|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 45 (9208 total) |
| |
anil dahar | |
Total: 919,510 Year: 6,767/9,624 Month: 107/238 Week: 24/83 Day: 0/3 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The TRVE history of the Flood... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1965 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
It would have been the only land to run onto, the rest being the Flood itself. In that particular area anyway. Higher up in the early stages I suppose there would have still been some dry land. So our particular animal friend here just happened to get caught in the latest tide.
That won't work. The Zuni transgression, one of the later ones, has trees and dinosaur tracks in the Mesa Verde Group which was in an area previously flooded by earlier transgressions. How did those trees grow in coal swamps in less than a year? Why and how did dinosaurs repopulate the area in one year only to be run off again by a rising 'tide'? ETA: This is the problem with ad hoc explanations. They eventually run into reality of contrary facts. Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1965 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
I'm picturing the way the wet ground looks after a tide has gone out, it's not like erosion on land, it's a flat wet area. It would just become the surface of a rock in the Geological Column.
So, you've never been to the California coast ... But remember, your tides have to move hundreds of miles every 6 hours. Do you really think the sediments they leave behind would look like mudflats? That's silly.
Waves would occur at the encroaching edge of the water, but if the receding tide keeps pulling it all back out to sea there wouldn't be any waves while it's out. While it's in there would have been, at the farthest reach of the water, but what we're discussing is how tracks could have been formed in the sediment after the tide went out.
You realize that waves are not actually moving water very far, don't you? Receding water would still produce waves. Certainly everywhere I've been, they do. There are some places where shallow shorelines eliminate waves, but I'd say that's not the rule.
Yes, well perhaps your imagination is better than mine. I'm open to adjusting my scenario if necessary. Yes I figure as the sea was rising with the Flood the tides would have to have reached very far onto the land. How far? I dunno. A long distance, reaching farther with each tide because of the rising of the sea.
And you don't see that as a problem. Hundreds of kilometers would not be a problem? Every 6 hours?
As for dinosaur nests, I have to figure they were already there, got overtaken by the Flood and covered by sediment-heavy water. What were their nests made of by the way?
But they were in areas already overrun by your tides 12 hours previously.
If plant stems and that sort of thing they might have floated on the water for a while before being buried.
These are not stems. They are rooted trees. The formed in swamps with rivers running through them.
But your trees are fossilized. That implies that antediluvian forests were overtaken by the Flood which buried lots of trees which got fossilized in the wet sediments which were the perfect condition for fossilization.
Once again, they are rooted in areas already overrun by the flood and then eroded.
Well there WAS land, before the Flood. Dinosaur nests would have been on that land as the Flood rose and buried them. Raindrops were probably preserved the way I suggested tracks would have been -- in damp sediment between tides then covered and filled in by sediment-laden Flood water.
See above. You are just saying the same thing over and over. Look at the chart of cratonic sequences which you call tides. This isn't working.
Birds of a feather getting buried together rather than mixed. I don't know how to explain the order but I'd bet it isn't quite as neat as you all think.
THat's it? You don't know, but it must be so? And it must be less orderly? That's an argument?
We're talking sediments deposited in layers to a depth of as much as three miles. They probably sat under the Flood water for some time before it receded. Then it would have taken the uppermost layers with it, but that would still have left layers a mile deep in the Grand Canyon area and two miles deep to the north in the Grand Staircase. the ones left behind would have been the most compacted of course, not as easy to break up and wash away as the upper layers.
So now you reject the cratonic sequence theory. So, there weren't 6 cycles with tides rushing across the continent.
Then it would have taken the uppermost layers with it, but that would still have left layers a mile deep in the Grand Canyon area and two miles deep to the north in the Grand Staircase. the ones left behind would have been the most compacted of course, not as easy to break up and wash away as the upper layers.
Faith, it's hard to discuss this when you keep changing your story. What happened to the tides and the unconformities? Please get your story straight.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1965 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
High tides are twelve hours apart, and low tides are twelve hours part, but each tidal cycle consists of a high tide and a low tide 6 hours apart. The water rushes in for six hours to reach high tide, then it rushes out again for six hours to reach low tide, a total of twelve hours. Then the process repeats.
Exactly.
Clarifying Edge's point, he's questioning your scenario because it requires a tide to rush in hundreds of miles in only six hours, and then to rush out again in only six hours. To pick a simple example, if the tide was rushing inland a distance of six hundred miles then it would require the tide to flow in and later flow out at the rate of one hundred miles per hour.
In this case, I was assuming that Faith wanted each cratonic sequence to represent a single 'tidal' event. However, I am not sure now what she means. It just isn't clear.
This is why Edge is questioning how animals could have time to run in any distance to leave tracks, and how the tracks and nests with eggs could be left behind in such violent water, and how fine sediments could have been deposited, and so forth. Edge will have to confirm whether I've stated his concerns accurately.
All that and how you would preserve any kind of deposits, fossils, etc., with water rushing around like that. But I don't think anyone is sure what Faith means. So, it's all moot I suppose. But I'm glad that you understood my argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1965 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Here's where it becomes clear that I don't accept the chart of the six transgressions as understood by standard Geology. To me it suggested the one Flood in stages of rising, rather than a series of transgressions that covered all or most of the continent. The Flood wouldn't have completely covered the land in the early phases as the transgressions supposedly did, ...
Not sure where you get this. There is nothing on the chart to suggest that all of the dry land mass was covered at any single point in time. It only depicts a generalized craton.
I'm really unable to picture what the chart supposedly represents.
And I have been trying to interpret your posts in terms of the chart. Evidently, that was a waste of time.
I get that unconformities would be caused by receding water eroding away previous deposits, but that's about it for my ability to interpret the idea.
Seeing into the deep past is not easy.
Nothing grew during the year of the Flood. {abe: except I suppose in areas where the water had receding though it was still receding}. You are apparently conflating something from your model with something from mine.
Demonstrably wrong. Fossilized forests militate against your hypothesis. Even forgetting about the cratonic sequences, you have a lot of questions to answer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1965 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
ABE: Have you explained the cause of the subsidence of a basin? Why is it confined to that limited local area? You've said the salt has nothing to do with it, but what does? If the basin subsides, why not the land around it? /abe
Well, the main cause we've discussed is loading by the sediments themselves, but there are others related to the mantle or temperature differences in the lower continental crust, or failed rifting and probably others. Sometimes there are inherited structures from Precambrian basement that cause basins to form.
I had in mind subsidence of the huge areas on which the layers are deposited so deep, not basins. As it is those huge areas seem to remain unsubsided.
Yes, but it's not always that simple. And actually, they are basins forming on the thin edges of the craton and on parts of the oceanic crust nearby. This is where basins form, such as the Mississippi Delta basin which has been discussed.
Please do not do this to me. I can't be expected to remember anything that's been posted without more description.
That is why I gave you the location of Moose's diagram showing the section I provided but converted to no vertical exaggeration (i.e., a 1:1 scale).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1965 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Well, it's possible I need to learn more about tides. I figured that since they occur now that they would also occur during the Flood.
Likely so. I'm not quite seeing how the gravitational attraction of the moon would lift that amount of water and sediment onto the continent. You really need another mechanism that operates with greater force on the period that you want.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1965 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
The famous petrified forest in Yellowstone Park has up to 27 layers and a total vertical height of ~1000m.
Not likely. The Mt St Helen's catastrophe gives some insight into how petrified forests could have formed during Noah's Flood. See this article which the following extract is from. The Yellowstone petrified forests - creation.com For a number of reasons. First of all, the Yellowstone trees were buried by volcanic ash, not lake sediments. The comparison is invalid. Do you want more? ETA: Ah! I see that Dr. A beat me to this. Nice. Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1965 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Forty days and nights of rain all over the earth would turn most of the land mass to mud, ...
The atmosphere cannot hold that much moisture, Faith. You need some ad hoc explanation for where that meteoric water came from.
... creating mudslides everywhere. A mudslide created by a local flood can do a lot of damage all by itself.
So, you are saying that there were no rock formations before the fludde, yes? Where did the mudslides flow if there were no hills? Why didn't rivers form? If they did, where are they in the geological record?
I posted pictures of that a long time ago. Multiply that by millions. Much of the land would be scoured nearly flat.
Again, no hills, no mountains, no rock formations. Is that true? Do you have evidence of such mudslide events in the geological record?
The oceans would rise up onto the land, heavy with sediment from their own sources as well as the mudslides.
What do you mean 'their own sources'? Why would rising seawater carry huge sediment loads? What force is moving the water such that it can carry mud up onto the continent?
People and animals would be dying in each phase; others would try to get to higher ground.
And yet there are no human fossils in the early fossil record. Odd, yes? What about human artifacts, where are they in this mudslide.
the oceans would deposit sand, mud, silt, and calcareous ooze in layers as it rose.
Please show us any known flood that deposited limestone.
At its height more sediments would precipitate out of the standing water.
What kind of sediments are you precipitating here?
There would be nothing anywhere but water.
Then what is the source of sediments? Why do we have shorelines throughout the record? And why do we not see deep sea sediments or fossils in the Cretaceous seaway, for instance? It would seem that they would be carried along with this load of sediment from the ocean.
Everything would die that couldn't live in the water, and even marine life would die because of all the sediment in the water.
And limestone deposits would be impossible. Did Noah bring an aquarium on the Ark?
There's a start.
Sounds like a multiple reversing global mudslide hypothesis. Which is not in the geological record... Not a good start, actually.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1965 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Wow
The record of people who say they speak for God is not very impressive.
That's, like, the craziest thing I've read today. That's a really big problem, in multiple ways, and I don't think I can talk to you anymore*. I can't believe you actually think that. Well, I mean, I can believe that you believe it, but I'm surprised at how conceited you are. Pride is an abomination - check yourself. *I'll still point out the errors and mistakes you are making, but I don't think I can relate to someone so deluded that they think they can speak for God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1965 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
By the way, trying to prove the Flood is only part of the project.
You have a project?
The bigger part is showing the utter nonsensicalness of the Geological Time Scale. Seems to me that knowing it's based on a stack of horizontally laid wet sediments in which are encased billions of dead things, should be reason enough to regard it as delusional, ...
How else would water-lain sediments look? Why would they not be evenly bedded strata with sharp contacts? And why would a fludde create the strata as they are. AFAIC, your scenario is based on mudflows which are never known to create extensive, bedded strata. So, yes, something around here is delusional...
... without any other information, ...
Well, there you go. Start paying attention to the data.
... and that the stack of lithified sediments is good evidence for a worldwide Flood.
You keep saying that but never explain why. OH! That's right, it's obvious.
In a way I don't see the need for any more argument, it's open and shut.
A typical YEC discussion: Just shut it down.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1965 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Nooooo, we assume the Flood and try to prove it from the observed facts. We are not here to argue for the Bible's veracity.
Exactly. You don't want facts to get in the way of your preconceived story. So, ignore as many as necessary.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1965 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Well, we know that they are literally unable to be speaking for God - I mean, they're contradicting the known scientific fact that the planet has never been covered in water since humans have been here.
I have never understood why an omnipotent god would go to the trouble of a flood, with all of the collateral damage and pointless geological problems, to punish a single reprobate species. I mean, it only took 6 days to create the entire universe, so why spend a year with one simple task, leaving behind and entire planet of questionable evidence?
There's no way God is that stupid
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1965 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Edge, Doc,
And the conclusion was what?The linked article discusses whether the petrified forest at Yellowstone was repeatedly buried by volcanic ash. I'll leave it at that. Here is a more scholarly article on the topic of the Specimen Ridge petrified trees: Yellowstone fossil forests: New evidence for burial in place | Geology | GeoScienceWorld
"Abstract Evidence from stratigraphic relationships and petrographic analyses indicates that most upright tree stumps at Specimen Ridge in Yellowstone National Park were buried in place. These stumps are commonly rooted in a fine-grained tuffaceous sandstone that shows no petrographic evidence of being deposited by current action; in fact, most sandstones have textures resembling immature soils. Conglomerates that overlie these root-zone sandstones flow around and bury the vertical trunks. Trees were apparently killed in place by either mudflows or rising lake waters, giving rise to discontinuous, localized clusters of preserved trees in a given stratigraphic interval. However, the episodic nature of mudflow sedimentation indicates that these stacked clusters are likely remnants of successive forests with enough time between them to allow for incipient soil development." I have added bolding to direct you to the salient parts of the abstract. I think it's pretty clear that while some trees are transported, most of those in life-position were buried in situ. ETA: I think that the lesson here is that Jonathan Sarfati is not the best resource for geological information. Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1965 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
I don't see where he denies that the sediment is volcanic.
True. Sarfati tries to plant some seeds of doubt, but never really commits himself. The guy isn't stupid, just wrong. And devious.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1965 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Explanations based on the Bible aren't "ad hoc" and the explanation for the enormous amount of rain is the "waters above the firmament" that existed from the Creation:
But this is a perfect ad hoc explanation. So you want 'waters above the firmamanet' ... Okay, what is a firmament? How did the water get there? How did sunlight reach the earth with all of that moisture in the air (or wherever)?
I know a geologist thinks only in terms of what is observable in the world now -- according to the uniformitarian principle that says things have always been the way they are now -- but Bible believers accept what the Bible says about how things were very different before the Flood. However strange it sounds and however hard it is to comprehend, the original Creation had "waters above the firmament" that were released from the "windows of heaven" at the start of the Flood. According to inferences from this, it had never rained on earth before that.
Okay, so what is a 'window of heaven', where are they and why did the open? If it never rained before, how deep was the water table? So, yes, this is all ad hoc, just barely biblical and fanciful, all at the same time.
I just mean that if you look at Walther's Law it shows limestones that would have come from the ocean. Why WOULDN'T rising sea water carry all that sediment that had come off the land, AND that came from the ocean itself?
Walther's Law does not apply to floods or mudflows. First of all, it takes time to create limestone formations. One year won't cut it. And then you have to deal with the fact that your tides carry so much sediment that it would overwhelm any carbonate minerals. Then once you go over a couple of kilometers depth, calcium carbonate goes back into solution.
The "fountains of the deep" would no doubt have stirred up the oceans as they became a major source of the water that flooded the land.
See? Now, you are 'stirring up the oceans'. How does that facilitate limestone formation? And what are 'fountains of the deep'? Where were they? Show us evidence that they existed.
abe; the water was rising onto the land, why would any special "force" be needed for it to carry all kinds of sedimentary particles with it? /abe
Well, I can only assume that the rising waters are carrying sediment to deposit on the continent. How do you move all of that sediment? What massive currents are your contriving?
The "early" layers are marine, right?
The first layer of a transgression is essentially a beach sand. If there was no rain and no sea and no waves prior to that, where did you get the sand? And 40 days of rain? That means flooding, and even today people die in relatively minor local floods; so don't tell us that people only lived on high ground or ran to higher ground. We see their homes and artifacts all carried away. So, where are their tools, their livestock, their dwellings in the early stages of the flood? You are simply not making any sense.
People would have been buried higher up. or just drowned in the sea.
Yes, and deposited in marine sediments, mudflows or whatever you are making up for the early flood stages.
Since the uppermost strata would have been washed away in the receding Flood water it probably took the people and their artifacts with it out to sea.
So, why do we see so many places with the uppermost strata in place? Where are the transported human fossils and artifacts in the ocean sediments?
I'm basing this on Walther's Law which shows that rising sea level does deposit limestone. How many local floods involve rising sea level?
Actually, you aren't. Walther's Law does not address mudflows flowing up a continental slope and then across continents.
Whatever was carried in the water. Should have been a lot of stuff after mudslides and fountains of the deep opening up.
And you claim to see that?
Why wouldn't rising sea level create shorelines? Or receding sea level for that matter?
A shoreline implies a land mass, and they are everywhere in the geological record.
Dunno. I can't know everything.
I had no idea.
Not according to Walther's Law
Then please find us a modern flood deposit that forms limestone. So, all I'm seeing here are ad hoc explanations, mostly made up by your or other YECs. They open up a host of questions that are never answered. I'd say that YEC is a failure and is, in fact, mostly extra-biblical.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024