|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Someone who admits he knows nothing about geology, asking where the colum came from? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Randy Member (Idle past 6277 days) Posts: 420 From: Cincinnati OH USA Joined: |
quote: But there are deposits throughout the geologic column that are from rivers and lakes. There are also marine layers that must have been deposited slowly such as massive chalk deposits which coragyps has pointed out. http://EvC Forum: General Flood Topic -->EvC Forum: General Flood Topic Other features such as eolian sandstones, paleosols and pure evaporates are completely impossible in your whirling swirling surging flood model. These facts show that the geologic column was not deposited by a worldwide flood. You continue to claim the compatibility of the geologic column with the flood but your ideas are shown to be nonsense when you try to defend them. It does not matter how much of the column was deposited under water. None of it was deposited during a year of worldwide flood.
quote: You think this but it is absurd. As Edge has pointed out there is no evidence of this magically accelerated decay. Have you forgotten that this runaway subduction boils away the oceans and cooks the earth to death thousands of times over as I pointed out on the Baumgardner thread http://EvC Forum: Creationist Baumgardner: one of the top mainstream mantle/plate tectonics simulators! -->EvC Forum: Creationist Baumgardner: one of the top mainstream mantle/plate tectonics simulators! and predicts a seafloor profile nothing like that seen now as Joe has pointed out? Here is what you said about it on that thread.
quote: Your problem is that while the best that the best and brightest of young earth creationist geologist can come up with to try to produce a source for the flood water runaway subduction is not only not absolute truth it is absolute nonsense. You think that you see some features in some parts of the geologic column that are compatible with deposition by a worldwide flood though you have never been able to substantiate this claim. You then use this unsubstantiated claim as your excuse to ignore the mountains of other data that totally falsify the flood of Noah as a scientific hypothesis. Randy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Randy Member (Idle past 6277 days) Posts: 420 From: Cincinnati OH USA Joined: |
quote: Bunk TB. Why don't you tell us how the Redwall Limestones and Grand Wash Dolomites formed during the flood year? You also have a big unsolved problem with those animal tracks in the Coconino and Navajo sandstones in spite of your bogus claim that it was feasible that the animals rode out flood surges on "high ground, in those thousands of square miles of plains you just mentioned. BTW do you really think that water moving at a walking pace could carry vast quantities of sand for 200-300 miles before spreading it neatly over 200,000 square miles as Snelling and Austin claim or is that too ridiculous even for you? This site thoroghly debunks the ridiculous idea that the sediments of the Colorado plateau were laid down by Noah's flood. http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/ I am sure we are all eagerly awaiting your reply to coragyps regarding chalks. I am still waiting for you to explain to us how the flood sorted amonites of approximately the same size and shape by the complexity of their shell sutures. http://EvC Forum: Flood sorting -->EvC Forum: Flood sorting The Green River formation was mostly deposited in lakes and the 10,000,000 or more laminae correlate with long term climate cycles. Account Suspended The idea that so many layers could be deposited over such a wide area by flood surges is absurd. One thing I have noticed is that the creationist pages on the Green Formation seldom mention the huge number of layers and never mention the correlation to climate cycles. Similar layers are being deposited today in Lake Baikal and can be used to follow paleoclimate back million of years. It is simply not possible for all of those layers to have been laid down in the lake in a few thousand years since the flood. You do know what Stokes law is don’t you? http://www.pages.unibe.ch/..._reports/contidrill/4impor.htmlRandy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Randy Member (Idle past 6277 days) Posts: 420 From: Cincinnati OH USA Joined: |
quote:There is evidence of rapidity in local areas in some cases. There are also many layers in many places that could not have been formed rapidly or by a flood falsifying your claim that a significant fraction (which you will never precisely identify) of the geologic column was formed during a year of worldwide flood. You have been given many examples. I brought up the Redwall Limestone. The Whitmore Wash portion of the Redwall limestone is 98% pure calcium carbonate and was most probably deposited in a quiet sea and not by a swirling, whirling, surging chaotic flood. I have never seen any creationist explanation for the formation of the Grand Wash Dolomites. You are again relying on hasty generalization. Your claim seems to be Some layers some where in the geologic column show evidence that they were deposited by moving water so much of the geologic column (of course you never specify exactly what) could have been deposited by a global flood. You completely ignore that many layers interspersed throughout your supposed flood deposits could not have been deposited by flood and of course ignore all the other evidence that falsifies the global flood.
quote: You are missing the point. To form Sand Waves the water had to be moving no more than four miles an hour. That is a brisk walking pace not a raging torrent. And yet you say it scooped up sand and moved it 200 miles before depositing any of it and then spread it neatly over 200,000 miles in waves that look just like sand dunes. You further claim that it did this repeatedly while animals came down from high ground and made tracks that got preserved between surges. Does this make sense? I say no way.
quote: I have seen them as well. I have also read that the Green River laminae do not exhibit the characteristics of materials deposited this way. Are they sorted by grain size? Are there any ripple marks indicating rapid deposition? Did Berthault’s experiments produce layers that alternate in appearance? I don’t think so. Henke specifically addresses the Berthault experiments and explain why they are not relevant to the link I gave.
Account SuspendedHere is a quote. Henke:So, if this "sorting mechanism" was responsible for the laminae in the Green River Formation, how could this mechanism instantly produce numerous fine-grained laminae over ten's of kilometers (Fischer and Roberts, 1991, p. 1148)? It's one thing to rapidly produce some laminae in a laboratory separatory funnel (see Figure 1 in Sedimentation Experiment: Nature Finally Catches Up!, it's another thing to rapidly deposit thin layers of very fine-grained clay and silt over ten's of kilometers. That is, unlike relatively coarse sand particles, very small particles (silts and clays) take TIME to settle out of solution. So, how could Berthault's "self-sorting mechanism" speed up the deposition of silts and clays? Even the YECs at Varves: Problems for Standard Chronology admit that silts take days to settle out of turbulent water and clays even longer. To me 10,000,000 seems a bit beyond lots!
quote: Not really. I suggest you read the page by Henke that I pointed out. The parameter that is studied is variations in varve thickness and that correlates with astronomical cycles.
Henke: Why would laminae segregate by cycles to conform to the Earth's eccentricity if the Earth is too young to have completed even one of these cycles? How did Noah's "Flood" or "post-Flood" conditions counterfeit the effects of ENSO and the sunspot cycles in these varves? No rivers, turbidity currents, or any questionable speculations based on Berthault's laboratory results can explain them either. YEC claims (they're too inadequate to be called models) for the origin of the Green River Formation are too fast and chaotic to be affected by subtle astronomical and climate cycles. Quiet and stagnant water is needed to record these astronomical processes and slow climatic changes. All YECs can do is invoke groundless miracles or ignore 70 years of research and just refuse to acknowledge the existence of the cycles. You are yet to tell us where the high ground in those thousands of square miles of plain that you just referred to was located. I assume you are referring to the Hermit Shale since this is where the fern fossils are found and it is right below the Coconinos. There is also good evidence that the Hermit Shale is not better interpreted as being deposited by catastrophic land flooding as you claim. Evidence of flooding is seen in the formation but you are again committing the fallacy of hasty generalization when you claim that the entire formation and in fact most of the Grand Canyon sediments were deposited in a flood year.
Account Suspended Concerning the conditions under which the topmost red stratum of the Grand Canyon (the Hermit Shale) was formed, and the means of its formation, we have today a rather definite and interesting picture. A wealth of fossil plants and a number of tracks of animals have been found beautifully preserved in its muddy layers, and by means of these and other indications the following conclusions have been drown. The Hermit Shale represents accumulations of mud and fine sandy material deposited probably by streams flowing from the northeast. Here and there are found evidences of pools and arroyos with wavy ripple marks on their borders and a thin film of shiny slime covering the surface. The trails of worms, the footprints of small salamander-like animals, and the fronds of ferns, mostly mascerated or wilted, are found delicately preserved in this slime. Raindrop impressions, the molds of salt crystals and numerous sun-cracks also add to the picture. This region has been described by Dr. David White as "the scene of showers, burning sun, hailstorms, occasional torrents and periods of drought and drying up of pools" during Hermit times. I suppose you interpret the periods of drought as occurring between flood surges. Have you ever thought of trying lay out a time line for all these surges with drought and animals forming tracks and building nests and so on between flood surges? Of course to do that you would have to identify exactly which layers in the geologic column were flood deposits, which you can’t or won’t do. In the Grand Canyon area Austin starts with the Tapeats sandsones. From there we have the Bright Angel Shale, Muav Limestone, Grand Wash Dolomites, Temple Butte Limestone, Redwall Limestone, Surprise Canyon Formation, Supai Group(Watahomigi, Manakacha, Wescogame, and Esplanade), Hermit Shale, Coconino Sandstones, Toroweap And Kaibab limestones and the Moenkopi formation. Many of these layers have sub layers. That’s a lot layers to form by surges in a flood year. Just consider the Redwall limestones. I have pointed to this site before.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/grandb.htm Here is a quote. The Redwall is divided into four members: the Whitmore Wash, Thunder Springs, Mooney Falls, and Horseshoe Mesa members. The Whitmore Wash is nearly pure calcium carbonate (98% pure). The Thunder Springs member consists of alternating layers of chert and carbonate. The Mooney Falls member is once again almost totally pure calcium carbonate (99.5%). The Horseshoe Mesa member consists of thinly-bedded carbonate with occasional chert lenses.
BTW there are also paleosols in the upper parts of the Redwall formation. I suppose you think they formed between surges. You also need multiple surges to form the Coconino Sandstones in your "model" since the animal tracks are distributed throughout the lower portion of the Coconinos and you need the animals coming in from high ground to make the tracks. The sand also need to dry sufficiently for insects to make tracks and raindrop impressions to form and the surges when they occur need to spread sand over 200,000 square miles. Glenn Morton identifies twenty-eight layers in the geologic column found in North Dakota and at least 26 places around the world.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/geo.htm How many of these were deposited by flood surges? How did the surges deposit correlative layers all over the world? I have a lot of trouble figuring out how that worked. All of these main division have many layers and many have features that could not have formed underwater. How much of the flood year was taken up by the surging phase? Genesis 7:19 says the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth and all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered and 7:24 says the water prevailed for 150 days. So how much of the flood year was devoted to these extra Biblical surges before all the high hills were covered and all life died? For those who may be interesed Jonathon Woolf also has a nice page discusing the formation of the Colorado Plateau and refuting Austin's claims about the Grand Canyon with some good pictures of the Canyon.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://my.erinet.com/~jwoolf/gc_rocks.html We still awaiting your reply to coragyps regarding chalks and I am still waiting for you to explain to us how flood surges sorted amonites of approximately the same size and shape by the complexity of their shell sutures. Randy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Randy Member (Idle past 6277 days) Posts: 420 From: Cincinnati OH USA Joined: |
quote:No individual layer totals a thousand feet in this location though I think there are locations with salt deposits more than a thousand meters thick. Here is what Glenn says about salts layers The Opeche shale is of Permian age and overlies the Minnelusa. The interesting thing about the Opeche is that in the center of the basin, at its deepest part, it is salt - 300 feet of salt. Permian pollen is found in the salt, modern pollen is not found (Wilgus and Holser, 1984, p. 765,766). This bed has the appearance of a period of time in which the Williston Sea dried up, leaving its salt behind in the deepest parts of the basin as would be expected. The area of salt deposition is 188,400 square kilometers. Assuming that over this area the salt averages half that 300 feet(91 m) or averages 45 meters, then this deposit represents 9 trillion cubic meters of salt! With a density of 2160 kg/m^3 this represents the evaporation of 845 million cubic kilometers of seawater. This is 1/14 of the world's ocean water. This is hardly something to be expected in a global flood.
Normal seawater contains about 3.4% salt. Salt is 2.5 times as dense as water so to get a foot of salt you need to evaporate at least 70 feet of water so each of these 200 foot thick salt beds would require evaporation of at least 14,000 feet of seawater over the area. So TB what mechanism do you have for evaporating 14,000 feet of water between flood surges? You can reduce this some by drying the water down into a basin. Maybe only 7 or 8 thousand feet of water evaporated but it is still a lot of evaporation to occur in whatever time you have before the next flood surge. If you evaporate the water by boiling the oceans it is easy to show that you will cook the earth to death many times over.(and later) The early oceanic sediments are covered by desert deposits of the Prairie Evaporite, Interlake, and Minnelusa formations. Oncolites found in the Interlake prove that these deposits took some time to be deposited. There are 11 separate salt beds scattered through four ages: 2 Jurassic Salt beds, 1 Permian salt bed, 7 Mississippian salt beds, and one thick Devonian salt. Half of these salt beds are up to 200 feet thick. The top Mississippian salt is 96% pure sodium chloride! Since they are sandwiched between other sediments, to explain them on the basis of a global, one-year flood, requires a mechanism by which undersaturated sea water can dump its salt. If the sea were super-saturated during the flood, the no fish would have survived. Morton also points out that shale takes time to form. He provides a clear demonstration that the geologic column cannot be the result of a worldwide flood. Randy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Randy Member (Idle past 6277 days) Posts: 420 From: Cincinnati OH USA Joined: |
quote: My calculations don't agree with Morton as to the volume of water evaporated but they do clearly show the magnitude of the problem for YEC. Maybe I'll email Glenn to see why we differ in the final value. I get about 5 x10^20 grams of water to produce a salt layer 45 meters thick over 188,000 square miles containing 8.45 trillion cubic meters of salt, assuming the water was 3.4% salt to start with. This is considerably less than 856 million cubic kilometers which would actually be more than half the water in the world's oceans. Evaporating even the 5x10^20 grams of water I calculate will require about 10^24 J of heat. Most of this heat will be returned to the atmosphere as latent heat of vaporization. 10^24 J is about twice the amount of heat required to heat the entire atmosphere by 100 C and this is only a small portion of the evaporation required to produce all the salt layers in the area let alone all the salt in all the supposed flood layers worldwide. There are huge salt deposits under Michigan as well
Site Not Configured | 404 Not Found Beds of pure rock salt 400 to 1600 feet thick, with additional thinner beds alternating with shales, dolomites, and gypsum, underly the Southern Peninsula. and many other places around the world in addition to the ones you have mentioned. Randy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Randy Member (Idle past 6277 days) Posts: 420 From: Cincinnati OH USA Joined: |
quote: Well that gives me about 700,000 cubic kilometers of water which is still a long way from 845 million and the calcualtion yields a little more heat of course. Even after it stops raining I think it's pretty tough to get these vast evaporates formed between flood surges. In fact it's impossible without major miracles along with many many other impossibilities in "flood geology"Randy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Randy Member (Idle past 6277 days) Posts: 420 From: Cincinnati OH USA Joined: |
Funkmaster:
You can find some basic information about plate tectonics in the Lava Lamp earth at Just a moment... The page links to several short lectures on the subject. The USGS also has a page plate tectonics (also linked from Blanchard’s page) http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/dynamic.html Randy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024