Is the Global Flood Feasible? Discussion Q&A

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl_but_not_THAT_Karl:

There are many other examples, do you wnat to hear about them?

---

Certainly Karl, but realize I am no expert in geology. I merely 'stumbled' into these 'evidences' which seem to support the creationist's hypothesis per se of the global flood (their creation/curse/restoration model) which greatly sooths my 'faith' in the biblical gospel.Please don't expect me to debate much about the quotes I just gave, unless something seems really suspect, scientifically.Thanks,I look forward to your data observations.--Phil

I need to get to bed, so I'm not going to launch in geo-refutations right now.One claim was particularly intriguing:

quote:

---

6) PILLOW LAVA
Pillow lava is molten rock which has been formed and cooled under water. It is marked by peculiar concentric circles. This type of lava is found on Mt. Ararat right up to the line of the ice-cap at 13,000 feet. Mt. Ararat, at one time, was under water.

---

I leave the burden to you (Philip), to supply a link documenting the geology of Mt. Ararat, and in particular, the presence of pillowed volcanics. Something besides a creationist site.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:
Certainly Karl, but realize I am no expert in geology. I merely 'stumbled' into these 'evidences' which seem to support the creationist's hypothesis per se of the global flood (their creation/curse/restoration model) which greatly sooths my 'faith' in the biblical gospel.

---

If your faith hinges on the accuracy of creationist web sites you have a rough journey ahead.

quote:

---

Please don't expect me to debate much about the quotes I just gave, unless something seems really suspect, scientifically.

​

Thanks,

​

I look forward to your data observations.

​

--Phil

---

They are ALL suspect scientifically, but I will let the geologists take care of addressing the other issues.Here are some references for fossil meteorites:Schmitz B, Tassinari M, Peucker-Ehrenbrink B
A rain of ordinary chondritic meteorites in the early Ordovician
EARTH PLANET SC LETT 194 (1-2): 1-15 DEC 30 2001Patterson DB, Farley KA, Schmitz B
Preservation of extraterrestrial He-3 in 480-Ma-old marine limestones
EARTH PLANET SC LETT 163 (1-4): 315-325 NOV 1998Schmitz B, PeuckerEhrenbrink E, Lindstrom M, et al.
Accretion rates of meteorites and cosmic dust in the Early Ordovician
SCIENCE 278 (5335): 88-90 OCT 3 1997Schmitz B, Lindstrom M, Asaro F, et al.
Geochemistry of meteorite-rich marine limestone strata and fossil meteorites from the lower Ordovician at Kinnekulle, Sweden
EARTH PLANET SC LETT 145 (1-4): 31-48 DEC 1996Childress JO
Harvesting fossil meteorites
GEOTIMES 41 (10): 14-14 OCT 1996-------------------The statement that no fossil metoerites have been found is at best lazy ignorance, 2 minutes with a web browser will tell you that, and at worst an outright lie. Are these the people you trust?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:
3) WORLDWIDE OCCURRENCE OF WATER-LAID SEDIMENTARY ROCK:
Approximately 75% of Earth’s crust is sedimentary rock, which is rock formed in and by water. The geological and fossil evidence reveals that the world was once inundated by physical forces with which modern man is not acquainted. A global Flood would have deposited huge amounts of sediment throughout the world.

---

Indeed, sedimentary rocks are widespread, but 75% of the crust? I would like to see this documented. I can only find descriptions of the sedimentary record as a "thin veneer" overlying the dominantly plutonic and metamorphic crust. The oceanic crust, for instance, has sedimentary cover of 0 to 1 kilometer, whereas the magmatic portion is 5 to 6 kilometers thick.There is also a reason for so much sedimentary rock above sea level. It's called plate tectonics. You should read about it sometime and see what your professional creationists do not tell you about geology.

quote:

---

4) MARINE FOSSILS ON CRESTS OF MOUNTAINS.
The highest mountain on Earth, Mt. Everest, along with the tops of every other mountain, contains rocks and fossils that were once under water. Marine fossils and salt clusters formed by sea water have been found atop Mt. Ararat. Such evidence harmonizes perfectly with the biblical account: a worldwide Flood which covered every mountain on the face of the Earth.
Fossilized marine life can be found on every mountaintop in the world

---

First of all, this is wrong. There are not fossils found on top of 'every mountain in the world.' Try Mt. Fuji. Any marine fossils? I had this discussion with Fred Williams last year, also. He seemed to think that fossils from the Tertiary/Cretaceous formations under his back yard would be the same as those in the igneous and metamorphic complex that makes up Longs Peak a few miles away. Sorry guys, no fossils up there. Someone is deceiving you.Nevertheless, there is a reason that marine fossils can be found on many mountain tops. It's called plate tectonics. You should read about it sometime.

quote:

---

5) FORMATION OF FOSSILS.
Fossils are found all over the world; but by and large, these are not being formed today. Sudden death, sudden and instant burial and sudden pressureall at the same timeare required in order to form fossils. Otherwise, decay from oxygen and other elements block the process from occurring.

​

...A major flood would generally create a fossil order from the simple to the complex forms of life according to an animal’s habitat, mobility, and density. Hydrodynamic selectivity would then layer out the dense, less mobile marine beings (such as tiny creatures like the trilobites, crustaceans, mollusks, and echinoderms) in the cambrian rock (lowest layer of strata) more rapidly than less dense, more mobile ones.

​

Many fossil graveyards were jammed with every type of creature
they could be buried in a roughly predictable order by rising floodwaters

---

This is worse than I thought. Maybe someone else can address this. So much misinformation, so little time.

Ugh! My thread is becoming corrupt! What happend to Mark's argument on a lack of lithification rigour? I'll have to comment on a few of philips slightly inutile evidences (no affront intended of course) as well as edge.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-13-2002]

"4) MARINE FOSSILS ON CRESTS OF MOUNTAINS.
The highest mountain on Earth, Mt. Everest, along with the tops of every other mountain, contains rocks and fossils that were once under water. Marine fossils and salt clusters formed by sea water have been found atop Mt. Ararat. Such evidence harmonizes perfectly with the biblical account: a worldwide Flood which covered every mountain on the face of the Earth.
Fossilized marine life can be found on every mountaintop in the world"
--I do not think that every mountain has records of marine fossils, though many do. However this is due to the method of orogeny applied in its history of orogenic construction. Most mountain ranges are formed by plate tectonic cataclysm, in which this colliding of continent to continent, sea-floor to sea-floor, or continent to sea-floor will often indeed elevate marine sediments and ocean basalts to then be the formation of many mountain crests. Continent to continent such as india's influence on thrusting through the Asian continent to produce the himalayas is (as you have cited Mt. Everest) a perfect example of this. It has elevated sea-floor sedimentary rock and thus fossil inclusions. Continent and sea-floor collisions will have sea-floor sediments scraped off by the adjacent continent while being subducted. Sea-floor is always subjected to subduction beneath continental plates during collision because it is less buoyant. Continental plates have a higher buoyancy because it is less dense than the Earth's mantle and thus sea-floor. This was brought about by the placement and distribution of lithophilic elements concentrating toward the forming crust as the earths primordial mantle convection took place. Conventional Flood theory as well as uniformitarian geology is well built to cope with this."5) FORMATION OF FOSSILS.
Fossils are found all over the world; but by and large, these are not being formed today. Sudden death, sudden and instant burial and sudden pressureall at the same timeare required in order to form fossils. Otherwise, decay from oxygen and other elements block the process from occurring."
--Fossilization can and will take place in the correct conditions, this happens rather often by landslides, submarine land-slides will also have the same effect and are hundreds of thousands the amount of cataclysmic nature of ones produced out of the oceans (though these have happend previous our ability to observe [or detect] the event). Though still while land-slides can in no way be attempted to be used to account for all the fossils found, thogh it is happening today by this process."Many fossil graveyards were jammed with every type of creature"
--Very strong assertion there! Did they list a reference?"7) OCEAN SALT CONTENT.
Foraminifera are tiny one-celled creatures which have the ability to record the temperature and salinity of the water in which they live. When they die, their shells maintain the record. Today, modern technology can decipher this record and has discovered that a dramatic decrease in the salinity of the sea once occurred. Only a flood on the scale of Noah’s could have accounted for such a change."
--Strong assertion there as well.. I would doubt it as well, Rapid rain would produce haloclinic seas, which would in-turn concentrate salt contents towards higher depths. [Haliocenic seas, that is, a halocline would be produced, (though more profoundly at higher latitudes) which is is the depth at which the salinity changes rapidly; it forms the boundary between the two layers.]"8) SUDDEN EXTINCTION OF DINOSAURS AND OTHER ANIMAL SPECIES
Many evolutionary scientists believe that a large cemetery body, 7—15 miles in diameter, struck the Earth 65 million years ago. They believe this led to the extinction of the dinosaurs. This theory harmonizes well with some of the catastrophic circumstances associated with the Flood; however, evolutionists’ timing of the event is significantly astray."
--I think that the conventional wisdom of uniformitarian and Flood theology can well account for the K-T extinction and the celestial impact within their own scales."9) ABSENCE OF METEORITES IN THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN
Thousands of asteroids and chunks of meteoric matter circle the sun, and many have plunged to the surface of the moon and the Earth. If the Earth is billions of years old, as evolutionists claim, where are the thousands of impacts one would expect to find in the geological layers of the Earth?
--No meteorites have ever been found in the geologic column, except in the top layer of strata."
--This isn't correct. Though what is correct is that they are extremely difficult to find, the larger ones would literally vaporize into hundreds of thousands of fragments and be thrown into the air within the vicinity."11) REDWOODS
The giant redwoods of California are a testimony to the universal Flood. These trees never die of old age. Why, then, are the oldest living specimens only about 3,500 years old?"
--Evo's would say something along the lines of 'chance'. While I would say it is expected. (though older living ones are found in the lower 4000's of years). Either that or they would argue for dendochronologies supposedly in the 8000's of years such as for the bristle-cone pines, of course this is not due to direct ring quantities and the bristle-cones probably arent the best trees as they frequently are known to produce many non-season related rings.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-13-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-13-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-13-2002]

Philip, I know you said this wasn't yours, and a search reveals it can be found at many places on the web, but doesn't at least some of this stuff sound fishy to you?Meteor impact craters *are* found in sedimentary layers (see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/seismic.htm for an example, search for "meteors").Redwood trees *do* die, though I'm not sure of what, and the oldest redwoods are estimated to be perhaps 2500 years old, not 3500. But the oldest trees in the world are bristlecone pines, around 5000 years old, so 3500 year-old redwoods, if such exist somewhere, are irrelevant to the argument.A flood does not order organisms from the simple to the complex. Density, shape and serendipity are probably the biggest factors.I'm surprised dust on the moon and 2LOT wasn't on that list.There are three types of Creationist arguments:-- Arguments from the pulpit. These have no scientific merit whatsoever. They're appropriate only for people who either are unwilling to question or have no scientific background whatsoever. The arguments you posted fit in this class. Informed Creationists blush when they see such things.-- Arguments for laypeople. This includes all other Creationist arguments. These have a higher level of scientific sophistication, but usually are inconsistent with existing theory or evidence or both.-- Scientific arguments. The empty set.--Percy

"The oceanic crust, for instance, has sedimentary cover of 0 to 1 kilometer, whereas the magmatic portion is 5 to 6 kilometers thick. "
--Actually ocean basalts may be as thick as 30km if mind serves me right. (we've got cores up to 9 km (or was it miles?) in MOB's)"There is also a reason for so much sedimentary rock above sea level. It's called plate tectonics. You should read about it sometime and see what your professional creationists do not tell you about geology."
--Your correct for the former, though I do believe the latter was uncalled for. "First of all, this is wrong. There are not fossils found on top of 'every mountain in the world.' Try Mt. Fuji. Any marine fossils?"
--What Edge? Mt. Fuji is a Stratovolcano silly!"Nevertheless, there is a reason that marine fossils can be found on many mountain tops. It's called plate tectonics. You should read about it sometime. "
--Actually it is the other way around, the reason you are looking for is because some 'mountains' are ones similar to Mt. Fuji, a stratovolcanoe. They are technically not due to plate movement, as well as the hawaiian islands and other continental mountain ranges or many single volcanic mountains due to hot-spots."This is worse than I thought. Maybe someone else can address this. So much misinformation, so little time. "
--I'll take care of some of it, feel free to critique me on some of my points though, wasn't opening any books for the replies.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-13-2002]

"Informed Creationists blush when they see such things."
--I do, I do, I do!------------------

Well expressed!--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"The oceanic crust, for instance, has sedimentary cover of 0 to 1 kilometer, whereas the magmatic portion is 5 to 6 kilometers thick. "

​

--Actually ocean basalts may be as thick as 30km if mind serves me right. (we've got cores up to 9 km (or was it miles?) in MOB's)

---

No problem. I'm sure that in some places the sedimentary load is thicker too. The point is that you cannot have 75% of the crust as sedimentary rocks with these numbers.

quote:

---

"There is also a reason for so much sedimentary rock above sea level. It's called plate tectonics. You should read about it sometime and see what your professional creationists do not tell you about geology."

​

--Your correct for the former, though I do believe the latter was uncalled for.

---

It is a legitimate question. No name-calling or accusations. Why do the professional creationists not explain how plate tectonics can form mountain ranges?

quote:

---

"First of all, this is wrong. There are not fossils found on top of 'every mountain in the world.' Try Mt. Fuji. Any marine fossils?"

​

--What Edge? Mt. Fuji is a Stratovolcano silly!

---

It is also a mountain. The original statement said that fossils are found on ALL mountain tops. And yes it is silly. That's the point. There are LOTS of mountains with no fossils on top of them.

quote:

---

"Nevertheless, there is a reason that marine fossils can be found on many mountain tops. It's called plate tectonics. You should read about it sometime. "

​

--Actually it is the other way around, the reason you are looking for is because some 'mountains' are ones similar to Mt. Fuji, a stratovolcanoe. They are technically not due to plate movement, as well as the hawaiian islands and other continental mountain ranges or many single volcanic mountains due to hot-spots.

---

Plate tectonic theory includes the concept of hot spots. And many stratovolcanoes are related to conververgent plate boundaries.

quote:

---

Originally posted by minnemooseus:
I need to get to bed, so I'm not going to launch in geo-refutations right now.

​

One claim was particularly intriguing:

​

I leave the burden to you (Philip), to supply a link documenting the geology of Mt. Ararat, and in particular, the presence of pillowed volcanics. Something besides a creationist site.

​

Moose

​

---

I've just done some searching (both Google and Scirus) for information on the geology of Mt. Ararat. Other than that it's a stratavolcano, information seems to be remarkably scarce. So, Philip, I must again ask, where did you get your information on Mt. Ararat and the pillowed volcanics?Regards,
Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

I can agree on all your statements, though these are worth slight further commenting:"Why do the professional creationists not explain how plate tectonics can form mountain ranges?"
--Well it may depend on the scenario given, in most cases as I have read through geology papers from creationists. It like would be in a geology journal be assumed that the reader has previous knowledge on atleast basic or higher type geologic concepts."Plate tectonic theory includes the concept of hot spots. And many stratovolcanoes are related to conververgent plate boundaries."
--Well yes, though they are not the cause nor have any large impact on plate boundaries or their tectonics when present in these locations. They are self-conceptual magmatic plumes, though they would be included in a conventional plate-tectonics education, they just are not directly related.------------------

"I've just done some searching (both Google and Scirus) for information on the geology of Mt. Ararat. Other than that it's a stratavolcano, information seems to be remarkably scarce. So, Philip, I must again ask, where did you get your information on Mt. Ararat and the pillowed volcanics?"
--Interesting indeed! So if most magmatic activity were propelled by the effects of the flood. Where would Noah's ark be hiding? Under a lot of alternating layers of lava and ash, what the heck are they on the look-out for? They should be looking for structural patterns of Carbon or something like that if anything. There may still be structural patterns or nails or if water were present, possibly even chunk of wood inclusions in stratigraphic lava flows. Just speculation of course.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-13-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Why do the professional creationists not explain how plate tectonics can form mountain ranges?"

​

--Well it may depend on the scenario given, in most cases as I have read through geology papers from creationists. It like would be in a geology journal be assumed that the reader has previous knowledge on atleast basic or higher type geologic concepts.

---

Or it could be that they don't want you to know. It could be that they are taking advantage of the layman's ignorance of geology. Otherwise why would they ask why marine fossils are found on the tops of all mountains. Do you think they want you to say that it happens because the rocks have been uplifted at convergent plate boundaries? No, they want you to think that there were floods that covered the mountains.

quote:

---

"Plate tectonic theory includes the concept of hot spots. And many stratovolcanoes are related to conververgent plate boundaries."

​

--Well yes, though they are not the cause nor have any large impact on plate boundaries or their tectonics when present in these locations.

---

Of course not. They do not affect the boundaries, the boundaries affect them.

quote:

---

They are self-conceptual magmatic plumes, though they would be included in a conventional plate-tectonics education, they just are not directly related.

---

Hunh? "Self-conceptual?" Even if they are independent of the boundaries they are still part of plate tectonics. In fact they provide good evidence of plate tectonics.