Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Origin of the Flood Layers
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 196 of 409 (752800)
03-13-2015 6:46 AM


Moderator On Duty
Given that the part of the discussion requiring moderation has moved from the Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists thread to this one, I'll be moderating this thread, too. I have just a couple requests:
  • Please don't make claims you don't intend to defend.
  • Please don't make discussion personal by making claims about yourself or others. I'm referring to things like claims about the quality of investigative skills, accusations of mischaracterizing or misrepresenting your arguments, and responding to such. Please let moderators handle moderator issues. Register concerns at the Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0 thread.
Note: I had all but completed this message yesterday (before concerns about this thread had been posted to the Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0 thread) when other obligations pulled me away.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 197 of 409 (752805)
03-13-2015 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by Faith
03-13-2015 3:56 AM


because no one has presented a model
You ask why no thinking person has ever considered that a river valley system might develop underground is that no one in the history of science has ever presented a model, method, process, procedure or mechanism that would allow a river valley to develop under ground.
Until you present a model, method, process, procedure or mechanism that would allow a river valley to develop under ground there is no reason to think it was not formed at the surface.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Faith, posted 03-13-2015 3:56 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by edge, posted 03-13-2015 12:24 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 198 of 409 (752806)
03-13-2015 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by Faith
03-13-2015 3:56 AM


Fine. Nevertheless it's about a river in a valley, running water.
If you are talking about the canyon system formed on the surface, then yes, it's about a river in a valley and running water. If you are saying that both systems are about a river in a valley then, no; subterranean systems don't have valleys.
And why couldn't such a system have formed underground as well?
Because it is the features of the initial conditions that determine where water will flow. The dendritic system forms by water seeking the next lowest surface feature. An underground system forms by water following cracks... I already went over this. I suppose that I could imagine some unknown force generating underground cracks in a dendritic pattern, but then that force would need an explanation because that is just not the pattern these underground cracks take. Can you find a cave system with this type of branching pattern anywhere?
And I never said one thing to imply I think such things formed underwater. UnderGROUND is what I've said. And AFTER the Flood, not during it.
Now this is pedantic nitpickery! Your scenario requires that these underground canyons formed while the water was receding. If the water is all gone and all you have the water in the sediments which is being squeezed out (part of the lithification process, no doubt) then where does the sediment come from that fills it all back in? You need this to be cut and filled back in during the receding of the flood waters.
These buried canyon systems are filled with DIFFERENT materials than the surrounding rocks; that is how the seismologists are able to detect them. Seismic waves react differently to materials of different composition and/or density. So these underground systems are not filled with material that has simply collapsed into them, but has been transported from another location.
Still haven't given any evidence why this HAS to be so, why it couldn't have formed underground.
What additional evidence could you possibly need?? These systems form in completely different ways and due to completely different physical features.
Thinking it formed during the Flood would be harebrained, but I don't think that. I think it formed afterward.
There is not enough time AFTER the flood to form these vast underground systems and fill them back in. You need the flood waters to do their magic.
Also note that these underground systems would need an outlet where the water and sediment could exit the system. So, the receding flood waters would need to carve out canyons on the surface in order to provide a place where water could exit from this system that is deep underground. This cut would drain most of the flood water off the surface but you STILL need enough left behind to rapidly erode through this underground system AND carry the sediment from it away. Then there STILL needs to be enough water remaining to erode another surface feature and carry that sediment into the underground system and fill it back up.
Your point about it being "AFTER" the flood is meaningless; this needs to form in the SAME event. You have one and only one event to form all these features! One event - the flood. There may be a sequence of steps that the process goes through, but it is ONE event! You are not positing multiple flood events are you? Maybe jar convinced you that the Bible describes multiple floods
"AFTER" the flood, normal process resume - you can no longer invoke "magic" flood waters. I know, I know, you never said "magic flood waters." But you do call on the flood waters to do things that they just could not possibly do - unless... magic.
Face it, these buried canyons were at the surface at one time. So, forget trying to handwave it away that they MIGHT have formed underground. Instead, determine WHEN they were at the surface and use that to constrain the flood timing. Don't keep trying to justify or simply ignore the impossibilities in your scenario.
HBD
Edited by herebedragons, : claification

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Faith, posted 03-13-2015 3:56 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Faith, posted 03-13-2015 12:09 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 199 of 409 (752819)
03-13-2015 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by herebedragons
03-13-2015 8:24 AM


I may come back to this later but for now I never said and don't believe that the system was created by RECEDING Flood waters EITHER. Water continues to run underground all over the earth long since the Flood came to an end. AND such valleys on the surface have formed after the Flood so I see no reason to suppose there wasn't time for it underground. I'll think about the sediments that filled it all in later.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by herebedragons, posted 03-13-2015 8:24 AM herebedragons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by edge, posted 03-13-2015 12:16 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 200 of 409 (752820)
03-13-2015 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Faith
03-13-2015 12:09 PM


I may come back to this later but for now I never said and don't believe that the system was created by RECEDING Flood waters EITHER. Water continues to run underground all over the earth long since the Flood came to an end. AND such valleys on the surface have formed after the Flood so I see no reason to suppose there wasn't time for it underground. I'll think about the sediments that filled it all in later.
When you get a chance, could you describe for us what an underground valley would look like?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Faith, posted 03-13-2015 12:09 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Faith, posted 03-13-2015 12:27 PM edge has replied

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


Message 201 of 409 (752821)
03-13-2015 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by jar
03-13-2015 7:57 AM


Re: because no one has presented a model
You ask why no thinking person has ever considered that a river valley system might develop underground is that no one in the history of science has ever presented a model, method, process, procedure or mechanism that would allow a river valley to develop under ground.
Until you present a model, method, process, procedure or mechanism that would allow a river valley to develop under ground there is no reason to think it was not formed at the surface.
Faith has already decided the outcome of such an analysis. She cannot have erosion prior to the present (other than 'itty bitty' stuff); so intellectual contortionism becomes necessary.
So, really, it all stems from her denial of erosional unconformities; which, of course is standard YEC fare.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by jar, posted 03-13-2015 7:57 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 202 of 409 (752823)
03-13-2015 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by edge
03-13-2015 12:16 PM


When you get a chance, could you describe for us what an underground valley would look like?
You know what would help a lot? Seeing what the surface above this underground phenomenon looks like. Any way to show that? Also it would help to know the depth of the formation and the situation of the rocks above it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by edge, posted 03-13-2015 12:16 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by edge, posted 03-13-2015 1:34 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 203 of 409 (752826)
03-13-2015 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Faith
03-13-2015 12:27 PM


You know what would help a lot? Seeing what the surface above this underground phenomenon looks like. Any way to show that? Also it would help to know the depth of the formation and the situation of the rocks above it.
I do not have that data, but there should be some available online. However, here is an excerpt from Glenn Morton's paper on the subject regarding a location in China. I have added some bold to give you some numbers.
quote:
The third picture I have is of an eroded surface in the Ordovician of China. This is due to the careful mapping of an erosional event on a three dimensional seismic volume. It is in the Tarim Basin in far western China and this erosional surface is buried 5200 meters (that is, 17,000 feet deep). It shows a branching drainage pattern as well. Such features could not have formed in the global flood in just a few years. The rock being eroded into is hard limestone. Since as Russ Maatman writes:
"But a cup of water dissolves only two ten-thousands of an ounce of limestone." (The Impact of Evolutionary Thought: A Christian Perspective
(Sioux Center: Dordt College Press, 1993), p. 55)
That must be fresh water because sea water already has all the limestone it can hold dissolved within it. The surface shown below has had thousands of feet of limestone removed by erosion and that would take time with numbers like this. It would take 100,000 years of constant rainfall to erode a ditch about 6 feet deep. Yet on this erosional surface taken from a sonogram of the earth, we find hundreds of feet of relief. Note also the branching channel patterns due to drainage on this picture.
And here is a paper by Glenn showing a diagram of an erosional surface between deformed Paleozoic sediments and overlying Mesozoic sediments.
http://erv-faq-for-creationists.wikispaces.com/...th%27s+Age.
In it, he states:
quote:
After the deposition of 18,500 feet of strata, and it's hardening (it takes lots of time for shales to de-water, yet we see no mega water escape structures in this sedimentary pile either), we must then have the time to thrust the paleozoic section creating huge mountains (the Appalachians). After this, we must have time for the erosion of 10,000 feet of HARDENED sediment, which then becomes the unconformity surface. Then we must cover, in a gentle way, the entire area with 3,500 feet of Mesozoic sediment. This is a rate of 19 feet a day assuming that the Mesozoic here represented 180 days of flood deposition. One could hardly say that 19 feet a day of sedimentation is 'gentle'. 19 feet of sediment where I live would nearly cover my 2 story house.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Faith, posted 03-13-2015 12:27 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Faith, posted 03-13-2015 4:37 PM edge has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 204 of 409 (752841)
03-13-2015 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by edge
03-13-2015 1:34 PM


Thank you for the info. It will take time to digest it all, but I can respond to a few things:
The third picture I have is of an eroded surface in the Ordovician of China. This is due to the careful mapping of an erosional event on a three dimensional seismic volume. It is in the Tarim Basin in far western China and this erosional surface is buried 5200 meters (that is, 17,000 feet deep). It shows a branching drainage pattern as well. Such features could not have formed in the global flood in just a few years. The rock being eroded into is hard limestone.
First I don't know why he thinks anybody thinks it would have formed IN the Flood. Who has said such things? If some have, then I disagree with them. There is no need to think of these things as forming IN the Flood, and every reason to think not. I do think of them as being the result of water running underground and don't know why that isn't a possibility.
At 17,000 feet deep it is about where the Ordovician layer should be, I suppose, though in the Grand Canyon it's not that deep even counting all the layers above to the top of the Grand Staircase. But I don't suppose that matters.
It would be very nice to know what the rocks above it look like though, and the surface of the earth at the top.
It shows a branching drainage pattern as well. Such features could not have formed in the global flood in just a few years. The rock being eroded into is hard limestone.
Unless it wasn't completely dry after the Flood.
"But a cup of water dissolves only two ten-thousands of an ounce of limestone." (The Impact of Evolutionary Thought: A Christian Perspective
(Sioux Center: Dordt College Press, 1993), p. 55)
That must be fresh water because sea water already has all the limestone it can hold dissolved within it. The surface shown below has had thousands of feet of limestone removed by erosion and that would take time with numbers like this. It would take 100,000 years of constant rainfall to erode a ditch about 6 feet deep.
Unless it DID get eroded away in the last stages of the Flood. That much erosion does suggest that as an explanation, especially since that is the only possible explanation for the immense erosion above the Kaibab in the Grand Canyon area.
But besides, I've thought that limestone is particularly vulnerable to the kind of erosion that creates karsts and caves, just from the dripping of rain water. None of this has to be explained by the purely mechanical erosion of rainfall.
Yet on this erosional surface taken from a sonogram of the earth, we find hundreds of feet of relief.
But that's also the case with the Grand Staircase area, which is drastically eroded into the stairs of the staircase plus canyons from the Kaibab to the top of the formation, more than a mile. If that can happen on the surface why not underground where the rocks may also have been tectonically shifted and water continues to run?
Note also the branching channel patterns due to drainage on this picture.
Yes I know this occurs on the surface but why not underground too. All it would take is the tilting of rocks to form the valley and provide an incline and probably other features for tributaries to form on.
After the deposition of 18,500 feet of strata, and it's hardening (it takes lots of time for shales to de-water,
How long and how do you know?
yet we see no mega water escape structures in this sedimentary pile either),
What is a water escape structure? I've always figured that the water drained out between the layers, and in some places the layers could have been tectonically disrupted enough to speed up the drainage. ABE: Or just collect it where it can form larger streams of water.
we must then have the time to thrust the paleozoic section creating huge mountains (the Appalachians).
How do the Appalachians get into this story? These time estimates tend to be guesses though.
After this, we must have time for the erosion of 10,000 feet of HARDENED sediment,
Why hardened?
which then becomes the unconformity surface.
What unconformity is this?
Then we must cover, in a gentle way, the entire area with 3,500 feet of Mesozoic sediment. This is a rate of 19 feet a day assuming that the Mesozoic here represented 180 days of flood deposition. One could hardly say that 19 feet a day of sedimentation is 'gentle'. 19 feet of sediment where I live would nearly cover my 2 story house.
I'm not following the last part of this discussion at all.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by edge, posted 03-13-2015 1:34 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by edge, posted 03-13-2015 6:12 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 205 of 409 (752850)
03-13-2015 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Faith
03-13-2015 4:37 PM


First I don't know why he thinks anybody thinks it would have formed IN the Flood.
Because that is what you floodists say. The Ordovician and succeeding rocks were deposited during the flood, but this surface represents a major erosional event during that period.
The erosion is younger than these rocks but older than the succeeding rocks.
Who has said such things?
Practically every YEC that I know of.
If some have, then I disagree with them. There is no need to think of these things as forming IN the Flood, and every reason to think not. I do think of them as being the result of water running underground and don't know why that isn't a possibility.
Then you should propose a way of creating a false topography within a solid rock edifice.
At 17,000 feet deep it is about where the Ordovician layer should be, I suppose, though in the Grand Canyon it's not that deep even counting all the layers above to the top of the Grand Staircase. But I don't suppose that matters.
It would be very nice to know what the rocks above it look like though, and the surface of the earth at the top.
Well, if you want them to be post flood, then you need to have a way of depositing 17kfeet after the flood.
Okay, what's your model, other than wishful thinking to prop up your religious dogma.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Faith, posted 03-13-2015 4:37 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Faith, posted 03-13-2015 6:36 PM edge has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 206 of 409 (752852)
03-13-2015 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by edge
03-13-2015 6:12 PM


First I don't know why he thinks anybody thinks it would have formed IN the Flood.
Because that is what you floodists say. The Ordovician and succeeding rocks were deposited during the flood, but this surface represents a major erosional event during that period.
The erosion is younger than these rocks but older than the succeeding rocks.
I was not talking about the formation of the rock but of the erosion of the rock which I'm thinking occurred after the Flood. You are asserting that the erosion is older than succeeding rocks but how do you know that?
Who has said such things?
Practically every YEC that I know of.
Are you sure you got it right? People are always getting my stuff wrong.
If some have, then I disagree with them. There is no need to think of these things as forming IN the Flood, and every reason to think not. I do think of them as being the result of water running underground and don't know why that isn't a possibility.
Then you should propose a way of creating a false topography within a solid rock edifice.
I've proposed that it isn't SOLID, it's been tectonically altered to some extent and there are spaces as well as changed positions of the rocks.
But it's also possible in the case of a limestone layer that it eroded in its soft wet stage at any point in the laying down of the whole stack, because limestone seems to be susceptible to all kinds of erosive possibilities.
At 17,000 feet deep it is about where the Ordovician layer should be, I suppose, though in the Grand Canyon it's not that deep even counting all the layers above to the top of the Grand Staircase. But I don't suppose that matters.
It would be very nice to know what the rocks above it look like though, and the surface of the earth at the top.
Well, if you want them to be post flood, then you need to have a way of depositing 17kfeet after the flood.
No, the idea is that the rocks were already deposited that deep. The erosion of the Ordovician layer occurred after they were all in place.
Okay, what's your model, other than wishful thinking to prop up your religious dogma.
Perhaps you haven't noticed that nothing I say about rocks has to do with my religion. I'd be happy to propose a model if I knew exactly what is meant by a model. As far as I can see all the different ways I try to explain the geological situation add up to a model.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by edge, posted 03-13-2015 6:12 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by edge, posted 03-14-2015 2:52 PM Faith has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 207 of 409 (752857)
03-13-2015 7:01 PM


A definition
Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process; a representation such that knowledge concerning the model offers insight about the entity modelled.
Note: models are designed to be tested against real-world data. The success of a model is directly related to how well it predicts or "models" something. If some predictions of a model are found to be wrong, that casts doubt upon the model. If many predictions of a model are found to be wrong, that model is probably worthless.
Edit to add: Actually a model that is wrong may not be entirely worthless. It may be useful in that it documents a particular approach as being unproductive.
Edited by Coyote, : Addition

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

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


(1)
Message 208 of 409 (752922)
03-14-2015 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Faith
03-13-2015 6:36 PM


I was not talking about the formation of the rock but of the erosion of the rock which I'm thinking occurred after the Flood.
But if you read carefully, you will see that, according to your own story, the flood had to continue depositing a huge thickness of sediments.
You are asserting that the erosion is older than succeeding rocks but how do you know that?
I know it because of the principles of superposition and cross-cutting structures. There isn't much else in the way of alternatives. Although I do not have information on this locality, we usually see that the post-unconformity rocks are made up of eroded and redeposited pre-unconformity rocks. This provides us with a bullet-proof sequence of events.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Faith, posted 03-13-2015 6:36 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Faith, posted 03-16-2015 3:51 PM edge has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 209 of 409 (753090)
03-16-2015 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by edge
03-14-2015 2:52 PM


I was not talking about the formation of the rock but of the erosion of the rock which I'm thinking occurred after the Flood.
But if you read carefully, you will see that, according to your own story, the flood had to continue depositing a huge thickness of sediments.
You have misread something. In this whole discussion I've assumed all the strata were already in place and that what happened to a layer low in the stack happened afterward.
You are asserting that the erosion is older than succeeding rocks but how do you know that?
I know it because of the principles of superposition and cross-cutting structures.
You are assuming the erosion occurred at the same time the layer was deposited. I am not. If it occurred after the layers above were deposited then the principle of superposition is not violated.
There isn't much else in the way of alternatives. Although I do not have information on this locality, we usually see that the post-unconformity rocks are made up of eroded and redeposited pre-unconformity rocks. This provides us with a bullet-proof sequence of events.
I'm afraid that whole paragraph makes no sense to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by edge, posted 03-14-2015 2:52 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by edge, posted 03-16-2015 5:27 PM Faith has replied
 Message 227 by herebedragons, posted 03-17-2015 8:21 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 210 of 409 (753094)
03-16-2015 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Faith
03-16-2015 3:51 PM


You have misread something. In this whole discussion I've assumed all the strata were already in place and that what happened to a layer low in the stack happened afterward.
But the image clearly shows that the Ordovician rocks were deposited, then eroded, and then sedimentation continued.
You cannot create valleys and canyons underground.
You are assuming the erosion occurred at the same time the layer was deposited. I am not. If it occurred after the layers above were deposited then the principle of superposition is not violated.
Actually, I make no such assumption. My only assumption is that superposition is valid. Sedimentation was interrupted by erosion after the Ordovician rocks were deposited and then sedimentation continued.
I'm afraid that whole paragraph makes no sense to me.
In that case, never mind. It is additional information that will probably confuse you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Faith, posted 03-16-2015 3:51 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Faith, posted 03-16-2015 7:32 PM edge has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024