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

Hi, all!I think the original topic of shallow seas has generalized to how the geologic layers were produced, so I'm going to change the thread's title to Noah's Flood and the Geologic Layers (was Noah's shallow sea).

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

We can deal with that later.

Well well, here we have some wind. Could the powerful wind that dryed up the flood effected this? What formed this pile according to you? Of course not! Not now anyhow! Come on folks, gimme somethin to chew on, this is starting to sound like a typical things deposit, or form this way now, so, assumong there was no flood, they always did! -type of arguement. Theres volumes written on that. What do you want, a link to some? Against what? Simpe statements. Tell me what precisly irkes you? 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?

Could it? How much water could that wind remove, and to what deptyh, in what time? 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? Yes, plus relevant quotes and your explanation of what they are saying and the evidence for it. Where is your evidence? You failure to present evidence or even coherent argument for your assertions, despite repeated requests. Heard where? How much limestone is there? How much limestone can "uniformism", whatever that is, account for? In detail, please. Who is "they"? What lakes? What evidence proved that the weren't formed by "morraines"? In detail, please. 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]

I thought I was just agreeing with your expert, how they don't form a certain way now. the 'of course not' refers to the fact that 'now' is much different to then, when they were made. Presumably your expert will have some evidence for his assertions, (however feeble) which I took at face value. What in the statements you pasted is it you want evidence for? If you won't say it it won't matter if you ask 41 times! In the Creation science material I've read, it's pretty clear there's more limestone on earth than uniformism accounts for, (from the way it is currently produced) by quite a lot! Must I cut and paste for you? 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. There are these big neat piles of boulders and rocks there, looks like someone was in there with a buldozer, putting them in neat piles. They are full of sea ripple rocks, fish fossils etc. Nearby huge mountains like the "Tower of Babel" (Reminds me they figure all tounges started not too far from where the real deal was built-coincidence?)Where they think apparently the stones fell from. Funny, I look to to the sky there and try to imagine huge rocks falling taht far! Then landing in a neat pile! I climbed up there, found a sort of angel fish looking fossil myself, and noticed the rocks sitting on each other so nicely. I've thrown down rocks before and watched them shatter! Yet these ones supposedly fall from sky high with almost no apparent damage, and form a nice pile! Almost looks to me like maybe they fell in water, (And ice?) and were swirled into a pile! But what do I know? After all the sign there admits they don't either. In the Handbook of the Rockies book I just read the other day, of a few that were not formed by morraines after all, I think Medicine Lk was one of them. Anyhow whats the big deal? There are lakes they had to adjust opinion on. well, it would seem a good start to stop assuming what layered the thing. What else could do it? Are you saying only age absolutely could possibly have done it? When you look at the layer after layer in the Rockies (north)you can see how they were layed down quickly, full of fossils. (Granted you can't) There also your people claim a long age. assuming a flood 'advance' was the cause alone seems wrong in this case. heres a tidbit from answersingenesis "Again, plants and animals found in the hardgrounds do not represent complete ecosystems, but only fragments of such systems. They point to transportation and sorting of material before burial rather than in situ communities. And the burrows and holes in the hardgrounds have not disturbed the substrate much. The sedimentary structures are still clearly distinguishable. This is quite different from modern day marine communities where the substrate is bioturbated and the sedimentary structures are obliterated. ..
Remember, you are describing an interpretation based on an in situ model. 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..." Well I don't know. 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

Being curt and heavy handed with those unfamiliar with science is unlikely to be productive. I think these are the necessary qualitifications:

• Willing to repeat the same information as many times as necessary for the point to be understood.
• Responds to misconceptions gently.
• Understands that misinterpretations will sometimes appear willful, and even if they are takes it in stride.
• Ignores jabs and taunts and being treated disrespectfully.

Remember, you're discussing with people who do not share your science backgrounds, and in fact probably have had little exposure to science. Abusing them will not make them learn any faster - I'm sure most of us spent many years learning what we know, and we can't expect others to learn any faster than we did. Just because other people have spent their time and energy learning things other than science is not a license to treat them roughly.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

Who cares what his name was? What does it matter? Are you sad some of the fathers of your faith were caught in hoaxes? At least you do not deny your theories fraudulent past! You can't deny dating comedy as well! Have you heard of the monkey trials? Have you heard of the case prepared (they didn't even have to use in the 'show trial') for evolution! How'd you like to defend that? No I'm not going to dig it out, if you don't believe me do your homework!

You seem to be having a bit of a problem sticking with the topic under discussion. Why in the world would you bring 'monkey trails' up in the middle of all this?There is some degree of desparation hinted at in this post. Take a deep breath.

quote:

---

In the Creation science material I've read, ...

---

Hmmm, I don't suppose it ever occurred to you to try reading any mainstream literature on the subject has it?

quote:

---

...it's pretty clear there's more limestone on earth than uniformism accounts for, (from the way it is currently produced) by quite a lot! Must I cut and paste for you?

---

Yes. Vague assertions don't cut it around here. What is this big mystery that I've never heard of?

quote:

---

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. There are these big neat piles of boulders and rocks there, looks like someone was in there with a buldozer, putting them in neat piles. They are full of sea ripple rocks, fish fossils etc. Nearby huge mountains like the "Tower of Babel" (Reminds me they figure all tounges started not too far from where the real deal was built-coincidence?)Where they think apparently the stones fell from. Funny, I look to to the sky there and try to imagine huge rocks falling taht far! Then landing in a neat pile! I climbed up there, found a sort of angel fish looking fossil myself, and noticed the rocks sitting on each other so nicely. I've thrown down rocks before and watched them shatter! Yet these ones supposedly fall from sky high with almost no apparent damage, and form a nice pile! Almost looks to me like maybe they fell in water, (And ice?) and were swirled into a pile! But what do I know? After all the sign there admits they don't either. In the Handbook of the Rockies book I just read the other day, of a few that were not formed by morraines after all, I think Medicine Lk was one of them. Anyhow whats the big deal? There are lakes they had to adjust opinion on.

---

This is your evidence against the existence of glacial deposits? That's it?

quote:

---

well, it would seem a good start to stop assuming what layered the thing.

---

I assume that you have an alternative? Please give us something to 'chew on,' as you might say.

quote:

---

What else could do it? Are you saying only age absolutely could possibly have done it?

---

Once again, why do you ask us to do your job? If there is an alternative in your favor, it would seem that you would have it.

quote:

---

When you look at the layer after layer in the Rockies (north)you can see how they were layed down quickly, full of fossils. (Granted you can't) There also your people claim a long age.

---

If you have some mechanism for all of the processes we see in the geological record, we'd be glad to hear about it.

that was in reply to someone asking which lakes were first thought of as being formed by morraines, and later changed. Whats this about glacial deposits? Do you think some people don't think there are such obvious things as that? Sounds absurd to me. learn something new every day! look into it it's no mystery to creation folks. can't remember now what all that was about, but I'll take a boo at it tomorrow (my eyes are going weird, and my keyboards forming melted mountain ranges)

quote:

---

that was in reply to someone asking which lakes were first thought of as being formed by morraines, and later changed. Whats this about glacial deposits? Do you think some people don't think there are such obvious things as that? Sounds absurd to me.

---

YOu made some comment about 'alleged glacial deposits.'

quote:

---

learn something new every day! look into it it's no mystery to creation folks.

---

Then you can tell us all about it. Please do so, rather than make unsupported assertions.

quote:

---

So, thousands of square miles is now global

​

part of the globe! What order would you expect when talking about a world ending catastrophe? Some well ordered layers globally as you would expect in an evolution model?

---

So then, it was NOT a global flood! Why didn't you tell us this in the first place?[This message has been edited by edge, 02-07-2004]

You offered links. I'm waiting. Note that the forum rules prohibit arguing by links alone. What is your evidence that now is much different so that such beds formed underwater in the past? Of course. There are references at the link I posted. Feel free to look them up. Or consult any basic geology textbook. 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? 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. The big deal is you making unsupported assertions and failing to support them. 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? 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. Irrelevant. The Hayward formation is not a 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. 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?

The 'alleged deposit' comment I made was directed at deposits far from high mountains, where till and deposits are attributed to ice and glaciers. I would join those who would question too much credit given to the frozen H2O and not enough given to the 'main event'. (In case you had some idea I thought lakes were and are not formed by glaciers or something)
The limestone 'mystery' first site in my search for you popped up this explanation from a dr. you guys seem to know.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Origin of Limestone

yes it was, what exactly am I missing here? Is it an imagined layer of some kind you would expect? spit it out man