|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,482 Year: 3,739/9,624 Month: 610/974 Week: 223/276 Day: 63/34 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4866 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Stratigraphy and Creationism | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: The problem arises when there are layers that show non-water deposition, such as sandstone showing ripple marks from wind displacement. In other words, we have a layer of desert sedimentation above a layer of water deposition on top of a layer of desert sedimentation, and on and on. For your global flood to occur, the water had to dry up, a desert form, and then another flood, ad nauseum. It is the interspersal of non-flood deposition between layers of water deposition that is the problem. Not to mention fine particulate sediments such as shale that require vast amounts of time to accumulate given the thickness of the layers. In a violent and cataclysmic flood, these particulates would stay suspended for long periods of time and only collect at the top of every geologic column.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1011 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
lunkhead writes:
It so "blatantly obvious" that no YECs have EVER been able to point to these elusive flood deposits. The evidence is blatantly obvious that there was global flooding. It so "blatantly obvious" that no professional geologist has ever found anything even remotely suggestive of a global flood.
Whether or not all, some, or part of the strata are due to the Noachian flood, the formation of the planet, or some other global catastrophe is anybody's guess.
Nice try. You think you've found an out by suggesting the flood may or may not be responsible for all the geologic record, however, the fact is, if the geologic column is not entirely the result of a global flood, you've just increased the problems one hundred-fold. The simplest explanation is that the flood resulted in everything we see today. Fine. Now you have to explain why there are buried sections that are identical to surficial deposits we see today, such as dunes, river systems, lakes, soils, alluvial, erosive, etc. I suppose you could say, "well the flood is not responsible for that stuff." Okay. So did the flood happen before or after? No matter what you say, there will always be a problem with surficial deposits - because they occur THROUGHOUT the entire geologic record. Or you can say, "well you're just interpreting it wrong." Fine. You interpret it and then explain how no one has ever observed mud cracks forming on the ocean floor, or paleosols, or sand dunes like the Jurassic Navajo Sandstone that contains terrestrial fossils and many foot prints? SO if the flood is not responsible for everything, then we are now looking for a smaller section? You still have to correlate it globally, however, and then you have to account for all the thousand of feet of strata both below and above your supposed flood section. Not so easy. Which is why no YEC geologist is willing to step up to the plate. We're still waiting... two hundred years later...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1011 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
lunkhead writes:
Well doesn't that statement speak volumes!!! lol PS This forum should be called "ATDforum" (Agree to Disagree). Evolutionists are convinced merely by what they see. Creationists are convinced by what they cannot see. Apparently, those God-goggles have opaque lenses. [This message has been edited by roxrkool, 02-18-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Lunkhead Member (Idle past 7357 days) Posts: 15 From: The Great Northwest, USA Joined: |
I mentioned to my family that I signed on to an E v C forum, and they said, "Boy, that sounds like a pointless, endless loop." They're right. An endless exercise in speculation.
Singing off,Lunkhead
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
It is a very common reaction. When asked questions that can not be answerered the creationist "agrees to disagree" and leaves. Will there ever be an answer?
The "which are flood deposits" question is just one of those that seems to be unanswerable and produces this reaction. I think we had a questions topic for these kind of questions. Bye, oh-so-appropriately-named-poster.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Maybe the movement to include creationism in science classrooms will learn the same lesson? Maybe they think that in a classroom no one will ask in depth questions like we do here at EvC, or in peer review for that matter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
Maybe the movement to include creationism in science classrooms will learn the same lesson? Maybe they think that in a classroom no one will ask in depth questions like we do here at EvC, or in peer review for that matter.
Creation DOES need to be taught with evolution We have discussed that. I would like to see creationism in the classroom. And you are right, they would probably get up and walk out when these questions came up. Wouldn't that be amusing!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1728 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: I know. I have read Brethault. Several times. Joe is right. His work is irrelevant. There is no mystery to the formation of laminated sediments in sands. You have been duped into thinking that this is some kind of significant finding.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1011 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
Shocking!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Lunkhead Member (Idle past 7357 days) Posts: 15 From: The Great Northwest, USA Joined: |
Why are you so concerned with only the Noachian flood layers? There are several other events that contribute to the totality of the strata. For those not familiar, there are over 400 verses in almost half the books of the Bible that speak directly about the creation of the earth, and most of them are NOT in Genesis. Many more are in Psalms, Job, and Isaiah. Some of the phrases that are seen repeatedly are that He "stretched out the heavens" and "water poured from the vaults of the earth".
A few key things the Bible says:1 The earth was originally covered with water "like a blanket" 2 The land rose up and the sea was gathered into one place (i.e. there was a single original continent) 3 Before it rained, water used to flow out of the ground every morning and water the whole surface of the ground.(Gen 2). (Hmm, I wonder what kind of sedimentation a daily flooding for 2000 years would cause?) 4 Noah's flood in the Summer and Fall 5 The retreat and drainage of Noah's flood during the Winter and Spring (including glaciation) 6 The implied breakup of Pangea into the present continents, during or possibly after Noah's flood So, I don't understand why y'all evil-utionists are so bent on only the Noachian flood. But of course, you won't believe this either. There is some very detailed and interesting info on some of this by Bernard Northrup (who I see Joe Meert has commented on in Northrup's papers): http://www.ldolphin.org/rockrecord2.htmlhttp://www.ldolphin.org/harmon1.html http://www.sedin.org/PDFS/final125.pdf LUnkHeaD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5702 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: Northrup's papers are very vague and Northrup is not a geologist. The combination is lethal for his writing. I also think you are missing the point. My questions listed previously ask for specific strata that are pre-flood, syn flood and post flood. So, how much of the global strata was deposited before the flood (or created before the flood)? How do you recognize these rocks? Where is the evidence for the onset of the global flood. What globally correlatable layers were syn flood (specifics please, I have plenty of vagaries)? How much of the geologic record is post-flood? Quantify and specify, please. You see, creationists thrive on non-specificity because the minute they specify, it bites them in the butt. So, have you got anything of use? Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Lunkhead Member (Idle past 7357 days) Posts: 15 From: The Great Northwest, USA Joined: |
You obviously didn't read Northrup's papers. He is very specific about which layers are what.
LunKhEaD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1011 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
Lunkhead writes:
Because it was the biggest storm in the history of the planet... assuming the planet is 6,000 years old. It moved continents, carved the Grand Canyon, and built the mountains. Geology is concerned with the history of this planet, why shouldn't we be interested in finding the flood layers? Maybe because the lack of flood layers is a gaping black hole in the whole flood theory?
Why are you so concerned with only the Noachian flood layers? 3 Before it rained, water used to flow out of the ground every morning and water the whole surface of the ground.(Gen 2).
So you're saying it never rained before the flood? If water flowed out of the ground and flooded the surface every day for 2000 years, where are those sediments? Point them out.
(Hmm, I wonder what kind of sedimentation a daily flooding for 2000 years would cause?) Take a shot at it. What do you think you would see?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
Well, it seems to me, a non geologists that they are at least an attempt to give some connection between stratigraphy and the flood. However, even I can see that they are very far from "very detailed". They still don't actually point to the strata that are flood and not just the approximate time frame.
I'll wait for Joe to comment on them further.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1011 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
According to Northrup:
Archean rocks are the result of the initial creation when all the world was underwater. Proterozoic rocks are the result of massive drainage of the uplifting continents. The flood is responsible for the Cambrian through about the Pennsylvanian. Continental break-up starting in the Mid-Mesozoic, which results in glaciation from the Mesozoic to the Cenozoic. yada, yada, yada... This is specific in a creationist context, and apparently to you, but falls woefully short of what is required by mainstream scientists. Northrup talks about flood deposits, tidal wave deposits, wind deposits, landslide deposits,... but fails to name a single one. THAT is what we want to know. What FORMATIONS represent Northrup's tidal waves, and so on? Until creationists can do that, their flood theory won't be acknowledged by anyone.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024