Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hydrologic Evidence for an Old Earth
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 106 of 174 (326668)
06-26-2006 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Faith
06-26-2006 9:45 PM


Re: Hydrological evidence of an old earth
Interesting that creationist scientists don't come around to debate you all.
interesting. yes. it's also interesting that santa claus never speaks up to correct the misintrepations about him in the media and children's songs.
you know, we *have* had a real scientist or two on this board. in fact, we have a few participating in this thead. once, we had a breif visit by a rather prominent scientist who also happens to be a pentecostal preacher. think he's a creationist?
so where are creationist geologists and paleontologists?
maybe they're hanging out with santa claus.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Faith, posted 06-26-2006 9:45 PM Faith has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 107 of 174 (326669)
06-26-2006 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Faith
06-26-2006 9:52 PM


Re: Forum Guidelines Warning
I haven't been going around reciting my Bible Credo. I've been trying to think about the problems posed on the thread.
...and trying to get them to line up with a story in the bible. think we'd miss that?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Faith, posted 06-26-2006 9:52 PM Faith has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 108 of 174 (326671)
06-26-2006 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Faith
06-26-2006 9:28 PM


Re: Magic Mythological Biggie-sized Flood
Who said anything about erosion but you? You are a one-man speculation machine about this flood you claim didn't happen, but your speculations don't bear the slightest resemblance to anything any creationist has ever claimed. Talk about ad hoc. But really, I can't even follow what you are trying to say.
Then how did such a flood affect aquifers that already existed several miles underground under several miles of rock?
And where did such miles of sediments that supposedly made aquifers come from after such an alleged flood?
Creationists assume normal physical and chemical conditions throughout the event.
A worldwide flood where the water comes from magic and goes away by magic is not in any way remotely normal physical conditions. Also you are in direct contradiction to another assertion in the same post:
I don't know how the aquifers were formed, but in a worldwide flood that displaced unimaginable quantities of sediments, created volcanism and earthquakes, the idea that aquifers existed quietly unaffected is simply not possible.
In one year, all historic volcanoes erupted, all historic earthquakes occured, and you call that normal? I call that an atmosphere too posionous to sustain any multicellular life. Additionally eroding sediments at the bottom of the ocean (which is what all the Earth would have been if covered by water) is not possible according to any normal physics. Ocean bottoms are depositional, not erosional, environments.
I have the impression that you haven't done any real examination of what creationist scientists actually have to say about it. Have you?
I am quite familiar with AIG and ICR as I often use them to refute even wilder YEC claims. Have you done any examination of any physical science at all?
I also have seen in this forum how you are continuously bringing up PRATTs in order to sidetrack logical discourse. Haven't you discussed flood geology prior to this thread, which BTW is supposed to be about hydrology?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Faith, posted 06-26-2006 9:28 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Faith, posted 06-26-2006 10:57 PM anglagard has not replied

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6354 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 109 of 174 (326672)
06-26-2006 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Faith
06-26-2006 9:45 PM


Re: Hydrological evidence of an old earth
I speculated that iridium may have floated -- I never said it did so -- based on raeding yesterday that radioactive tritium was carried on ocean currents.
And this is an example of your "ability to recognize practical possibilities, or common sense"?
Could you outline the thought process that takes you from there being tritium in the oceans to iridium possibility floating? I don't see any possible connection at all.
Actually, do you even know what tritium is?

Oops! Wrong Planet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Faith, posted 06-26-2006 9:45 PM Faith has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 110 of 174 (326673)
06-26-2006 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Faith
06-26-2006 9:45 PM


Re: Hydrological evidence of an old earth
But please, stop addressing me if all you guys want to do is play science on this thread, so I can leave you to it.
Once again, it IS a science forum.
Interesting that creationist scientists don't come around to debate you all. I guess they figure it's not worth the abuse. They'll just go on thinking about the problems involved in understanding the flood without you.
In other words they would get their "creation science" hides handed to them. They would rather be in front of a friendly audience and throw out their "factoids" in a fast and furious way that makes it impossible for a careful scrutiny of their false premises and "commen sense" scenarios. As for the the flood part - whatever floats their ark is fine with me - just don't expect to use my tax dollars to teach it to school children in violation of the Constitution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Faith, posted 06-26-2006 9:45 PM Faith has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 111 of 174 (326674)
06-26-2006 10:25 PM


Forum Guidelines Alert
Hi Everyone!
I really strongly suggest that participants either address the topic of this thread or stop posting.
This thread is not about how creationists are being abused.
This thread is not about what happened a year ago.
This thread is not about how one side or the other has no evidence.
This thread is not about past howlers.
This thread is not about arguments from authority (paraphrasing, "geologists know what they're talking about").
This thread is not about accusing others of tedious recitations and saluting flags.
Statements like "I don't know how the aquifers were formed..." strongly suggest that the person making them has said about all they should say.
This thread is not about how scientists devote their lives to learning the skills necessary to analyze that evidence.
And Faith, sorry to call you out specifically, but when anglagard posted on topic your reply was, "Well, if you guys want to talk shop, I'll leave you to it." Talking shop is the purpose of this thread. It is the purpose of all threads in the science forums. If you're not interested in "talking shop," in other words, addressing the topic, then please stop posting.
If anyone has posted a message after this one about something not directly relevant to the topic, then I suggest you edit your message before I see it.
Edited by Admin, : Clearly phrasing in final paragraph.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 112 of 174 (326676)
06-26-2006 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Coragyps
06-26-2006 8:54 PM


Re: Resetting Expectations
Faith: post 90, this thread, is asking for your attention.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Coragyps, posted 06-26-2006 8:54 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 113 of 174 (326682)
06-26-2006 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by anglagard
06-26-2006 10:09 PM


Re: Magic Mythological Biggie-sized Flood
Who said anything about erosion but you? You are a one-man speculation machine about this flood you claim didn't happen, but your speculations don't bear the slightest resemblance to anything any creationist has ever claimed. Talk about ad hoc. But really, I can't even follow what you are trying to say.
Then how did such a flood affect aquifers that already existed several miles underground under several miles of rock?
I don't know. I haven't said one thing about the aquifers that I know of except that there's no way they could have escaped some effects of a worldwide flood, which is pretty obvious. I remember asking a question back near the beginning about the layer of the geo column involved and after that everything went black, so to speak. Most floodist thinking posits that all the geologic column was created by water current, tidal or wave action in the flood. If the aquifers exist in lower layers of the geo column, one has to assume the water accumulated there after the column was formed. But how any of it happened I don't know. I haven't even gotten into thinking about the aquifers as such because the thread has been going everywhere else and it's been hard to follow what you are saying.
And where did such miles of sediments that supposedly made aquifers come from after such an alleged flood?
I don't even understand the question. AFTER?
Creationists assume normal physical and chemical conditions throughout the event.
A worldwide flood where the water comes from magic and goes away by magic is not in any way remotely normal physical conditions.
You add the notion of magic, no creationist does.
Also you are in direct contradiction to another assertion in the same post:
I don't know how the aquifers were formed, but in a worldwide flood that displaced unimaginable quantities of sediments, created volcanism and earthquakes, the idea that aquifers existed quietly unaffected is simply not possible.
In one year, all historic volcanoes erupted, all historic earthquakes occured, and you call that normal? I call that an atmosphere too posionous to sustain any multicellular life.
Where did I say ALL of anything? These phenomena STARTED in the flood. And most of it occurred under the oceans.
Additionally eroding sediments at the bottom of the ocean (which is what all the Earth would have been if covered by water) is not possible according to any normal physics. Ocean bottoms are depositional, not erosional, environments.
OH, I see finally what you are saying. The erosion started with the deluge, before the flood covered everything, and certainly the ground, already frequently "misted" and not hard as a rock, would have been thoroughly saturated quite rapidly by such an intense downpour. Also, a LOT of erosion goes on underwater, as the sides of the continents are constantly eroding away into the water. Picture this land mass, Pangaea, covered by water, probably not all that deeply over the higher areas. It's like an underwater mountain range at that point. Waves and currents are going to be moving across its surface constantly, very heavily sediment-laden waves and currents.
I also have seen in this forum how you are continuously bringing up PRATTs in order to sidetrack logical discourse. Haven't you discussed flood geology prior to this thread, which BTW is supposed to be about hydrology?
I'm answering challenges and accusations, which is what usually happens. I'd love to leave the thread to you since you are not happy with my posting.
And nobody has yet explained to me what a PRATT is.
DID NOT SEE ADMIN NOTICE UNTIL NOW. EXITING THREAD. But you might have mentioned that the little recitation was out of order too, not just my calling him on it. Bye.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by anglagard, posted 06-26-2006 10:09 PM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by arachnophilia, posted 06-26-2006 11:21 PM Faith has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 114 of 174 (326686)
06-26-2006 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Faith
06-26-2006 10:57 PM


Re: Magic Mythological Biggie-sized Flood
But you might have mentioned that the little recitation was out of order too, not just my calling him on it. Bye.
actually, he did. about three different ways. i got called out as much as you did.
And nobody has yet explained to me what a PRATT is.
only about a thousand times.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Faith, posted 06-26-2006 10:57 PM Faith has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 115 of 174 (326688)
06-26-2006 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by anglagard
06-25-2006 7:38 PM


rat time
Well, I get it, really I do,from a layman point of view.
I don't dispute how long it takes water to be forced through rock, based on it's denisity, or pourosity from hydrolic pressure.
What I would like to know, is the areas you are talking about, are you 100% certain that the rock is solid to the earth's core, without cracks?
I live on a rock, everything around here is rock. (I live near waterstone rd. got that name for a reason) I live on a pretty good incline also, and when it rains too much, the water actually can spray out of the cracks in my driveway from hydrolic pressure. When the aquifer reaches it's limit, and then it stops raining, I've seen it take 10-24 hours to stop. But of course we are talking about a mile of rock, not thousands.
My friend, owns a farm not to far from here, and has an artesian well literally under his kitchen. (was built that way on purpose)It dries up, when there is no rain for 20 days. But it will start up pretty quickly when it starts raining again.
I just can't see it taking hundreds of thousands of years for water to travel a thousand miles underground. Unless of course there were no cracks for it to go through.
Wouldn't hydrolic pressure even force cracks and "small tunnels" to form in the weaker sections of the rock?
I have lived where I am at for 13 years now, and I've actually witnessed the streams shift, and carve the rock around here. THe rock is mostly "ledge rock" quartz, with iron in it, in places. Some of it is extremely hard (breaks drill bits, and jack hammers don't do shit) but some of it is softer, where you could break it apart with a hammer. It is, filled with cracks.
Matter of fact, ever since I was little kid, I would stare at the rock carved out when they make the highways. I have seen several different types of rock. You can see cross sections of the earth, and see exactly how the water travels through certain spots, but not others. It is always full of cracks, that the water can travel through rather quickly, and effciently. I have noticed that about every carved roadway, with in a 100 mile radius of where I live, in NY.
Are the Zuni mountains, or the rock under them, really that different?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by anglagard, posted 06-25-2006 7:38 PM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by anglagard, posted 06-27-2006 1:54 AM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 119 by Coragyps, posted 06-27-2006 6:58 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3443 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 116 of 174 (326710)
06-27-2006 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by deerbreh
06-26-2006 9:38 PM


Re: Hydrological evidence of an old earth
Greetings,
Allow me to pick a nit :-)
quote:
Common sense told the fifteenth and sixteenth century Europeans that the the earth was flat...
  —deerbreh
No.
The world was known to be a sphere from ancient times.
This claim is an urban legend - e.g. that Columbus thought the world was flat (he didn't, he just had a bad estimate of the circumference.)
The false view of that period (pushed by the church) was that the earth was the fixed immovable centre of all.
This is what Galileo disagreed with - his last words being "...and yet it MOVES".
The church was happy to accept the world was a sphere, but could not accept that it moved or turned (because people would fall off when they were on the bottom, and because we couldn't feel it turn.)
quote:
...and that the sun rotates around the earth.
  —deerbreh
Yes.
This is what Galileo argued against.
Iasion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by deerbreh, posted 06-26-2006 9:38 PM deerbreh has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 117 of 174 (326711)
06-27-2006 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by riVeRraT
06-26-2006 11:30 PM


Re: rat time
These are good questions.
What I would like to know, is the areas you are talking about, are you 100% certain that the rock is solid to the earth's core, without cracks?
Someone more clever than I called geology a study of time and pressure, since time does not appear to be in dispute, it must be pressure.
Yes, rock deeper than around 5 miles or so is solid (except for the semiplastic Mororovic discontinuity) all the way down for 1800 more miles until one hits the liquid outer core. Actually the rocks on the continental crust are underlain by relatively impermeable basalt, which in turn is underlain by really impermeable Peruskovite? & etc. mantle rock which is only seen on the surface as the rock that makes up Kimberlite pipes. The phase changes are due to pressure and temperature. Essentially the pressure and temperature preclude voids and indeed eventually even pores at great enough depth (Hollywood notwithstanding).
I live on a rock, everything around here is rock. (I live near waterstone rd. got that name for a reason) I live on a pretty good incline also, and when it rains too much, the water actually can spray out of the cracks in my driveway from hydrolic pressure. When the aquifer reaches it's limit, and then it stops raining, I've seen it take 10-24 hours to stop. But of course we are talking about a mile of rock, not thousands.
You are most likely referring to a surface aquifer rather than a confined aquifer. In a surface aquifer, the force of gravity, expressed directly and through the force of water on top of any given volume of water essentially forces such water from rainfall to follow the path of least resistance. Therefore it follows any cracks, fissures, more porous areas, etc. and tends to pop out along the sides and especially at the bottom of a given hill, like a spring, after rainfall.
Since the counterresitance in an unconfined aquifer due to air at the outlet is vastly less than the combined force of water already there along with pressure due to depth of a saturated confined aquifer along its lateral length until its outlet, the water moves much faster in an unconfined than confined aquifer.
I just can't see it taking hundreds of thousands of years for water to travel a thousand miles underground. Unless of course there were no cracks for it to go through.
You nearly answered your own question. Confined aquifers are underground, below and above impermeable layers. The pressure, while not totally precluding voids, essentially squeezes them out of effective existance. The water in the rock, having 2000 times the density of air and being less compressible, does a much better job of not collapsing. One exception is limestone, which often forms caverns due to acidic water absorbing CaCO3 on its way. But is is important to remember, even in the case of caverns, the surrounding rock is still rock and holds up the water from moving rapidly.
Wouldn't hydrolic pressure even force cracks and "small tunnels" to form in the weaker sections of the rock?
Think of it this way, which is harder, water or granite? Water creates voids underground only through chemical reactions, not simple pressure because what is replaced by pressure has nowhere to go while dissolved carbonates in solution go where the water goes. It keeps going until the water becomes less acidic and can no longer hold the carbonates in solution.
Are the Zuni mountains, or the rock under them, really that different?
The short answer is no.
Actually the Abo formation had cracks that were sealed by deposits of carbonates caused by the action of water running through them. This in turn sealed off any conduits for water, rendering their effective hyraulic conductivity much less than originally was present.
Look at roadcuts through some sedimentary rock, you will notice on close examination all kinds of cracks sealed up by carbonate deposits because of the water that had already run through in the past. The very act of water running through such conduits seals them off when the water becomes less acidic and deposits carbonates. Once again limestone may provide exceptions to the rule when acidic water is involved. Also remember roadcuts are near the surface and tend to show such sealing action, deeper rock is under much greater pressure and would have less voids, if any.
Lastly, it is important to remember that the travel time that water may take through an aquifer is directly measured by dying water or doping it with a radiactive isotope and pumping it down a well and then seeing how long it takes to show up in a well downstream so to speak. This measurement tells one how long it takes water to travel in a given aquifer in a rather direct manner.
This is the simplified basic narrative and may not correctly address all the complexities actually involved so anyone with more insight may want to refine the concepts further.
Hope this helps.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by riVeRraT, posted 06-26-2006 11:30 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by riVeRraT, posted 06-27-2006 8:37 AM anglagard has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 118 of 174 (326718)
06-27-2006 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by anglagard
06-25-2006 7:38 PM


question
In a hydrogeology class back in 1983 we worked out how long it would take for rainfall in the Zuni Mountains (the souce of the water in the aquifer) to get to the San Juan River in Northwestern New Mexico through a confined aquifer. The answer was around 830,000 years, if my memory serves correct. The science behind the calculation is here:
Page Not Found
The reason I bring this up is that hydrogeology does have practical consequences since in the Western US agriculture and indeed, much human life, is largely dependent on groundwater from confined aquifers. In order to determine how much water is available, or indeed how soon an aquifer is depleted, is based upon the theoretical concepts outlined in the attached website. These are practical real-life consequences to the exact same set of theories that show how old groundwater may be at any point in a confined aquifer.
I simply do not get how the length of time you calculate it WOULD take to move this water from point A to point B says anything about a worldwide flood 4500 years ago. Simply see no relevance whatever. Can you spell this out better?
{Edit: In other words, present conditions prove nothing about past conditions.}
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by anglagard, posted 06-25-2006 7:38 PM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by anglagard, posted 06-27-2006 8:13 AM Faith has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 119 of 174 (326733)
06-27-2006 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by riVeRraT
06-26-2006 11:30 PM


Wouldn't hydrolic pressure even force cracks and "small tunnels" to form in the weaker sections of the rock?
Not so often out in nature - though it might happen occasionally in a situation like yours where there's exposed rock at the bottom of a cliff/mountain and a column of water clear to the top. Confined rocks get fractured a lot in the oil industry just by water pressure, but the pressures used are a bit higher: they pump into the rock at 3000 (or 10,000+) psi, depending on the depth and type of rock, to make fractures for oil to travel through. And they fill the fractures with sand to keep them from "healing."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by riVeRraT, posted 06-26-2006 11:30 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by riVeRraT, posted 06-27-2006 8:29 AM Coragyps has replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 120 of 174 (326743)
06-27-2006 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Faith
06-27-2006 3:28 AM


Re: question
I simply do not get how the length of time you calculate it WOULD take to move this water from point A to point B says anything about a worldwide flood 4500 years ago. Simply see no relevance whatever. Can you spell this out better?
True, it has nothing to do with any worldwide flood. What it does is provide a minimum age for the Earth which is much greater than 6000 years, although much less than the 4.5 billion found through isotopes and cosmology.
In other words, present conditions prove nothing about past conditions.
Also true, but taken together with all other geologic findings, they sure provide a lot of mutually supporting evidence concerning past conditions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Faith, posted 06-27-2006 3:28 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by deerbreh, posted 06-27-2006 9:49 AM anglagard has replied
 Message 129 by Faith, posted 06-27-2006 11:27 AM anglagard has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024