Attention Faith: Geological data and the Flood

Sorry, they had to be answered because they challenged the whole basis of my agreement for being here at all. This is far more important to me than anything having to do with this topic, as my initial post should have made clear. Perhaps their posts should have been deleted, because no way was I going to let them stand unanswered when they did not respond to my request that they take it to another thread. However, please leave everything undeleted to this point since I have answered them.I see you have posted something on the topic however, so I will take a look at that now.This message has been edited by Faith, 09-12-2005 04:12 PM

That is correct and is exactly what I have been saying so there was no need for it to be said again. There is no possibility of God's word being wrong. That is bottom line. And the flimsy grounds on which science claims it is wrong make the chutzpah of Science even more outrageous. See my previous post to Rahvin Message 45.This message has been edited by Faith, 09-12-2005 04:05 PM

Your reply to me, Faith, didn't really address anything. And the "science side" does make room for you. We have the Faith and Belif forums, and on the Science forums, anyone who can provide actual evidence that falsifies accepted theory will be recognized. Scientits, by definition, are willing to admit that they are wrong about conclusions. It's part of the scientific method. We are all willing to admit being wrong if evidence is shown that actually refutes us.The problem is that your evidence is a book - a book you believe in, yes, but to the rest of us it's a really old book with no outside supporting evidence.As much as we need to see your side, Faith, you need to see ours, too. No debate can follow if either side is unwilling to admit to being wrong in the face of evidence.Arguing with you is like bashing your head against a brick wall when it finally comes down to "the Bible trumps all." You treat it like a magic "I win" button, and that's not honest debate.I won't post in this thread again, and I apologize to IRH for taking up valuable posts with off-topic replies like this, but Faith is pushing my buttons with her line of thinking. "Admit that the Bible is inerrant or I won't debate with you!"

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

All you are doing is reiterating the Establishment position, which is not in doubt, but is exactly what I'm saying makes debate here a ridiculous sham. Take any next comment you have to the other thread Ben started, YEC approaches to empirical investigation. I don't think you've bothered to try to digest what I've been saying about this here.This message has been edited by Faith, 09-12-2005 04:40 PM

Thank you for the overall summary but without maps and diagrams and probably some discussion from you I'm not likely to have much to say about it.I can always say in general, however, that the existence of marine fossils and any rocks formed from wet sediments are always good evidence on the side of the Flood. Volcanic action is also supposed by Biblical creationists to have begun with and been unusually active during the period of the Flood. Also the anticlines and synclines on either side of the Atlantic may demonstrate the folding of the strata of the previously united areas at the start of Continental Drift when the continents pulled apart, which YE creationists also believe was part of the worldwide upheaval of the Flood, as the releasing of "the fountains of the deep" would have involved such dramatic sea floor activity as volcanoes and tectonic movement. The sea-floor expansion from the continental ridge would have exerted a pushing action against the continents away from each other, causing the folding or buckling along the Atlantic rim -- as compared to the forces that created the very differently formed Rockies or the Himalayas or the Alps further inland from the line along which the continents separated.This message has been edited by Faith, 09-12-2005 05:00 PM

Hello Faith,I see that the flood has come up in general. I thought that this might be the case. I understand your reluctance to continue so far. I felt the same way, as I think we would need more information from IRH if he is able to provide it like you said. I am not sure if I should reply to the general statements in your post as it seems to be too general and slightly off topic as concerns IRH's data. I was under the impression that we would be discussing your views and processes based on the data provided by IRH. It seems to me that defining your processes based on your observations should be done first. Let's crawl before we walk? (I say slightly off-topic only because I thought it more practical to look at IRH's more specific area before delving into the broader arena. I am sure we will be discussing these issues more as the data is presented and your ideas expounded upon.)

Faith, you do not need to respond to off topic posts in this thread, and I ask that you immediately take the discussion to another thread. If you must answer them, do not do it in off-topic posts here. It is a very simple thing to cut and paste the posts in question into a new topic.We are not dealing with the reasoning behind your argument precisely because it has been discussed in other threads, and I do not want such a discussion derailing this thread.AdminIRHThis message has been edited by AdminIRH, 09-13-2005 12:00 PM

I will not be participating in the discussion.The problem with maps and diagrams is that I have nowhere online to host them. Otherwise, I could show you the full 5ft x 5ft geological map I compiled as well as dozens of photos of the area.I'll look into getting somewhere to host them.Until then, please ask me any questions you like regarding the areas I mentioned - pick an area at random if you like, and I will describe the formations and features.The Rock Hound

Well, I'm not a geologist and can't be expected to think like a geologist which may make this whole thread futile anyway. My whole effort is to try to rethink OE interpretations in YE terms, so giving me the raw facts is only going to get a general impression of how the Flood might be shown in them. But maybe the next step is to ask questions of IRH as he suggests. That's hard, though, without a visual image of the place we're trying to think about, particularly a map or diagram. My general reactions ARE crawling from my point of view. The walking would be trying to deal with the specific features of the place in detail. I don't know how you should respond. If IRH puts up some visuals maybe that's the place to start. I really think this whole thing may go nowhere. I'm still back in the old thread about how an unconformity might be created by lower strata's being upended beneath upper strata while leaving the upper strata horizontal, and still discouraged by having it slammed in my face, and still discouraged by nobody's even being willing to consider any of my thoughts on it, and still discouraged by the personal attacks, which is not going away just because somebody has opened a thread that disallows them as all the same attitudes are implicit in the peanut gallery responses so far anyway. So I have NO hope for this thread. Maybe it will get interesting eventually but at this point I don't see how.I would really hope that more knowledgeable YECs would come onto it.

Further questions.Are the red conglomerates, red, due to iron or something else?
What particle size are the sandstones? I recently went through a class lab describing igneous, metamorphic, and sediment types. Particle size iirc was an indication of deposition environment.What do you mean by 'tough' sandstone? Larger particle size?When you say 'unconformable', do you mean that there is an unconformity between the two rock types described?Sybill head is described as being faulted. What kind of fault is it? Transform, etc.?I'll have to review my notes on what causes the different colorations of the siltstones (if we have gotten that far). What is their stratigraphy? grey below yellow below green?green xxxxxx
yellow yyyyyy
grey gggggg
?Has the ash been analyzed? Do we have an approximate location for the origin or other information from the chemical composition?

I should clarify what I mean when I say crawl before we walk.I was wondering if you could begin describing some processes and rules that match your observations of certain rock types. In your own words propose a theory on how some rock types formed, such as sediments. Ie. Breccia is created in high energy fluvial environments, it has large, sharp edged clasts surrounded by a matrix. Limestone is created from....Sandstones are created in...
It may get bogged down so if you wish you can describe how you think things are created when you describe IRH's data.I would like your view on some principles. These principles seem important: The principle of superposition, original horizontality, original lateral continuity.Other principles you can define would be nice as well.This way, we can work from a common base of knowledge and create a rational environment. If I tell you Breccia is this and then tell you that a certain mudstone is formed in the same depostional environment, you can then question my position or sanity. If I subsribe to the principle of superposition, but then say that the younger strata is on the bottom of the undisturbed sequence, you can call me on it.

quote:

---

Are the red conglomerates, red, due to iron or something else?

---

They are red due to iron oxidation, yes.

quote:

---

What particle size are the sandstones? I recently went through a class lab describing igneous, metamorphic, and sediment types. Particle size iirc was an indication of deposition environment.

---

The particle size of the Wine Strand rock varied a good deal. The formation consists of conglomerates at the base, which becameinterbedded with sandstones further up, and gradually the beds developed into siltstone and finally mudstone. Wide ripple marks were also found on the top of one of the conglomerates.

quote:

---

What do you mean by 'tough' sandstone? Larger particle size?

---

I need to clarify here - I refer to the Sybil Head formation overall as tough because it has eroded far less than the other sandstone formations in the area. Force of habit; I apologise.

quote:

---

When you say 'unconformable', do you mean that there is an unconformity between the two rock types described?

---

Well, yes. Maybe it's an expression just used by Irish geologists?

quote:

---

Sybil head is described as being faulted. What kind of fault is it? Transform, etc.?

---

That particular fault is a reverse fault. Others in the area are reverse, transform, or a combination of the two.

quote:

---

I'll have to review my notes on what causes the different colorations of the siltstones (if we have gotten that far). What is their stratigraphy? grey below yellow below green?

---

Actually it's "grey below green below yellow", if you want to put it like that. It's an indication of iron oxidation in the rock. Grey or black points to deep water anoxic conditions, yellow or green points to shallow water or coastal conditions, red points to terrestrial conditions.As an explanation, Faith - the iron minerals in a rock will oxidise or "rust" in terrestrial conditions, hence deserts tend to be reddish. So the colour of the rock is a broad indication of how much contact it's had with the air.

quote:

---

Has the ash been analyzed? Do we have an approximate location for the origin or other information from the chemical composition?

---

The ash beds at Clogher Head are composed of pyroclastics and lithic tuffs, interbedded with thin sandstones, siltstones and conglomerates. I managed to get a reasonable thin section of one of the lithic tuffs - it consists of angular, poorly sorted mafic and oxide clasts in a devitrified groundmass, along with altered white mica and chlorite crystallised in cracks and around the clasts.It's been suggested that these beds came at the end of a volcanic eruption or a series of volcanic eruptions.The Rock Hound{edited to fix quote box}This message has been edited by IrishRockhound, 09-13-2005 06:28 PM

---

"Those who fear the darkness have never seen what the light can do."

I've signed up to Photobucket to show everyone my photos. I'll need a while to dig out my stratigraphy disgrams and whatever, but I'll throw them up there too. This is the view from the top of Clogher Head looking out towards Sybil Head in the distance. The bay in the middle distance is Ferriter's Cove, and the smaller bay on the right that you can't really see is Clogher Bay. This is the view looking across Clogher Head and into Clogher Bay.{added by edit} I don't know how to resize the pictures. This message has been edited by IrishRockhound, 09-13-2005 06:45 PMThis message has been edited by AdminJar, 09-13-2005 03:38 PM

---

"Those who fear the darkness have never seen what the light can do."

a HOW TO resize imagesso: This message has been edited by Modulous, Tue, 13-September-2005 07:51 PM

Thanks for the pictures. Unfortunately I used up my time today on the other thread Ben started about YEC methods, and now I won't be able to return until late tomorrow (which here on the West coast USA is eight hours later than in Ireland).