|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Noah's Flood and the Geologic Layers (was Noah's shallow sea) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5708 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5708 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: 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: JM: What? You were expecting people to lie to you?
quote: 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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
..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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Please try to stay focussed on the topic.
quote: Well, you wanted an explanation. This is not an assumption.
quote: But your example was local. Why are you extrapolating to the rest of the world?
quote: What does that have to do with it? Please try to stay focussed.
quote: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Who is 'they'? Please be specific.
quote: Good grief! Simple, is your family name 'Minded'?
quote: What utter gibberish! I think you are a troll.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1017 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
edge writes:
That's why I'm ignoring him/her. Well, that and the annoying attitude.
What utter gibberish! I think you are a troll.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5708 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: You should heed your own warnings!
quote: JM: No, but we also wouldn't expect to find desert deposits, paleosols and evidence for grounded glaciers.
quote: 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: JM: You have evidence that they are not glacial deposits? How do you explain these features in your 'model'?
quote: 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: JM: In a global flood? How exactly do you preserve fine structures like these in a global flood?
quote: 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: 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: JM: How about the termite nest shown above? How about these?
quote: JM: Neither does Walt or any other creationist! 200 years of work and nothing.
quote: 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: JM: Only if you close your eyes, ears and yell 'na-na-nana'.
quote: 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: 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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024