Noah's Flood and the Geologic Layers (was Noah's shallow sea)

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.CheersJoe Meert

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?CheersJoe Meert

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.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

why would desert plants or animals not be expected? And 'grounded glaciers'

---

JM: Are you serious? In a global flood? Gimme a break.

quote:

---

Careful, I said "unless you tried to say" if you are not trying to relax, you're off the hook.

---

JM: Purely idiotic statement. I am glad you have backed off.

quote:

---

Many of them are, no doubt, especially in colder countries, you have any evidence ALL scratch marks are?

---

JM: I asked you to explain these features first.

quote:

---

It lasted about a year. It happeneded I think less than 4000 yrs ago.

---

JM: Don't be facetious. Where do I find the evidence for these flood deposits. Be specific and provide evidence to support your age claims.

quote:

---

What exactly is the problem? Looks like a rock! What was difficult specifically?

---

JM: What type of rock? What are the features in the rock? Be specific.

quote:

---

probably more concerned with building churches!

---

JM: That's no excuse if you are trying to overturn a paradigm. However, it's also a tacit admission that they are not doing science. I agree.

quote:

---

tracks and tail marks? wow. It seems to be you with the problem of trying to assign it that riddiculous age!

---

JM: The age is irrelevant. How do they fit into a global flood. You claim the ages are wrong, but provide nothing but ipse dixit arguments.

quote:

---

Perhaps bible believers didn't have a big reason to doubt the obvious! And now that someone tried to put the house together upside down (without a Creator)a few are waking up!

---

JM: I'm a bible believer. I believe the bible to be a book about salvation. You seem (without ever defending your position with facts) to think it is a scientific textbook.

quote:

---

coelacanth which Walt says was on the Index fossil list till '38

---

JM: you caught a coelacanth? I'm impressed. 1938. Wow, that was a recent reference. Can you document that the coelacanth is an index fossil claim with a scientific reference?

quote:

---

So why is it in some areas that finding certain things and not others disturbs you?

---

JM: Disturbs me? Is this your weak attempt at a rhetorical argument? LOL. The problem is not mine, it's ours. Why would we expect desert deposits, paleosols and glacial deposits in the Noachian flood? We are all noticing that you are not answering direct questions. You remind me of my two year old hiding under his blanket and thinking no one knows where he is. As adults, we humor him. Do you want us to pretend the same with you?

quote:

---

The one you respect quite a bit,

---

JM: You avodided the question. What is 'phantom' about the column?

quote:

---

I think I just figured out what 'hand waving' is, correct me if I'm wrong.

---

JM: Good, it only took you reflecting on a half a dozen of your own posts to figure that out. Now, if we can just get you to figure out how to think on your own and defend your idea with some facts, we'll have made some progress!

quote:

---

It refers to Christians waving their hands together, like saying Halelujah or something, and believing in faith God

---

JM: Not just that. It also refers to making up data in order to support your own lack of faith.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Are you suggesting that it is silly becuse there was water in the flood, and the plants or animals in question are now desert ones? Or what?

---

JM: Don't play stupid. You won't define when the flood happened. I show you desert deposits and ask you if they are flood. You give no answer and seemingly assume that deserts in the flood are no problem. If this is your logic, who am I to even try and discuss this further??

quote:

---

Everywhere just about I look I see evidence!

---

JM: I asked you to be specific. I asked you a series of pointed questions meant to elicit a scientific framework for the flood. All I get is vague assertions including (amazingly) that deserts are to be expected during a global flood. Do you have data, or is your entire argument based on vagaries?

quote:

---

why don't you come on out of the closet and spit it out,

---

JM: Why should I spit out the answer? You've asserted there was a flood. You've asserted (sans evidence) that the global flood is supported by the geologic record and yet, when shown a figure easily identified by a freshman geology student, you plead ignorance?

quote:

---

not just weak in it! Sorry but Genesis was talked about by Jesus, as was the flood.

---

JM: Would Jesus speak in a language understood by the Jews? Did Jesus speak in parables? Did Jesus say "The earth is 6000 years old and the global flood is dated to 4000 years ago"? Please cite scriptural support for this assertion and follow that up with a evidence supporting your ipse dixit assertion that all scripture is true.

quote:

---

Walt says it was in the index. Are you saying he was misinformed?

---

JM: yes. I am saying that Walt is misinformed and I am saying that you are lying at the worst and being coy at the best.

quote:

---

Creationists have said the column is mostly imaginary, and the world is full of places where it is not as expected -layers in wrong order, or missing etc. You must have heard about it.

---

JM: I've heard this claim made by mindless puppets of young earth creationists. I've never heard them support this with evidence. You willing to be the first? Try to do so without copying lies from Walt Browns sites. Explain it in your own words.

quote:

---

How is it you would be familiar with free thought

---

JM: I am a scientist. I get paid for thinking outside the box. As far as parroting the party line that's all you've done. You've uncritically repeated stuff you've read on walt brown's website. You've provided absolutely no evidence that you are able to think for yourself. Do you have such a capability?

quote:

---

Making up data is no good your folks

---

JM:How would you know? Walts book is nearly all false, but you don't even comprehend the basics of what he is talking about. Anytime you are asked to provide specifics and a scientific argument, you dodge the questions. Can you think for yourself or not? Show us by defending ONE of your assertions with scientific data.

quote:

---

I'll go back and look at your scratch photo and see if I can. It looked like from right near a retreating glacier, which of course would make it too easy.

---

JM: How about starting by learning the correct terminology? How would you tell if it was from a retreating or advancing glacier? How does this fit into the global flood model? What is the global flood model (r.e. my original 3 questions about correlation and definition of the flood)?Cheers
Joe meert

quote:

---

And since aragonite is thermodynamically unstable with respect to calcite, we expect it to do what over time? Class?

---

JM: For the geologists among the crowd. We just had a seminar given by Terry Quinn of USF (South Florida). One of the more interesting things in his lecture (on coral record of El nino) is that they found aragonite to be much more stable in the corals they were investigating than the 'traditional' ideas. Now, he was talking Holocene, not Precambrian.CheersJoe Meert

It's funny what you pick and choose from a book. For example, why did you not mention the following:

quote:

---

pg 82 2000 edition: On the platform, the water was only a few meters deep in many places, although the shore was hundreds of kilometers away. Such regions are very sensitiveto changes in water depth, tidal effects and currents. These conditions exist in and around modern day reefs producing fascinating rock. And that is how the limestone-shale-limestone cycles in the Cambrian-Ordovician strata of the Canadian ROckies developed. When the water depth was stable, abundant sea life would produce a layer of limestone. It would thicken quickly, reaching nearly to the surface and spreading over vast areas of the continental shelf. The water was so shallow that the larger waves would be damped and thus kept from reaching the coast.

---

JM: Hardly sounds like a global flood to me, but then let's continue in full context (also page 83 of the 2000 edition)

quote:

---

Then a slight but rapid increase in water depth--meaning an increase that deposition could not keep up with---would disrupt things. Given deeper water, larger waves would roll eastward over the edge of the platform and on across the limy flats beyond. They would reach the coast, battering the shoreline and causing rapid erosion along it. The rise in sea level would have sent the shoreline advanicing inland, further aiding erosion.
Return currents moving along the bottom, especially strong during storms, would carry eroded material (mostly fine mud) over the limestone flats and the reef, smothering the organisms living there. Limestone deposition would slow considerably and a layer of shale--the fine material--would be laid down.
Later, when sea level stopped rising, erosion along the shore would taper off, clear water conditions would return, and the lime producing organisms would establish themselves again completing the cycle.

---

JM: Hardly the makings of a global flood. Gadd then goes on to say "What caused the jumps in sea level? This is still unknown". Actually, we have a darn good idea as to what caused the changes in sea level (http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/hogfinal.pdf).Now, let's compare the above description to Walts' description of the flood:

quote:

---

page 84. Rupture phase: Water exploded with great violence out of the ten-mile slit....Along this globe circling crack, a fountain of water jetted supersonically into and above the atmosphere.

---

quote:

---

page 85 Eroded particles were swept up in the waters that gushed from the rupture, giving the water a thick, muddy consistency. These sediments settled out over the earth's surface in days, trapping and burying many plants and animals....The temperature of the escaping subterranean waters increased by about 100 F as they were forced from the high pressure chamber (JM: Hmm). The hot water, being less dense, rose to the surface of the flood waters.
page 86...The flooding uprooted most of the earths abundant vegetation

---

..then we have plates moving around at incredible speeds all the while, the Rocky Mtns continue to grow reefs and then deposit thin layers of shale, grow a new reef etc. The stories don't mesh!CheersJoe Meert

Anyone calculated the energy release of 'ten billion' hydrogen bombs? LOL, I think I missed that quote. Oooh I just did this. A conservative estimate is 8.4 x 10^14 tJ (tera-joules). FYI tera=10^12 joules and 1 joule is equivalent 1 Watt of power generated for 1 second. 1 calorie=4.18 Joules. So, the equivalent is 2 x 10^27 calories. Noah has a problem.CheersJoe Meert[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 02-09-2004][This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 02-09-2004]

quote:

---

Simple, you've got some cajones.

---

JM: This is typical of youth. They argue strongly and with passion even if they lack a clear understanding about the topics they argue. The professional geologists on this board are viewed with disdain as unthinking servants to evolution. I have a little more of a soft spot for youthful exuberance and ignorance since I was guilty of the same offenses in my own youth.CheersJoe Meert

That's cute, now can we return to the topic of this thread? Exactly what geologic layers can be correlated on a global basis that mark the peak flood sequence (i.e. all underwater). If you don't like that, you can answer "Where is the globally correlatable strata marking the pre-flood, flood boundary"? If you don't like that you can answer the question about the globally correlatable strata marking the end of the flood.CheersJoe Meert

You mean they aren't everlasting?CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

I very much suspect that today's growth rates by which you are likely basing your perceived old world growth rates, are much different. I think it's safe to say that the limestone and calcareous sponges grew much faster

---

JM: It's 'safe' to say so only in ignorance. Do you have evidence to support this concjecture, or is it just conjecture? Before proceeding, am I correct in assuming that you feel that all sedimentary strata from Cambrian through Mesozoic are flood strata?CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Today's processes, as a whole do not explain how things worked in the old, or pre flood world. Unless we assume the 2 worlds were the same.

---

JM: This assumes there was a 'pre-flood' world. This argument from you has gotten so circular that I'm afraid you've even forgotten what you are saying. In order to have a 'pre-flood' world, there must have been a flood, yet, we've gotten nothing but a suite of vague assertions that a flood happened and no evidence to support it. Everytime someone asks a a question, you make some unsupported vague assertion. No evidence, just some scenario you or Walt Brown has invented without any supporting data. I have also reached the conclusion that you are probably a teenage troll.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

How old are you simple?

---

JM: I'm betting mid teens.CheersJoe Meert

Some believe it because Walt Brown said it happened.CheersJoe Meert