|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Noah's Flood and the Geologic Layers (was Noah's shallow sea) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
At least there are formations or deposits streching thousands of sq miles of the old mud, and filled with nice little fossils And covered by and intruded into and separated by igneous deposits that did not deposit under water, and sandstone that formed under dry conditions, and paleosols (fossil soils) that did not form under water and took many many years to form. There are no globally correlatable strata that were deposited under water. Do you think that your alleged flood failed to deposit sediment on most of the Earth? What sediment was deposited by your alleged flood, and what msediment was not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Seems like scurring animals and prints in rock are not that scary They are one of the many death knells for the flood hypothesis. Unless you think dry-land animals were scurrying around and digging burrows under the waters of the flood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
so which combination of these things is hard to understand? The speed with which you think it happened. Remember, you think the flood lasted about a year.
There was a rising of the flood waters, there was a receding of the waters And a rising and a receding and a rising and a receding and ... (thousands of repetitions ) .. and in between each receding and rising the land dried out, and dessication cracks formed, and animals built burrows ... how long did you say this flood lasted?
Which sandstone do you mean and why is it absolute that it was formed under dry conditions Learn some basic geology. This is not the place for teaching geology 101, this is the place to support your assertions. Such as:
I heard there was more limestone than uniformism can account for
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
Seems like your phantom column could use more than a little weasel room! Why would a dry period in the recession stage of the flood not handle it/ One dry period won't handle it. Thousands of dry periods will, each one long enough to let the land dry out and form dessication cracks. How long did you say this flood lasted?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
ing if we could rule out any possibility such as these various scenarios. No scenario can be absolutely ruled out. Excessively silly ones won't get much attention.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
ing if we could rule out any possibility such as these various scenarios. No scenario can be absolutely ruled out. Excessively silly ones won't get much attention.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Noah was in the boat a little over a year. During which the water came and went a thousand ways, up and down and all around. And your evidence for this is? And where did the water go to when it wasn't covering the land? Let's take a look. Here's the Haymond formation, with 15,000 plus layers of sandstone, chock full of burrows that were not made while the sand was buried underwater:
This is discussed at great length at Haymond formation with Thousands of Burrows And while we're at it, from Claim CC365.1::
quote: Under present conditions, perhaps. Ad-hoc. What is your evidence for different conditions?
Show me what you don't like about something, and maybe we'll see how "geology" has been saturated with wrong assumptions? Support your previous assertions:
I heard there was more limestone than uniformism can account for
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
Seems like your phantom column could use more than a little weasel room And how did the Haymond formation come to be? Pre-flood, during the flood, or post-flood? Did the flood advance and recede ... let's see ... 41 times per day, with time in between for burrowing? What processes were incolved in its formation? In detail please.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
and rare foreset laminae that form only by the migration and accretion of low amplitude wind ripples
Well well, here we have some wind. Could the powerful wind that dryed up the flood effected this? Could it? How much water could that wind remove, and to what deptyh, in what time?
What formed this pile according to you? Having a little reading problem, are we? "Form only by the migration and accretion of low amplitude wind ripples". Got any evidenc theat they form or ever foremed by other means?
Theres volumes written on that. What do you want, a link to some? Yes, plus relevant quotes and your explanation of what they are saying and the evidence for it.
uch beds form only in terrestrial eolian environments and are completely absent from marine or lacustrine environments because the wind ripples that create them simply don't form under water Of course not! Not now anyhow! Where is your evidence?
Against what? Simpe statements. Tell me what precisly irkes you? You failure to present evidence or even coherent argument for your assertions, despite repeated requests.
I heard there was more limestone than uniformism can account for Heard where? How much limestone is there? How much limestone can "uniformism", whatever that is, account for? In detail, please.
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"? What lakes? What evidence proved that the weren't formed by "morraines"? In detail, please.
And how did the Haymond formation come to be? I suspect that creationist material covers that? Sandstone--sedimentary--If not I could put my miniscule logic to work, and help you out. After all, would you agree with the way creationists say the Grand Canyon was formed? I suspect you won't want any answers that would look at the evidence in any light other than old age reasoning? Let's start with some answers of any kind. How did those 15,000 plus layers come to be and how did those burrows get into those layers? Pre-flood, during the flood, or post-flood? Did the flood advance and recede 41 times per day, with time in between for burrowing? What processes were incolved in its formation? In detail please. [This message has been edited by JonF, 02-06-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Theres volumes written on that {diferent condition is past times - JRF}. What do you want, a link to some?
Yes, plus relevant quotes and your explanation of what they are saying and the evidence for it. You offered links. I'm waiting. Note that the forum rules prohibit arguing by links alone.
Such beds form only in terrestrial eolian environments and are completely absent from marine or lacustrine environments because the wind ripples that create them simply don't form under water
Of course not! Not now anyhow! What is your evidence that now is much different so that such beds formed underwater in the past?
Presumably your expert will have some evidence for his assertions, (however feeble) which I took at face value. Of course. There are references at the link I posted. Feel free to look them up. Or consult any basic geology textbook.
In the Creation science material I've read, it's pretty clear there's more limestone on earth than uniformism accounts for Unsupported allegation. Answer my direct questions. How much limestone is there? How much limestone can "uniformism", whatever that is, account for? Exactly how does "uniformism", whatever that is, account of for that limestone and what is wrong with that account? (Include details and references). Exactly how does your theory account for limestone?
Morraine Lake in the Rockies has a sign out front explaining how it was named that because they thought it was formed by one. Now, I believe they basically don't know, but think it was a combination of things. So, "lakes" has become "a lake" and "They had to change their veiw" becomes "gosh, I don't think it happened that way". In other words, your original statement was false; noboby has changed their view, forced or not. "I don't see how it could happen that way" is argument from incredulity and is a fallacy. You inability to see how it could have happened is evidence only of your limitations.
Anyhow whats the big deal? The big deal is you making unsupported assertions and failing to support them.
There are lakes they had to adjust opinion on. So you make the same unsupported assertion again. Exactly what lakes did they "had to adjust opinion on", and exactly why? And why is changing opinions when new evidence surfaces a problem?
well, it would seem a good start to stop assuming what layered the thing {the Hayward formation - JRF}. What else could do it? Are you saying only age absolutely could possibly have done it? I haven't made any assumptions or claimed how it happened or said that only one thing could do it. I've noted facts. I've pointed out that there are 15,000 plus layers, all lithified, loaded with burrows, and I'm asking you how you think it happened. Answer my direct questions. Did it happen before the flood, during the flood, or after the flood, or when? What processes produced this formation? Over what time period did those processes act? Don't forget to include evidence, especially if you want to propose mechanisms operating in the past that don't operate now, or if you want to propose mechanisms operating differently than they do now. You said that you suspect that the creationist material covers this; go look it up and report back. good luck. I suspect you won't find anything relevant, and I also suspect that if you actually do go look something up you'll come back with something irrelevant and/or downright false.
Again, plants and animals found in the hardgrounds do not represent complete ecosystems Irrelevant. The Hayward formation is not a hardground.
Consider the possibility that the organisms were transported with the sediment and that the hardground grew around them. As the sediment was dewatered, the hardground squeezed the original hole, a mould rather that a burrow, and pushed the organism out like a stone from a squeezed plum. Equally, the criss-crossing can be understood as expulsion trajectories of dead or dying creatures inside a rapidly lithifying hardground. Doesn't explain the observed evidence (e.g. sand in the shale portion of the burrows). Read the description of the facts at the link I posted.
I'll have to wrap it in a bundle of faith for now, say that I believe the answer will be coming. Sorry, I don't know So, as of now we've managed to pin you down on three specific items: 1. The distribution of grass pollen in the fossil record: You have no theory. 2. The claim that "they had to change their veiw of some lakes they tried to say": you think that one lake didn't form the way geologists said it did, but you have no evidence. 3. The Hayward formation: you have no theory. And you think that we should discard our current theoreis, supported by evidence and cross-checked six ways from Sundya, exactly why?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
The limestone 'mystery' first site in my search for you popped up this explanation from a dr. you guys seem to know. Yes, we know him, and he certainly doesn't know any geology. I have a serious question for you ... do you really buy that stuff? Quotes from that page:
quote: {Begin long change in edit} Ah, I see that he does provide some "support" for this claim on the following page:
quote: He ignores the fact that not all limestone, and not even the majority of limestone, formed by this precipitation; his estimate of the amount of CO2 is many orders of magnitude too large. He also ignores processes, such as plant's respiration, that remove carbon from the atmosphere and processes, such as animals forming shells, that recycle carbon. In other words, even if that greatly exaggerated amount of CO2 were released, the carbon would have gone through the cycle of incorporation into shells and thence into limestone and release many times over. The idea that the carbon released by limestone formation has a simple relationship with the amount of carbon we see today is a basic and simple mathematical error that no PhD in a technical field should ever make.
quote: Of course his estimate is still way too large .. and why does he think that it would all have existed in the ocean at one time? Again he ignores carbon that passes through the cycle more than once.
quote: Never heard of abrasion, has he? What kind of mechanical engineer is he! I'm ashamed that my field has produced such a fool.
quote: As Bugs Bunny says, "wotta maroon!". The prevailing view is that some limestone formed inorganically in shallow seas. There are plenty of ways in which seafloor can and does subside. And rising water levels, of which we have plenty of evidence, can produce the same effect.
quote: Nope, as proved by my quotes below.
quote: A lot of what does produce limestone is global in scope. However, this is just too funny; Walt doesn't even consider the possibility that the limestone moved by the action of plat4e tectonics!!!!!!!
quote: And the mainstream theory also shows how the cementation action happened. The difference is that the mainstream theory also is consistent with the evidence, while Walt's theory is not. But wait, there's more ... absolutely free, we're going to throw in an internal contradiction if you call now!
quote: Now wait a moment .. Walt just claimed that silica could only precipitate under extremely high temperature and pressure, and now he's saying that silica precipitates at atmospheric pressure and near-ambient temperature! This guy's a fruitcake of major proportion! {End long addition in edit}
quote: rarely asked and perhaps never before answered???????????? Right ... except in every basic geology textbook and in thousands of places in the geologic literature.
quote: Another unsupported assertion, and technically a "strawman" argument, another logical fallacy. No geologist believes that limestones are exclusively or even always mostly "ground-up sea shells or corals". Limestones vary far too much to be so simply characterized. From "Science and Earth History", Arthur N. Strahler, Prometheus Books, 1999, page 177: "Of the carbonate rocks, the most important is limestone, a sedimentary rock in which calcite is the predominant mineral. Because either clay minerals or silica (as quartz grains or chert) may be present in considerable proportions, limestones show a wide variation in chemical and physical properties. Limestones range in color from white through gray to black, in texture from obviously granular to very dense. The most abundant limestones are of marine origin. Some of these are formed by inorganic precipitation; others are by-products of organic activity. The marine limestones show well-developed bedding and may contain abundant fossils. Dark color may be due to finely divided carbon. Many limestones have abundant nodules and inclusions of chert and are described as cherty limestones. An interesting variety of limestone is chalk, a soft, pure-white rock of low density. It is composed of the hard parts of microscopic organisms. Important accumulations of limestone consist of the densely compacted skeletons of corals and the secretions of associated algae--they are seen forming today as coral reefs along the coasts of warm oceans. Rocks formed of these deposits are referred to as reef limestones. These limestones are in part fragmental, since the action of waves breaks up the coral formations into small fragments tat accumulate among the coral masses or in nearby locations. Limestones composed of broken carbonate particles are recognized as fragmental limestone."
quote: Another question answered in the basic textbooks and literature. For the most part, the sediments were cemented by pressure, dewatering, and formation of cement in place from dissolved chemicals. Water provides a perfectly reasonable transport agent. The process varies significantly among different limestones. For example, from Rocks formed from sediment: "Coral, a small animal (Fig. 6.10, pg. 121), secretes calcite while, symbiotically, an algae secretes lime to harden the calcite into a coral reef. Chalk is the remains of foraminifera, microscopic ocean dwellers that produce calcite shells (Fig. 6.11, pg. 121), which settles to the ocean bottom forming sedimentary layers. An inorganic limestone that forms when groundwater, saturated in calcium carbonate, is either heated to precipitate the calcium carbonate (Yellowstone Park deposits) or exposed to air where the dissolved CO2 outgasses and then calcium carbonate precipitates (underground caves with stalagmites and stalagtites, Fig. 6.8, pg. 120)" And, from Limestone (mineral) "Limestone ... forms either by direct crystallization from water (usually seawater) or by accumulation of shell and shell fragments. ... Limestone can also be formed without the aid of living organisms. If water containing calcium carbonate is evaporated, the calcium carbonate is left behind and will crystalize out of solution. For example, at Mammoth Hot Springs in Yellowstone National Park, hot water containing calcium carbonate emerges from deep underground. As the hot water evaporates and cools, it can no longer hold all of the calcium carbonate dissolved in it and some of it crystallizes out, forming limestone terraces. Limestone formed from springs is called travertine. Calcium carbonate also precipitates in shallow tropical seas and lagoons where high temperatures cause seawater to evaporate. Such limestone is called oolite. Calcium carbonate that precipitates from water dripping through caves is responsible for the formation of beautiful cave features such as stalactites and stalagmites. ... Diagenesis is the name for those processes that affect sediment after it is deposited and prior to any metamorphism. Two processes of diagenesis are important in the formation of limestone. One is cementation, in which calcium carbonate precipitates in the pore space between the loose grains of sediment and binds them together into a hard compact rock." ------------------------------------- The rest of the page is just Walt making up ad-hoc arguments for his fantasies. It does not address how limestone formed at all. So, your "reference" is irrelevant and wrong. How much limestone is there? How much limestone can "uniformism", whatever that is, account for? Exactly how does "uniformism", whatever that is, account of for that limestone and what is wrong with that account? (Include details and references). Exactly how does your theory account for limestone? [This message has been edited by JonF, 02-07-2004] [This message has been edited by JonF, 02-07-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
I think you need to point out why it is utter nonsense not just assert that. Well he did say he'd get to it if nobody else did. I'd like to see a real geologist's comments on it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Thank you for confirming my theory Yeah, right, and we won a resosunding victory in Vietnam. You still havern't answered any questions; as I pointed out in great detail, Walt's claims about limestone are garbage that a bright high school student should see through. How much limestone is there? How much limestone can "uniformism", whatever that is, account for? Exactly how does "uniformism", whatever that is, account of for that limestone and what is wrong with that account? (Include details and references). Exactly how does your theory account for limestone? "...the limestone issue is a common theme in creation science books, and sites" is not a theory or even a speculation.
s volumes written on that {diferent condition is past times - JRF}. What do you want, a link to some?
Yes, plus relevant quotes and your explanation of what they are saying and the evidence for it. You offered links. I'm waiting. Note that the forum rules prohibit arguing by links alone.
Such beds form only in terrestrial eolian environments and are completely absent from marine or lacustrine environments because the wind ripples that create them simply don't form under water
Of course not! Not now anyhow! What is your evidence that now is much different so that such beds formed underwater in the past?
There are lakes they had to adjust opinion on. So you made the same unsupported assertion again. Exactly what lakes did they "had to adjust opinion on", and exactly why? And why is changing opinions when new evidence surfaces a problem?
well, it would seem a good start to stop assuming what layered the thing {the Hayward formation - JRF}. What else could do it? Are you saying only age absolutely could possibly have done it? I haven't made any assumptions or claimed how it happened or said that only one thing could do it. I've noted facts. I've pointed out that there are 15,000 plus layers, all lithified, loaded with burrows, and I'm asking you how you think it happened. Answer my direct questions. Did it happen before the flood, during the flood, or after the flood, or when? What processes produced this formation? Over what time period did those processes act? Don't forget to include evidence, especially if you want to propose mechanisms operating in the past that don't operate now, or if you want to propose mechanisms operating differently than they do now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
do your own homework from now on if you don't mind! Still witing for you do do any of your homework and support your claims, but I stumbled across an interesting articvl on limestone at Limestone Presents Problems for the Global Flood.
quote: 1.4 million years to deposit the existing limestone, assuming maximum rate over all the continental shelves! So, not only is there not too much limestone for an old Earth scenario; there's far too much limestone for a young Earth scenario! I suppose you'll claim it was deposited much faster in the past; don't bother unless you have evidence for it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024