Is Flood Geology Falsifiable?

[RobertByers]

Everyone:
Heres one I think.
Since we creationists say that rock creation was done instantly and did not or could not take place over time therefore all geologists have to do is show sediment that is on its way to becomeing rock. I mean sediment that is already having change in its compopsition due to pressure on it .You could show sediment that is 1% or 10% or 50% along to becoming officialy rock. In many waus this could falsify creationist geology. First because most or all sedimentary rock we see as created by the flood year. Due to great pressure on collected sediment lasting a few hours or perhaps days.
Otherwise we would say earth since or now has no rock making process going on in regards to sediment. Volcaic rock is different of coarse.
There you go.
Rob Byers

 

[Baggins]

Everyone:
Heres one I think.
Since we creationists say that rock creation was done instantly and did not or could not take place over time therefore all geologists have to do is show sediment that is on its way to becomeing rock.

That is easy enough, any pile of semi-lithified sediments on any continental shelf may be becoming rock.

The peat bogs of Ireland may one day become brown coal.

The sands of the Sahara may one day become a sandstone

In any deep pile of sediments, say on a continental shelf basin like the Gulf of Mexico, there will be a transition from unconsolidate grains at the surface to lithified rock deeper in the section. If you drill through this you will go on a transition from mud/sand to mudstone/sandstone.

Of course these sediments may be eroded away and never become rock.

The very fact that you appear to think that there is rock and nothing else shows that you now next to nothing about geology.

But you are in luck I have two earth science degrees and I can cure your ignorance

So now having shown you that you can find transitions from unconcolidated sediment to rock you are no ;onger able to be a YEC; CONGRATULATIONS!

I mean sediment that is already having change in its compopsition due to pressure on it .

Any sedimentary basin on earth will show that. And just about any drilling rig on earth will drill through such a change.

In some cases their is solid rock and the sea bottom so we can discount those cases.

You could show sediment that is 1% or 10% or 50% along to becoming officialy rock.

Yes we can

In many waus this could falsify creationist geology.

Many things falsify creationist geology, this is just one of them, but congratulations for thinking of it yourself.

You can now tell your mates that you have personally falsified creationist geology.

First because most or all sedimentary rock we see as created by the flood year.

Perhaps you can be the first creationist to attempt to explain:

1) the White Cliffs of Dover
2) The Permo-Triassic Desert sandstones of Northern Europe
3) Evaporites
4) Coal cycles

in terms of a flood. I have never met a creationist who would attempt to answer these questions, because they can't.

None of the rocks we see can be explained in terms of a global flood. That idea was falsified 200 years ago by geologist who were also, in the main, Christians.

Due to great pressure on collected sediment lasting a few hours or perhaps days.

Poppycock

Otherwise we would say earth since or now has no rock making process going on in regards to sediment

This is obviously not true it is quite obvious that rock formation is ongoing

.

Volcaic rock is different of coarse.

In what way?

There you go.
Rob Byers[

Well done, you falsified creationist geology

 

[Loudmouth]

Everyone:
Heres one I think.
Since we creationists say that rock creation was done instantly and did not or could not take place over time therefore all geologists have to do is show sediment that is on its way to becomeing rock. I mean sediment that is already having change in its compopsition due to pressure on it .You could show sediment that is 1% or 10% or 50% along to becoming officialy rock. In many waus this could falsify creationist geology. First because most or all sedimentary rock we see as created by the flood year. Due to great pressure on collected sediment lasting a few hours or perhaps days.
Otherwise we would say earth since or now has no rock making process going on in regards to sediment. Volcaic rock is different of coarse.
There you go.
Rob Byers

Granites are also a good example of rocks forming slowly. Granites are igneous rocks that cool very slowly which produces large crystals. Each crystal forms at a different temperature due to simple chemical laws that can be recreated in the lab. As each crystal cools it reaches a closure temperature which starts the radiometric clock in that crystal. Therefore, if granites form slowly due to slow cooling we should get a cooling curve as measured by the different ages of different crystals. That is exactly what we observe. Here is a cooling curve:

The data and descriptions can be found here:
http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm

 

[RobertByers]

Baggins:
Perhaps you need another degree.
Not only did you not provide any answers to what was asked but you don't realize you didn't.
These examples you gave are not evidence of sediment along a process to becoming rock but only sediment that was interupted when a process was at work.
Sediment into rock is from pressure. Fast to us and slow to you.
How would this pressure be affecting the Sahara?
Coal is not rock as such. Come on.

ThThere is no may happen. Where is it happening? A process in effect as we speak. Creationism says that this is not happening because it takes a sudden event to tun sediment into rock.

Your gulf shelf example is not evidence this is happening but only evidence it did happen and now is stopped. It is itself evidence of the flood pressure on sediment.
If you want to say that layers in the basins are right now in a process to becoming rock then you must show how the top pressure is actually changing this sediment as we speak.
It fits creationist models that the basin was interupted in changing sediment into rock and is now dormant.
Of coarse since its slow to you it would be difficult to show the process is going on as opposed to a memory of a ended process.
You are not looking for intermediates from sediment to rock but intermediates in PROCESS today of going from sediment to rock.
You must show this is so and so falsify creationists models. you can'y presume its going on in layed areas because by our models it would be that layered too and yet dormant.
Rob Byers

 

[Baggins]

Baggins:
Perhaps you need another degree.

Perhaps you need to get a first one before launching ad hominem attacks on people just because they know more on a subject than you do.

Not only did you not provide any answers to what was asked but you don't realize you didn't.

If you haven't the wit to understand what I have written that is not my problem it is yours.

I think most people reading my post will be able to grasp that sediments in many basins are a continuum of unconsolidated grains to solid rock as you get deeper. I kept the geology as simple as possible,

These examples you gave are not evidence of sediment along a process to becoming rock but only sediment that was interupted when a process was at work.

No they aren't, the process is continuing all the time, some basins are sinking, new sediment is coming in on top, the deeper sediments are being heated and compacted more an turning to rock. This isn't an interrupted process but one that is continuing all the time.

Perhaps if you had any understanding of the earth sciences you might of grasped that simple idea. I am sorry for you that you couldn't, you could try reading this, it will help and it is couched in simple terms:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_of_rocks

concentrate on the formation of sedimentary rocks in this case.

Sediment into rock is from pressure.

Amongst other things, but pressure is a major component of the process.

Fast to us and slow to you.

What?

How would this pressure be affecting the Sahara?

By burial, deserts have been buried before as the Devonian and Permo-Triassic rocks of Northern Europe show.

I wasn't saying that the Sahara will be preserved as a desert sandstone, but I see no reason why parts of it in basinal areas shouldn't be preserved in the same way.

Coal is not rock as such. Come on.

Coal is rock. The fact that you do not know that shows your ignorance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal

It is a sedimentary rock, but the harder forms, such as anthracite coal, can be regarded as metamorphic rocks because of later exposure to elevated temperature and pressure.

It always amazes me the ability of creationists to spout away on topics that they obviously, demonstrably no nothing whatsoever about.

We are seeing a great case in point here

Where is it happening?

In every sedimentary basin on earth unconsolidated sediment is being altered to rock

A process in effect as we speak

.

Correct

Creationism says that this is not happening because it takes a sudden event to tun sediment into rock.

That doesn't suprise me, most creationist, like yourself, appear to know nothing about geology.

I suggest you read the links I provided

Your gulf shelf example is not evidence this is happening but only evidence it did happen and now is stopped.

The process is still happening, this is demonstrable, we can measure the rates of sediment input

It is itself evidence of the flood pressure on sediment.

There was no flood

If you want to say that layers in the basins are right now in a process to becoming rock then you must show how the top pressure is actually changing this sediment as we speak.

Read the links, learn some geology

It fits creationist models that the basin was interupted in changing sediment into rock and is now dormant.

Sadly, for you, this isn't true

Of coarse since its slow to you it would be difficult to show the process is going on as opposed to a memory of a ended process.

It isn't

You are not looking for intermediates from sediment to rock but intermediates in PROCESS today of going from sediment to rock.

The process is slow, but ongoing and measurable.

You must show this is so and so falsify creationists models.

Done

you can'y presume its going on in layed areas because by our models

No, we can measure the rate that sediment accumulates in a basin, we can measure the rate that a basin down warps. It is all demonstrable.

it would be that layered too and yet dormant.

What a shame that you feel confident enough to tell untruths on a subject that you obviously know little about.

That is correctable you know. Just read up a bit about sedimentology.

 

[Baggins]

Your inability to explain any of the following:

1) the White Cliffs of Dover
2) The Permo-Triassic Desert sandstones of Northern Europe
3) Evaporites
4) Coal cycles

Is also noted

 

[RobertByers]

Baggins.
I read carefully what you wrote and some of your links yet you don't read m equation here.

Its up to you to show where sediment IS turning or on the way turning into rock.
All you show is sediment and then presume from premises that it is turning into rock. Yet you show no evidence.

Of coarse sediment is going into basins or deltas etc. Yet its weight etc is not changing underlying sediment into rock. At least no evidence. As i said it would be hard to show it by your models as your models require great time.
Thats your problem.
Your trying to falsify creationist geology. Your not doing this. Your just showing interpretations of geology that we have other interpretations.

Yes basins receive sediment and perhaps are warping. Yet is there evidence of new rock being actuallt made that wasn't there in 1492 A.D.
Yes you can find intermediate RESULTS in sediment on the road to rock but where is intermediate sediment that actually is turning into rock?
All that you talk about fits creationist models of sudden events that perhaps were interupted.
I do believe rock has been created since the flood but only in local events.
Perhaps in deep piling on sediment one can change the composition of the underlying sediment over time but not into rock as time was not there and topo much weight and maybe heat was needed.
Its still your move
Rob byers

 

[Loudmouth]

Of coarse sediment is going into basins or deltas etc. Yet its weight etc is not changing underlying sediment into rock.

That's a big problem for flood geology. This is the mechanism by which the sediments in the Grand Canyon were supposed to form.

If sediments are not immediately turning into rock under flooding situations then the sediments in the GC can not be due to flooding.

Yes you can find intermediate RESULTS in sediment on the road to rock but where is intermediate sediment that actually is turning into rock?

That would be the intermediate results. Rock that is halfway between loose sediment and rock. If rock forms slowly, and not swiftly as flood geology suggests, then this is exactly what you would expect to find.

I do believe rock has been created since the flood but only in local events.

Igneous rock has surely been created.

Perhaps in deep piling on sediment one can change the composition of the underlying sediment over time but not into rock as time was not there and topo much weight and maybe heat was needed.
Its still your move
Rob byers

Then how did the walls of the GC form? They are rock at the very top, such as the Coconino Sandstones.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

No, I do not --- but look at it this way: Who is the only one who could have?

Q, Thor, Anceints, atlanteans, silver surfer, Satan, Quasar, Mr Fantastic, Paul Bunyon, GFSM, RA, Besylids
just to name a few.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Deleted.

 

[Baggins]

Baggins.
I read carefully what you wrote and some of your links yet you don't read m equation here.

What does M equation mean?

Its up to you to show where sediment IS turning or on the way turning into rock.

Sediment is turning into rock in sedimentary basins and deltas, to name just two types of area, all over the world right now.

A specific case would be - The Niger Delta.

Sample paper here:

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/els/02648172/1996/00000013/00000003/art00067

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=3019235

http://faculty.gg.uwyo.edu/heller/Sed Strat Class/Sedstrat6/sedlect_6.htm

The geological literature is littered with thousands of such papers because sedimentation and the processes of rock formation are of intense interest to oil companies, the processes that turn sand to sandstone can also change a fantastic reservoir rock into a compacted and cemented sandstone that can contain practically no liquid at all.

Your whole argument is an argument from ignorance, you are assuming that because you know nothing about how rock forms then nobody knows how rock forms. It has obviously never entered your mind that petroleum geologists would be intensely interested in the process by which sediments evolve.

Subjects you could google would include:

compaction, where pressure forces water out of the rock

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compaction_(geology)

cementation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cementation

where gaps between sediment grains are filled in with minerals

The whole process can be researched under the term:

Lithification

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithification


Why anyone would think that this process has stopped when the processes that drive it - basinal fault movements, erosion and deposition etc continue is beyond me.

You may as well claim that Neptune has stopped orbiting the sun because you haven't personally observed that happening.

All you show is sediment and then presume from premises that it is turning into rock. Yet you show no evidence.

You can google lithification along with well drilling. If you look at the fragments that come up when oil companies drill wells, which are logged and described, they move from unconsolidated sediment, through poorly consolidated sediment to rock.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well_logging

There are whole divisions of companies such as Fugaro and Schlumberger set up to investigate a process that you say doesn't occur. Doesn't that strike you as slighly wasteful? Or perhaps they have got it right and little old you doesn't know what he is talking about

Here is a site with a very simple explanation of the process:

http://www.geomore.com/sedimentary rocks.htm

I doubt even you would claim that erosion and deposition don't occur. I have posted a paper which shows that the Niger Delta increases to deepen as this eroded sediment is emplaced at the top of it, what process is going to stop the deeper sediments being increasingly compacted and lithified? I'd love to hear that.

To be honest I can't even see why someone would be misguided enough to claim that lithification no longer occurs.

Of coarse sediment is going into basins or deltas etc. Yet its weight etc is not changing underlying sediment into rock. At least no evidence. As i said it would be hard to show it by your models as your models require great time.

That is what geological time is - great time. The earth is 4.6 billion years old, it only takes a few tens of thousands of years to lithify sediments.

Thats your problem.

I'd suggest it is your problem. If you are suggesting there isn't time to lithify sediments you are not throwing out all earth science you are throwing out nuclear physics, because that is how we know the earth has great antiquity. But then if you have the hubris to declare that modern geology is all wrong, why wouldn't you continue and declare that you know better than modern physics as well?

Your trying to falsify creationist geology. Your not doing this. Your just showing interpretations of geology that we have other interpretations.

Yes basins receive sediment and perhaps are warping. Yet is there evidence of new rock being actuallt made that wasn't there in 1492 A.D.

lithification is a ongoing process, it doesn't stop and start, if a basin is sinking and eroded material continues to be deposited at its surface lithification is inevitable.

Yes you can find intermediate RESULTS in sediment on the road to rock but where is intermediate sediment that actually is turning into rock?

Just below the surface of the basin, a few feet below the surface there is enough of a pressure increase to start the process of the removal of liquid from the sediment, that is the start of the process of lithification, as it gets deeper the pressure will increase and compaction will occur it will get hotter and mineral rich sediments may be flushed through the rock.

If you think these process don't occur you are living in cloud cuckoo land. You just need to do a bit of research into well drilling by oil companies.

All that you talk about fits creationist models of sudden events that perhaps were interupted.

Nothing fits creationist theories, they were discarded by all reputable earth scientists, the majority Christian, over 150 years ago, that is a fact.

The sad fact is you know basically nothing about earth science, I know a lot, and yet you are so sure you no more than all the geologists who have worked over the last 200 years, pure hubris.

I do believe rock has been created since the flood but only in local events.

Why should anyone care what a geologically illiterate person like you believes? Anyone can sit in a chair and dream up fantastic scenarios, they mean nothing without evidence, and creationists have no evidence.

Perhaps in deep piling on sediment one can change the composition of the underlying sediment over time

Well! you finally admit I am correct.

but not into rock as time was not there and topo much weight and maybe heat was needed.

The time is there, the earth is 4.6 billion years old.

The rate of increase in temperature per unit depth in the Earth. Although the thermal gradient varies from place to place, it averages 25 to 30 oC/km [15 oF/1000 ft].

http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/Display.cfm?Term=thermal gradient

Explain why this thermal gradient cannot lead to lithification

http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/DisplayImage.cfm?ID=159

That graph shows the change in pore pressure in sediment with depth.

Explain why it isn't enough to lithify a sediment.

Its still your move

I find it quite amusing that you think we are actually having a debate. I am using your obvious ignorance of geology to point out the uselessness of the creationist position to any lurkers that may be here. To have a debate both of us would have to be knowledgeable about sedimentary processes and geology in general. sadly that doesn't appear to be the case.

Also, as Loudmouth has amusingly pointed out, your position that there is not enough time to lithfy rock is in stark contrast to mainstream creationists who believe all the sediments on earth lithified in a few thousand years

 

[RobertByers]

Loudmouth
I don't understand the problem with the GC. Yes it was created from weight on sediment instantly and later flowing waters leaving the continent carved it up.

I asked for intermediate stages betwen sediment and sedimentary rock WORKING NOW.
Creationism would say it isn't happening with a eventual result of rock.
Intermediate stages indeed found are just what creationism also would predict. Interupted sediment into rock by some sudden change during the flood year. Degrees of change of sediment as one goes deep into some basin also fits with a sudden but stopped event.

It would require some difficult science to show sediment is right now changing its composition on the way to becoming some kind of rock. For we could always say its static and not changing at all. Because you need long time to bring change you would be under pressure to prove your point.
However thats your problem.
Creationist geology could be falsyified if you could show/prove modern sediment is 10% or10% or50% on the way to becoming rock.
The operative word is becoming. Not sediment layers that are static and still in their original position from the biblicalflood or a later event.
I admit it would be difficult to distinguish.
Anyways you must supply weight source in any example.
Rob Byers

 

[RobertByers]

Baggins.
I ask for examples and you give me theories.
These oil companies are not examining sediment turing into rock. By your own definitions it takes too long for these processes to be observed.
all they are looking for is different stages of sediment on the way to becoming rock. Yet this is just past history and not present.
These sediments were created instantly and in these cases interupted by the loss of pressure due to flood flow change. Intermediate stages are fine for creationist models of sediment into sedimentary rock.
No links please. Just your ability to make a case on your knowledge should suffice if you have a case.
I admit that its hard for you to prove some sediment is 1% or 10% or50% along the way as We can always say its perfectly static from its original deposition.
Thats your problem.
Get the microscopes out.
In order to falsyify creationist geology on this point you must show where there is a present working squeezing pressure on sediment on the way to becoming rock.
not sediment squeezing sediment into compacter dirt.
Thats my backyard come spring.
Surely if geology is right about these processes it must be going on somewhere on land or in water.
If not the its a failure to falsify creationist geology when it should be easy or at least doable.
Rob Byers

 

[necroforest]

What's an m equation?

 

[Split Rock]

I asked for intermediate stages betwen sediment and sedimentary rock WORKING NOW.

That's what you were given. Or do you mean NOW this second?

Creationism would say it isn't happening with a eventual result of rock.

So what. Creationism says all kinds of things which make no sense.

Intermediate stages indeed found are just what creationism also would predict.

What would creationism not predict?

Interupted sediment into rock by some sudden change during the flood year. Degrees of change of sediment as one goes deep into some basin also fits with a sudden but stopped event.

What "sudden change?" How did this change come about? Describe the process for us, and how long it takes.

It would require some difficult science to show sediment is right now changing its composition on the way to becoming some kind of rock. For we could always say its static and not changing at all. Because you need long time to bring change you would be under pressure to prove your point.
However thats your problem.

In other words, "show me something that you cannot possibly show me, or else you are wrong." Reminds me of creationists who ask, "show me a monkey turning into a man, or else I won't believe evolution." Whatever..

Creationist geology could be falsyified if you could show/prove modern sediment is 10% or10% or50% on the way to becoming rock.
The operative word is becoming. Not sediment layers that are static and still in their original position from the biblicalflood or a later event.

You have been given more than enough evidence. You are just shifting the goalposts, demanding to see sediment turning into rock as you watch it, or some other such nonsense.

I admit it would be difficult to distinguish.

You will only demand what you think is not possible to provide, and shift your demands if they are met anyway.

 

[Baggins]

I ask for examples and you give me theories.

No I gave you examples. Lithification is a slow, ongoing process. It is demonstrable and not even creationists question it, in fact they think it happens very quickly indeed, otherwise how did we get from a flood 2000 years ago to todays rock formations. This is obviously arrant nonsense but it points out that no one actually believes what you do accept you individually. You are in a group of one with the lithification doesn't happen. The reason even other creationists don't believe you is because lithification is obvious and demonstrable, that you can't grasp that doesn't alter reality.

These oil companies are not examining sediment turing into rock.

It is inevitable that they are, as you drill down into the earths crust bits of rock come back up, when they start drilling unconsolidated mud will come up, then poorly compacted rocks and later slid rock, this will happen every time they drill.

By your own definitions it takes too long for these processes to be observed.

Not true, they can be easily observed because they alter with depth, you can't observe a layer of silt being buried and slowly being altered to siltstone because it would take many thousands of years, what you can do is observe multiple siltstones at increasing depths and see how increased pressure and heat affects them. i would have thought that would be obvious even to some one a bereft of science as you.

all they are looking for is different stages of sediment on the way to becoming rock. Yet this is just past history and not present.

Oh not the old crummy " you can't know anything because it was in the past" argument, the last stop of the logically bankrupt on the train to Last-Thursdayism, the kind of argument that proves Christianity is not true because no one alive observed Jesus.

What a load of whooey, this argument means that no one could ever be convicted of murder unless there were living eye witnesses.

It shows not only do you know nothing of how science works, but also you can't even raise a logical argument.

These sediments were created instantly

No they weren't they were created over thousands or millions of years by process that we can observe still happening today, we know this is fact because we can date rocks using isotopic decay, which is absolutely and provably accurate to at least 1.7 billion years.

and in these cases interupted by the loss of pressure due to flood flow change.

Now you are reduced to making up sentences that don't mean anything but that you think sound intellectual

Intermediate stages are fine for creationist models of sediment into sedimentary rock.

I'm sure they are, it is just that the creationist model and reality don't actually tie. That is why oil companies use an old earth uniformitarian model of the earth to find oil. It is because that model actually works when you are attempting to find oil. Don't you think that if the creationist model worked oil companies would use it to find oil?

No links please.

We couldn't ask you to actually try and understand some primary data could we, that would be too much.

I will put links in if I please. As I had said before I don't believe I am actually debating you, you know nothing about geology, it would be a pointless exercise. What I am doing is contrasting my knowledge with your ignorance for the lurkers and undecided.

people like you are an important resource for people engaged in this debate because it allows scientists like me to actually demonstrate that you are making it up as you go along where as I am resting my arguments on a massive body of work, and that requires links that i will continue to post if I deem necessary to demonstrate a point.

Just your ability to make a case on your knowledge should suffice if you have a case.

I think I have made my case amply well. I have demonstrated that lithification is an ongoing process that happens continuously as we are speaking, it is impossible for it not to happen, as long as erosion and deposition continue then rocks will be buried to greater depths and be acted upon by increased pressure and temperature, the process is unstoppable.

I admit that its hard for you to prove some sediment is 1% or 10% or50% along the way as We can always say its perfectly static from its original deposition.

That is obviously nonsense, the geological record shows many rock types that it is totally impossible for a flood to produce so the idea that they were all produced instantaneously by a flood is ridiculous. But even if we were to suppose for one mad minute that that could be true then lithification would still have to happen, just very quickly. that is why you won't even be able to find other creationists to back up your claims, they don't believe that the rock was magically created by god as rock, they believe it was created by the flood and then lithified. That is obviously stupid, but your idea would even make creationists wince.

Thats your problem.

I don't have a problem, I am happily demonstrating to the lurkers the un-evidenced idiocy of your ideas.

You lob me gentle long hops and I hit them for 6 over the pavilion, I love this.

Get the microscopes out.

Why? you wouldn't even know which end to look down

In order to falsyify creationist geology on this point you must show where there is a present working squeezing pressure on sediment on the way to becoming rock.

That is simple all you have to do is calculate pore pressure change with depth and run experiments showing what that pressure does to unconsolidated sediment in the laboratory.

I am pretty sure i have already posted links that show that. I have shown that pressure changes with depth, that would have to be obvious even to you.

So if we can then show some experiments like these from Rice university that should do the trick:

http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~esci101/ESCI101.19.SedimentaryRocks_2007.pdf

I know you can't follow the links, they are for those more gifted, but this one has lots of pretty pictures.

And why would Rice university bother putting together an nice ppt presentation on it if it was rubbish. Perhaps you better contact them and let them know what conclusions you have come to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagenesis

Here is one scientific paper discussing a process you say doesn't occur:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=24747f0943c5b815748ab45a7b12edc1

There are thousands of them just generated by the ODP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_Drilling_Program

A very expensive multi-national programme primarily set up to investigate a process that, according to you, doesn't actually happen

Here is an whole symposium discussing a process that, according to you, doesn't happen:

http://arjournals.annualreviews.org...7.050179.000351?cookieSet=1&journalCode=earth

I could go on page after page printing out scientific papers that are discussing processes that you say don't happen.

Have you any idea how silly this all makes you look? You may as well question that the earth orbits the sun.

Here's another:

http://www.paper.edu.cn/download_doctor_paper.php?serial_number=D200708-3016

There are probably tens of thousands of papers on this very subject because, as I said, the affects of diagenesis and lithification on sediments are over very great interest to oil companies so they fund lots of research in this area. Let's face it oil companies like ESSO are not in the habit of throwing money away on fantasy. that is why they don't fund creationist ministries but they do fund sedimentlogical research by geologists.

not sediment squeezing sediment into compacter dirt.

Sediment is squeezed into rock, not dirt.

ON THIS SITE Rocky the rockhound takes you through it, I may have found the link for you:

http://www.fi.edu/fellows/payton/rocks/create/index.html

And remember we haven't talked about how long it takes for granite plutons to turn from magma to solid rock.

Thats my backyard come spring.

Nice to see that you get out into the field to conduct research

Surely if geology is right about these processes it must be going on somewhere on land or in water.

It is, the fact that you can't conceive that it is or how it can be observed doesn't alter that.

If not the its a failure to falsify creationist geology when it should be easy or at least doable.

It was done 200 years ago, perhaps no one told you

 

[thaumaturgy]

Baggins.
I ask for examples and you give me theories.

Robert, remember when you are talking to Baggins, you are talking to someone who works as a petroleum geologist. These are the people who sit by the side of the well and look very closely at the chunks or core coming up.

My wife was a field geologist and she sat many a rig drilling down looking at cores or samples pulled up.

Geologists aren't just "working some theory". In point of fact, geology is a very empirical science. It is hands-on and very much built from the ground up. It isn't like the highly theoretical high energy physics or some such.

These oil companies are not examining sediment turing into rock.

Actually they are. As are the oceanographic "ODP" programs run out of many of our universities here in the U.S.

As you drill deeper you see higher levels of compaction. But remember, lithification also uses "cementation" in which percolating liquids precipitate cement between grains. There's many examples of silica remobilization from high pressures as well. Silica sand grains are found in which the grains are highly compressed and the silica cements the grains together.

There's a whole area of geology called "diagenesis", or how the sediments and materials in the sediments change with increasing burial, both thermally and physically.

I fear you might be asking for someone to show you a single sediment turning into a rock before your eyes. That can probably be arranged in a lab somewhere but in nature it is, as Baggins points out, a slow process that usually occurs deep underground and out of sight. But we get a window into the process from the millions of cores and drillings done all over the planet.

By your own definitions it takes too long for these processes to be observed.

That's why we are lucky in geology to have the ability to drill down and see the progress of many packets of sediment buried deeply.

Yet this is just past history and not present.

Do you believe American society has changed since 1776? How do you know? by looking at the historical accounts. The accounts preserved in the writings and pictures from over the past couple hundred years.

of pressure due to flood flow change.

What on earth does that sentence mean? I've got plenty of geology and chemistry under my belt, I'd be glad to learn the details of "pressure due to flood flow change". Because I'll tell you, if you are like all of the other Flood Advocates on this board so far that I've seen, it sounds a lot like you are just "making up some word salad" to mush up some hydraulic concepts well outside of your understanding.

But I could be wrong here. I'm a geochemist so I'm willing to learn more hydraulics if you have something to teach.

No links please. Just your ability to make a case on your knowledge should suffice if you have a case.

Actually links are fine as long as they are not the sole information. Links provide you with "proof" of the claims. Unfortunately "proof" is often the last thing YEC and flood advocates can muster so they do tend to dismiss it. But I agree, a good solid case is a combination of the poster's ability to explain and support contentions.

Get the microscopes out.

What do you think geologists do every single day. For me personally I spent a couple years in a dark little room tied to a petrographic microscope looking at coal. Geologists know an awful lot about this stuff. I'm curious what your experience with "the microscopes" is.

In order to falsyify creationist geology on this point you must show where there is a present working squeezing pressure on sediment on the way to becoming rock.

I'm sure Baggins can point you in the direction of more than a couple collapsed drillholes that weren't cased properly to show you the immense pressures of overlying rocks and hydrostatics.

Surely if geology is right about these processes it must be going on somewhere on land or in water.

It is.

 

[Loudmouth]

Baggins.
I ask for examples and you give me theories.

We asked for potential falsifications and you give us equivocations.

If creationists "say that rock creation was done instantly and did not or could not take place over time" as you claim then how do they explain the sediments that comprise the walls of the Grand Canyon? Don't forget that they contain fossils supposedly produced by a sudden burial during the Noachian flood.

 

[RobertByers]

To the posters here.
You failed to falsify a idea in creationist geology.
You all keep repeating what We all agreed to when this discussion started. Pressure on sediment created sedimentary rock.
I know that. I said that.
I said show happening to day.
I mean show where sediment is on its way, but not there yet, by some % that will in time become rock.
I said creationism predicts this does not happen unless some very special case of earth movement. Like deep in the sea or a great mountain suddenly fell over.

All you guys show me is different sediment s in different stages of pressure.
Yet this is not what is asked for.
Creationist geology presumes that the flood year that created sediment into rock also made sediment into a % along the way. The choas of the flood year aborted sediments here and there before complete. Pressure was relieved prematurely.
You seem confused by this equation.
All, except episodes post flood, sediment was turned into rock or a % along the way during the flood year.

Its not going on today.
The examples you give. by drilling, are just showing this past event.

I am not moving goal posts.
I have been consistent and precise.
Its simple.

latitude and longitude. Where is sediment demonstated to be changing toward a rock completion
No I know geologists comments. Facts please.

Yes heavy loads squeeze underlying loads. Yet this going on is irrelevant to rock creation.
I'm confident you can't show it because there is not enough material or enough time to show this has occured

The process of pressure on sediment was instant and not slow.
In fact I suspect time and pressure can't create rock.

We are getting too wordy here. Lets keep it simple.
Rob Byers

 

[AintNoMonkey]

In fact I suspect time and pressure can't create rock.

Wow. Just...wow. Right here you show that you have absolutely no ability to grasp even the most basic scientific ideas. I'm so sorry.