Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   So what about SILT and dating????
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 86 (164550)
12-01-2004 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by pink sasquatch
12-01-2004 10:29 PM


Re: Not at all: Mis-Construin' a Bit
I do intend to re-read the article (it had many other points, but I only glanced at a few).
Well, while this was tremendously embarrassing ~ mainly because I went off half-cocked and accused someone of misstating while it was I who was misunderstanding him ~ I have learned about the deep depressions major river deltas have caused in the ocean floors.
I have also been reminded how easy it is to misunderstand someone.
Too late to continue, I'm afraid...should been in bed two hours ago...need a "sleepy" graemlin here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by pink sasquatch, posted 12-01-2004 10:29 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by AdminNosy, posted 12-01-2004 11:02 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 32 of 86 (164551)
12-01-2004 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by TheLiteralist
12-01-2004 11:00 PM


Good for you!
This is an unusal degree of humility by the way. Thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-01-2004 11:00 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 33 of 86 (164553)
12-01-2004 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by TheLiteralist
12-01-2004 10:48 PM


Fast Warping Possible?
Is it impossible for this warping to have occurred (if not in the final events of Flood, which I would tend to think) during that 4000 - 5000 years with the non-Flood geologic processes we see at work today (assuming, under the Flood model of course, that an initial, massive amount of sediment was deposited quickly)?
I'm not a geologist so what I say has to be taken with a grain of salt.
Let's look at this:
7 miles is about 35,000 feet in (being generous) 5,000 years. That's 7 feet per year.
The higher crust is somewhat plastic, but since it's not as hot as deep rock it isn't very plastic. What happens to it when you deform it this quickly? It cracks!
That rate of the San Andreas fault is about 45 mm per year (something like 2 inches). You know what happens when it cracks due to the strain, right?
There would therefore be a record of the earthquakes like we have on the pacific coast (but very very frequent and very very much larger). There aren't there ( I am aware of the geologic record of the quakes on the coast - perhaps you can give a reference for the many, many huge quakes around New Orleans) so it didn't happen over the longest possible time frame.
So the warping did NOT (unless you produce evidence) over the long time frame.
Do you now suggest that it happened immediately?
You see, if creationists really thought they had an explanation this sort of very simple calculation would have been done and the evidence looked for. The fact that it hasn't been done shows us that there is no creation "science". There is, instead, a lot of wild-eyed speculation that doesn't stand up to a bit of thinking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-01-2004 10:48 PM TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-04-2004 5:34 PM NosyNed has replied

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 86 (165215)
12-04-2004 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by NosyNed
12-01-2004 11:13 PM


Re: Fast Warping Possible?
Hey NosyNed,
Now I've been chuckling all day about this:
I'm not a geologist so what I say has to be taken with a grain of salt
I chuckle not because you don't have valid opinions on the subject, not at all (rather I found your analysis informative, thanks). It does, however, remind me of an old commercial where a fellow who played a doctor on some TV show starred in an aspirin (or some such medicine) commercial and he said, "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV." Presumably this was a enough reason to purchase brand x over brand y or whatever. Haw! Anyway, rephrased a bit you kinda said, "I'm not a geologist, but I play one at EvC." Sorry, but that just tickles me .
But, in all seriousness, I think your point about cracking rock is quite valid and answers my question quite well about could the depression have occurred in the past 4000 - 5000 years. It certainly appears unlikely.
But I've been musing quite a bit about this, today (so if it's too ridiculous, don't hold it against the other Creationists or the Bible ~ it's my own musing).
So here's my musing, for what it's worth:
Some assumptions (which at present I simply am unprepared to offer mechanisms and such for):
  • There was a global Flood that lasted about a year
  • This Flood deposited soft sediments pretty much everywhere
  • Near the end of the Flood there was a shear event (i.e., the oceanic crust sheared from the continental crust sinking down forming a place to hold the Flood waters ~ in other words, the ocean basins formed)
  • The shear event, which was global, caused corresponding uplift in the continents (in various directions or axis) causing not only mountains to form but also major river vallies from which the Flood waters and the fresher, soft sediments generally ran off into the new basins and rapidly so.
I am not necessarily asking people to take those assumptions seriously, I just am not prepared to delve into all the issues corresponding with those issues at this time (if ever ~ though I might try).
Now, with the assumptions out of the way...would the shear event have caused enough heat to soften the rock on both sides of the shear (particularly the thinner oceanic base rock) so that the quickly dumped sediments would indeed have depressed the soft rock along shear line?
I don't know how deep the Gulf of Mexico is, but the shear would have meant that oceanic base rock scrubbed continental base rock for at least that length. That seems in my mind to be a significant source of heat (probably someone says it would instantly vaporize the oceans or such...).
With this view I am seeing a quick succession of events...almost a single event...as far as the shear and the sediment dumping (and I'm not sure I'm painting a good picture of that event yet).
Anyway, just a thought and I would enjoy seeing it critically examined as NosyNed did my It-Warped-Since-the-Flood theory, which I think he pretty much nixed, but I recall saying I felt like it was a Flood related event anyway.
This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 12-04-2004 05:35 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by NosyNed, posted 12-01-2004 11:13 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by NosyNed, posted 12-04-2004 6:08 PM TheLiteralist has not replied
 Message 36 by Buzsaw, posted 12-04-2004 8:29 PM TheLiteralist has replied
 Message 38 by roxrkool, posted 12-05-2004 12:42 AM TheLiteralist has replied
 Message 43 by roxrkool, posted 12-05-2004 1:25 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 35 of 86 (165224)
12-04-2004 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by TheLiteralist
12-04-2004 5:34 PM


A model of sorts
Congratulations for at least starting to suggest what might have happened. It isn't enough detail of course, but it is a beginning.
Some of this has been discussed elsewhere but one thing that you have a problem with isn't gettting enough heat to soften the floor of the gulf of Mexico; it is that you might have enough melt the crust of the earth and boil the ocean off.
Remember, all this scrambling of rock takes energy and if you release too much too quickly things get really, really hot.
You ideas only have validity if you actually do some of the calculations on what is involved. I don't think either of us are qualified to do it. But if these ideas had any validity I would think the the various creation "scientists" would have run them down to more detail complete with calculations.
However, they don't, if they dare to get the models too detailed the flaws start to show up very clearly. Therefore your suggestions above are about as good as any of produced by the fancy scientists at ICR and the like.
However, you description is probably good enough that if the smarter folks here think about it a bit they will be able to point out predictions that it would make that don't bear out. I'll see if I can think that through but not for most of a day. Busy tonight.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-04-2004 5:34 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 86 (165243)
12-04-2004 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by TheLiteralist
12-04-2004 5:34 PM


Re: Fast Warping Possible?
There was a global Flood that lasted about a year
This Flood deposited soft sediments pretty much everywhere
Near the end of the Flood there was a shear event (i.e., the oceanic crust sheared from the continental crust sinking down forming a place to hold the Flood waters ~ in other words, the ocean basins formed)
The shear event, which was global, caused corresponding uplift in the continents (in various directions or axis) causing not only mountains to form but also major river vallies from which the Flood waters and the fresher, soft sediments generally ran off into the new basins and rapidly so.
Hi Literalist. I appreciate, very much, your input here and the commendable way you present your thoughts.
I believe it was a year or so ago, but I did a thread with somewhat similar hypothesis as yours stated above. In Psalms 104 someplace, in reference to the flood it says something like "the mountains rose up and the valleys sank down.
My understanding is that the average crust thickness of the ocean floor is around three miles, whereas the average for the continents is around 20 miles. I read this some place and have no verification for it, so if I'm mistaken, likely someone will correct me. My hypothesis was that much of the water was in the atmosphere as a vapor canopy effecting a terrarium like atmosphere over the earth and the flood brought most of it down upon a relatively smooth surfaced planet. The weight of all the water sank down i.e. sheared the thinner crust and as you say uplifted the mountain ranges, most of which tend to be along ocean shores.
Of course, it is futile to try to present such an argument here on evc as one soon becomes accused by admin and others of breaking admin rules by unscientific argument. So like you are ending up doing in a nice way here, that's about all we can do is present it as "musings" and leave it at that. I believe it to be factual, but don't know enough to put up a substantial debate on it. Back when I tried it, we went many pages about how such a canopy could exist and all. I was using logic and they were using the math, so to speak. It definitely involves the supernatural and that's the crux. Anyhow, keep up the good work. Again, you're input is greatly appreciated here.

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-04-2004 5:34 PM TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by roxrkool, posted 12-05-2004 12:50 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 40 by Percy, posted 12-05-2004 10:34 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 41 by edge, posted 12-05-2004 12:24 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 42 by IrishRockhound, posted 12-05-2004 1:02 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 48 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-13-2004 9:47 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 37 of 86 (165251)
12-04-2004 9:24 PM


As far as I can see, all this discussion depends on the Chicxulub impact. If there was a perfect world, pre-Flood, the impact didn`t take place. If it happened during or post-Flood, the tremendous expansion would have blown away, or severely disturbed, the sediment layer. Since the layer is still there, do we assume (a) no perfect world? (b)no impact? or (c)no Flood? Hang on, maybe there`s a (d) God used the impact as part of His engineering plan pre perfect world?

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Cthulhu, posted 12-05-2004 1:46 PM Nighttrain has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 38 of 86 (165271)
12-05-2004 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by TheLiteralist
12-04-2004 5:34 PM


Re: Fast Warping Possible?
TheLiteralist writes:
* There was a global Flood that lasted about a year
* This Flood deposited soft sediments pretty much everywhere
Your second assumption is sediment being deposited globally. This would be a very good piece of evidence if the YECs could ever find the strata and correlate it. And since it happened only 4,000 years ago, it shouldn't be that hard.
Each continent should show at least a few massive flood related deposits composed of highly unsorted, extremely heterolithic assemblages with material ranging in size from perhaps cobbles (or may be too small) to huge boulders. In addition, the mega-conglomerate would likely be intermixed with the ripped and shredded remains of vegetation and various forms of life. These sorts of deposits should be easily seen as they would form highly anomalous, albeit localized, formations.
As the waters deepend, and lost energy, I would expect deposition of sediment to reflect this gradual loss of energy by forming an immense, laterally-continuous, fining-upwards sequence all over the planet - and that would likely include continental deposition in ocean basins. Here is another chance for YECs to find evidence in support of a large flood - continental material contaminating the world's ocean basins.
* Near the end of the Flood there was a shear event (i.e., the oceanic crust sheared from the continental crust sinking down forming a place to hold the Flood waters ~ in other words, the ocean basins formed)
As for this assumption, I'm having a hard time visualizing this shear event. What exactly is it? A sort of decoupling of sediments at the continental boundary?
You stated that oceanic crust sheared from the continents forming the ocean basins. So that means there were older oceanic basins prior to the flood and the shear event created new ones.
The only way I can wee you forming a 'new' basin is to somehow form voids below the ocean basins - sort of like limestone dissolution or maybe displacing all the magma below the surface. Otherwise, all you'd be doing by forming 'shears' and sliding rocks around on top of them is to slosh the water around by displacing it. You'd create some humongous tidal waves, but not ocean basins.
* The shear event, which was global, caused corresponding uplift in the continents (in various directions or axis) causing not only mountains to form but also major river vallies from which the Flood waters and the fresher, soft sediments generally ran off into the new basins and rapidly so.
Assuming this 'shear' event is possible, you need to think more about the geometry of the sheared 'plates,' how many of them sheared off, where they collided (plate/plate collisions in the ocean basins the - mid-ocean ridge perhaps? - plate/continent collision, etc.), and which mountain ranges (I'm assuming the youngest ones) plateaus were formed.
The problem is that any orogenic episode related to these sorts of events would probably form metamorphic cored mountain ranges at continental margins - like the coast ranges - not in the center. This theory would have to explain young mountain ranges like the Rockies located in the center of the North American continent or ranges like the Sierra that are cored by immense felsic plutons rather than metamorphic rock.
We would have to know what the physiography of the planet was prior to the flood also.
Now, with the assumptions out of the way...would the shear event have caused enough heat to soften the rock on both sides of the shear (particularly the thinner oceanic base rock) so that the quickly dumped sediments would indeed have depressed the soft rock along shear line?
Not all shear events result in heat formation. Well, maybe a little.
They'd likely have elevated temperatures, but I would expect all that cold water overlying the sediments, or the water-laden sediments to keep the rocks pretty darn cool. However, again assuming the shear did produce heat, you would expect to see recrystalization of minerals/rocks on both sides of the shear, but likely more pronounced, pervasive, and extensive metamorphism of the rocks above. The thickness of the rocks really isn't as important as the composition of the rocks themselves as far as alteration is concerned.
I'm not sure what you are trying to get at with the last part of your statement, however. You need to describe the geometry and location of the shear better.
I don't know how deep the Gulf of Mexico is, but the shear would have meant that oceanic base rock scrubbed continental base rock for at least that length. That seems in my mind to be a significant source of heat (probably someone says it would instantly vaporize the oceans or such...).
This description really doesn't make any sense at all. I don't understand how a shear is going to 'scrub' anything. Or how you're getting oceanic rock to 'scrub' continental rock.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-04-2004 5:34 PM TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-13-2004 9:42 PM roxrkool has replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 39 of 86 (165273)
12-05-2004 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Buzsaw
12-04-2004 8:29 PM


Re: Fast Warping Possible?
buzsaw writes:
The weight of all the water sank down i.e. sheared the thinner crust and as you say uplifted the mountain ranges, most of which tend to be along ocean shores.
I guess that depends on how you define "ocean shores."
While many of the world's mountain ranges can be found on the so-called margins of continents, that's not the case for Asia:
SEE HERE
This message has been edited by roxrkool, 12-05-2004 11:43 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Buzsaw, posted 12-04-2004 8:29 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 40 of 86 (165324)
12-05-2004 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Buzsaw
12-04-2004 8:29 PM


Re: Fast Warping Possible?
buzsaw writes:
Of course, it is futile to try to present such an argument here on evc as one soon becomes accused by admin and others of breaking admin rules by unscientific argument. So like you are ending up doing in a nice way here, that's about all we can do is present it as "musings" and leave it at that. I believe it to be factual, but don't know enough to put up a substantial debate on it.
But your lack of knowledge in this area is easily remedied: read a good geology book. I believe this is the same advice consistently given to you all along.
The complaint constantly leveled at you was that you kept up a continual stream of proposals that not only had no supporting evidence, but contradicted known facts and even violated the laws of physics. You then compounded this by not addressing the evidence presented to you across hundreds of messages, by not presenting any relevant evidence of your own, and all the while maintaining that that ideas in violation of known scientific laws could somehow be acceptable as good science.
So stop bemoaning your ignorance by saying things like "don't know enough" and do something about it. That way you won't keep advancing "roll-your-eyes" kinds of ideas.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Buzsaw, posted 12-04-2004 8:29 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 41 of 86 (165352)
12-05-2004 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Buzsaw
12-04-2004 8:29 PM


Re: Fast Warping Possible?
quote:
Buz: My understanding is that the average crust thickness of the ocean floor is around three miles, whereas the average for the continents is around 20 miles. I read this some place and have no verification for it, so if I'm mistaken, likely someone will correct me. My hypothesis was that much of the water was in the atmosphere as a vapor canopy effecting a terrarium like atmosphere over the earth and the flood brought most of it down upon a relatively smooth surfaced planet. The weight of all the water sank down i.e. sheared the thinner crust and as you say uplifted the mountain ranges, most of which tend to be along ocean shores.
And
quote:
Literalist: Near the end of the Flood there was a shear event (i.e., the oceanic crust sheared from the continental crust sinking down forming a place to hold the Flood waters ~ in other words, the ocean basins formed)
The shear event, which was global, caused corresponding uplift in the continents (in various directions or axis) causing not only mountains to form but also major river vallies from which the Flood waters and the fresher, soft sediments generally ran off into the new basins and rapidly so.
This is a rather fanciful notion regarding oceanic and continental crust. Do either of you have an explanation how the earth became so smooth with continental and oceanic crust existing at the same level in the first place? Isostatically speaking, this is virtually impossible.
I also find it amazing that an equal depth of water would place differential stress on the oceanic crust so that it would sink relative to the continents.
These are just a few questions I'd like to raise regarding this idea of a smooth earth and formation of the ocean basins. There are plenty of other questions where these came from.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Buzsaw, posted 12-04-2004 8:29 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Coragyps, posted 12-05-2004 3:23 PM edge has not replied

  
IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 4436 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 42 of 86 (165359)
12-05-2004 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Buzsaw
12-04-2004 8:29 PM


Re: Fast Warping Possible?
quote:
Of course, it is futile to try to present such an argument here on evc as one soon becomes accused by admin and others of breaking admin rules by unscientific argument.
That's a back-handed insult if I ever saw it. Buzsaw, you tried to present a scientific case for the Flood and the 'canopy' idea, and you were soundly refuted. I don't recall you invoking 'goddidit' during that thread.
Is it any wonder that you were debated on scientific grounds and defeated on the same grounds? Don't make yourself out to be such a martyr; your hypothesis was knocked down fair and square, so stop parrotting it in other threads. By all means, put a case together that includes the supernatural if you feel you must - but don't call it a hypothesis, because it has been rejected by science.
And now, back to the thread topic: Literalist, although you might think your Flood scenario is plausible, we still do not see any evidence for it in the geological record. A single flood event would produce a single sediment layer; there is nothing to suggest that a larger flood would produce anything other than a larger layer.
The Rockhound

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Buzsaw, posted 12-04-2004 8:29 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-13-2004 9:56 PM IrishRockhound has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 43 of 86 (165365)
12-05-2004 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by TheLiteralist
12-04-2004 5:34 PM


Re: Fast Warping Possible?
Oh, I forgot to ask where the shear would have initiated - in the oceanic crust (basalt) or up on the continents? The difference being a listric or decollement type fault vs. a landslide failure type of mass movement.
Also, since these are likely large-scale structures, we should see evidence of them still.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-04-2004 5:34 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

  
Cthulhu
Member (Idle past 5852 days)
Posts: 273
From: Roe Dyelin
Joined: 09-09-2003


Message 44 of 86 (165372)
12-05-2004 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Nighttrain
12-04-2004 9:24 PM


Or (e)The 65 million years since the impact?

Proudly attempting to Google-Bomb Kent "The Idiot" Hovind's website
Idiot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Nighttrain, posted 12-04-2004 9:24 PM Nighttrain has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 45 of 86 (165399)
12-05-2004 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by edge
12-05-2004 12:24 PM


Re: Fast Warping Possible?
I also find it amazing that an equal depth of water would place differential stress on the oceanic crust so that it would sink relative to the continents.
Heavy water?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by edge, posted 12-05-2004 12:24 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by NosyNed, posted 12-05-2004 3:27 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024