of ‘flood sediments’ does not form rapidly, that your entire scenario of a one-year flood is gone? So far, you have succeeded in telling us that turbidites and some sandstones are rapidly deposited. What about limestones? What about coral reefs? What about evaporates? What about chemical sediments? What about pelagic sediments? These are scattered throughout the geological record. Do you propose that we just ignor them? You go on to quote Blatt and others: p135 "In the past there has been a tendancy to interpret each lamina as produced by a separate sedimentation event - for example, a tidal cycle, the swash and backwash of a single wave, or a single bed load avalanche. It is now clear, however, that laminae may also be produced by strong flow, particularly during traction on a plane bed in the upper flow regime." What do you suppose they mean by ‘a tendency? Do you realize that they are talking about short events here in both cases: an avalanche, a wave backwash, etc.? If you actually read the text you would see that they are talking about some sand deposits. They are not talking about an entire formation, system or group. This does not indicate any support for your position. You go on to quote Joplin: "It is reasonable to postulate a very rapid rate of deposition; that is a single lamina [or layer] would probably be deposited in a period of seconds or minutes rather than in a period of hours.... Yes it is reasonable to postulate a rapid rate for [I][b]a[/i][/b] lamination. Does anyone else but you believe that it is reasonable for postulate a rapid for a series of laminated formations? There is nothing surprising in finding that some laminations form rapidly, and nothing inconsistent with an overall slow rate of deposition for the geological record. Remember, we are talking about average rates for the entire geological record. There is factual evidence from both field observation and experiment that laminae composed of bed material are commonly deposited by current action within a period of seconds or minutes.' Yes, commonly. However, this again refers to an individual occurrence of laminations and is not a universal statement. My impression is that usually these statements refer to sand deposits. I see nothing here that requires rapid deposition of all laminations.
quote: Wrong. According to your references, there is no reason that SOME of the geological column cannot be interpreted in this way. You are taking the specific and applying it to the general. This is a common logical fallacy among creationists. In fact, some of the geological column IS interpreted this way.
quote: Yep, lots of it occurs in the geological column.
quote: Well, I don’t know if I’d say throughout, but certainly they are common.
quote: I challenge this statement. I believe you have been asked to document this. Please do so. However, I still don't see the relevance.
quote: Unadulterated, BS. In sedimentology, sorting is emphasized. You would know this if you ever took a college course. Paleocurrents are discussed commonly even in freshman classes, and some studies are referred to throughout the literature. You simply do not like the mainstream interpretation. Turbidites are practically their own chapter in even the earliest of geology courses. However, turbidites are not as common as you have been misled to believe.
quote: Well, paleocurrents are a fairly specialized sedimentology subject. I guess I wouldn’t expect much to occur in general intro textbooks.
quote: Good for you. Bu this is a problem. You have not covered the basic, introductory texts. You should do that so you understand what the monographs are talking about. It is clear that you do not.
quote: Your opinion. But I suppose we had to have at least one reference to the geological conspiracy. I’m sure that after reading your posts, the universities will change their curricula for you.
quote: Yes, for some units, and some very long breaks. In fact, some breaks represent periods of erosion and mountain building.
quote: Astonishing, perhaps, but really only in a framework that lacks a geotectonic perspective. You will note that this was written well before plate tectonics was formulated into a viable theory. You also neglect to point out that this ‘mystery’ has an explanation. Perhaps you should have read a little further into Pettijohn...
quote: But you have to. If not, then there are some layers that formed slowly. Your model cannot handle this. You have only a year to complete all of your processes. This is one problem of taking an absolutist position. They are exceedingly difficult to defend.
quote: Individual units, to be sure, but not the entire geological history of any area. You have presented no evidence to support this.
quote: But you are implying that they might think the entire geological column was laid down rapidly. Their work does not support your scenario. Now, since you have quoted Blatt, and others, I thought I might just check and see how many entries there are for 'paleocurrents'. Hmm, it looks like there are about 15 pages with reference to 'paleocurrents.' Not really much of a secret is it? Moving on, the text says: "On the largest scale, mapping of directional sedimentary structures in many rock units has revealed that despite much local variability the average paleocurrent directions remain almost constant over very large areas and persist with only slight changes through long periods of geological time. This observation has given rise to the concept that the basic regional control of paleocurrents was the paleoslope." Now, why do you find Blatt and others so authoritative on rapid depostion but ignore what they say about paleoslopes? I can see why you might not want to present us with this quotation. Moving on, we find that "The (rapidly deposited) bed may, of course, represent the final stage of a long period of reworking" And: Probably most beds are removed by erosion before they can be buried and thus preserved in the geological record. And: "The importance of the unusual event can, however, be overstressed. For example, spectacular changes in beaches may be produced by a few days of violent storms but profiling frequently reveals that many of the storm deposits are reworked by wave action during the much longer periods of calm weather." Now, just what is this business about 'much longer periods of calm weather?' And what about eroded beds? And 'long periods of reworking?' Is there some reason that these facts are missing from your selection of quotes from a mainstream geology text?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1733 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Casual dismissal aside, what exactly were those flow velocities? And how did those unusual current occur before the flood? And why did you bring up the Moine Schist? By the way, if you don't understand something, just belittle it! That makes you out to look much more intelligent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
wehappyfew Inactive Member |
quote: Can you cite a rock specific formation that cannot be explained by paleoslope controls, like the Alleghenian orogeny that deposited vast beds of clastics in the eiperic seas of North America?Can you cite a specific rock formation that cannot be explained by the same processes operating today in modern foreland basins? quote: Nonsense.Currents today depositing modern sediments can be very fast - to form a conglomerate, for example; OR very slow - to allow silt or clay to settle out. Paleocurrents in clay sized sediments are likewise very SLOW for the same reason, else deposition could not have taken place. Your mythology is clouding your reason. Even simple concepts in a subject you claim to have read extensively are eluding your grasp. Just like your recent triumphant gushing over Humphreys' helium article, you are quick to adopt the latest batch of half-truths being peddled by the creationist donation-gathering sites, but you close your eyes to any detailed analysis of your mythology support structure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Randy Member (Idle past 6274 days) Posts: 420 From: Cincinnati OH USA Joined: |
quote: I think this is called the fallacy of hasty generalization and it is one of the most common logical errors in YEC. It fact it is used over and over again on YEC web sites and in YEC books and YEC totally collapses without it. A few examples including the one TB uses so often here. Some sedimentary laminations were formed rapidly so all layers in the so-called flood deposits could have been formed rapidly enough to form during the flood year Some insects can survive a while on floating vegetation so all kinds of insects could have survived the flood year on floating vegetation. Some animals were taken to Australia by humans so transportation by humans is a logical explanation for all the unique animals in Australia. Some animals migrate so migration patterns could explain all the unique animals in Australia Some animals live in different biomes so segregation by biomes can explain the ordering in the fossil record Large numbers of some animals such as cattle can be cared for by a few individuals using modern technology so Noah’s family could have cared for 16,000 animals of 8,000 kinds on the ark I could go on and on with these examples and I am sure others know many as well. They are logically equivalent to saying the some African wild mammals can run in excess of 50 miles per hours so it is reasonable to claim that all African wild mammals can run in excess of 50 miles an hour. If you show me evidence of an African wild mammal that can’t run in excess of 50 miles per hour I will just say that I am comfortable believing that all African wild mammals can run in excess of 50 miles per hour because I just saw a National Geography Special on Cheetahs and lions chasing down gazelles and these animals are African wild mammals and can run in excess of 50 miles per hour. It is not necessary for me to prove that all such animals can run in excess of 50 miles per hour because I know that there are African wild mammals that can so it is reasonable to assume that they all can so just stop babbling about slower African wild mammals. Randy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024