Is Flood Geology Falsifiable?

[Nitron]

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

You do know you're arguing against several geologists, right?

When you disprove a scientific concept, (which you haven't), you don't post it on a message board, you write a paper.

 

[Loudmouth]

All you guys show me is different sediment s in different stages of pressure.

Those sediments are also in different stages of lithification (is that a word?). Go figure.

Creationist geology presumes that the flood year that created sediment into rock also made sediment into a % along the way.

So rocks that are partly lithified are predicted by flood geology? If so, then this is not a potential falsification of flood geology which is what I have asked for.

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

Why aren't the top layers lithified like they are in the Grand Canyon?

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

Then the flood could not have produced lithified limestone, sandstone, siltstones, etc. Good job, you have just falsified flood geology.

 

[biggles53]

As was alluded to by another poster, Mr Byers is using a form of 'god-of-the-gaps' strategy.

Just as similarly dishonest creos will demand to see evidence of 'transitional forms' in the evolutionary process ("Can't show us one? Haha, goddidit!!"), so Byers is using a variant here. "Can't show me a sediment that is, AT THIS MOMENT, turning to rock before my eyes? Haha, only Teh Fludde coulda done it!!"

I find it rather pathetic to observe the lengths that the hopelessly dogmatic will go to in order to cling desperately to their discredited claims...

 

[Split Rock]

You failed to falsify a idea in creationist geology.

I asked before... what predictions does Flood Geology not make?

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.

Yes heavy loads squeeze underlying loads. Yet this going on is irrelevant to rock creation.

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

Make up your mind... does pressure cause rock formation or not??

I'm confident you can't show it because there is not enough material or enough time to show this has occured

Is that the only reason you asked for this information? Because it cannot be provided to your satisfaction by definition?

Creationist geology presumes that the flood year that created sediment into rock also made sediment into a % along the way

The process of pressure on sediment was instant and not slow.

If that is the case, then how is it possible that some rocks were caught in the process of becoming rocks and then the flood pressures abaded so that they are now transitional? What does the term "instant" mean to you?

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

Sure you have... pressure created rocks in the past, but cannot do so today...
The flood waters created rock from sediment instantaneously, but also left some in transition when the flood waters abaded...
gottcha!

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

Sure. Everyone, please stop using fancy geology talk, like "lith-e-fi-ca-tion." Robert, the "Creation Geologist" cannot keep up. Thanks everyone!

 

[Baggins]

To the posters here.
You failed to falsify a idea in creationist geology.

It was falsified 200 years ago. But creationists just aren't very good at staying on top of "modern" scientific developments.

You all keep repeating what We all agreed to when this discussion started. Pressure on sediment created sedimentary rock.

Why wouldn't we repaet it it is demonstrably true and ongoing.

I said show happening to day.

Your written English is appaling.

I have posted a number of links to scientific papers that are aboput this process happening today, the fact that you didn't read the links or didn't understand then doesn't alter their veracity.

I mean show where sediment is on its way, but not there yet, by some % that will in time become rock.

Any drilling project in any sedimentary basin will show this.

I said creationism predicts this does not happen unless some very special case of earth movement.

So yet again you have falsified creationist geology, well done.

Like deep in the sea or a great mountain suddenly fell over.

Oh good grief.

All you guys show me is different sediment s in different stages of pressure.

That is what you asked for, read your own post, the corrollary of this is that we are looking at rock in different stages of lithifying

Yet this is not what is asked for.

It is exactly what you asked for.

Creationist geology presumes that the flood year that created sediment into rock also made sediment into a % along the way.

It may well do, it is wrong about everything else so it is probably wrong about how rocks form.

The choas of the flood year aborted sediments here and there before complete. Pressure was relieved prematurely.

That doesn't actually mean anything, you are just making ad hoc statements based on zero evidence.

Typical creationist behaviour.

You seem confused by this equation.

That isn't an equation it is an ad hoc explanation.

All, except episodes post flood, sediment was turned into rock or a % along the way during the flood year.

If you could write in correct English you may be able to convet what you are on about better.

Its not going on today

.

Yes it is, and I have linked to research proving it, read the links.

The examples you give. by drilling, are just showing this past event.

No tyhey show that it is an ongoing process, a dynamic process. That is why ooil companies are interested in it.

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

You have been shown to be consistently wrong.

You have provided no supporting data for your premis, it is just ad hoc justification, which considering that you appear to know nothing about science is completely worthless.

Its simple.

It isn't difficult and yet you appear not to be able to grasp what the research says.

latitude and longitude.

Where is sediment demonstated to be changing toward a rock completion

Every sedimentary basin on earth, every delta on earth. Pick your favourite.

No I know geologists comments. Facts please

.

You have been provided with links, you ignore them.

Yes heavy loads squeeze underlying loads. Yet this going on is irrelevant to rock creation.

It is how sediment is turned into rock, how can that be irrelevant?

I'm confident you can't show it because there is not enough material or enough time to show this has occured

I'm confident that I have already demonstrated this to any one half way scientifically literate with the links I posted.

The process of pressure on sediment was instant and not slow.

It is still continuing unless you can think of a way of negating gravity

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

What you suspect is irrelevant, you know nothing about science and you show no desire to learn anything about it. Your suspicions are irrelevant.

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

I've tried that, didn't work.

 

[thaumaturgy]

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.

Geologic Lecture:

A mountain looks like this:

Note how the mountain is bigger at the bottom than the top. It is exceedingly difficult for mountains to "suddenly fall over".

That's because they were manufactured to be very stable in an upright form. Not unlike the Weebles:

This is a Weeble. It wobbles but it won't fall down.

Of course, as in all things scientific, you can, with sufficient force push the weeble over and hold it there. With a mountain, you can push it over very slowly.

We can get folded rocks and sediments.

But this is a slow process and requires a lot of energy and pressure to achieve.

Now you can also take a hammer and beat the Weeble to a pile of plastic:

And you can see mountains get chunks broken off and slide down the sides. But usually the mountain doesn't just "suddenly fall over".

 

[RobertByers]

Your both too wordy or picturey.
It is a sign to me your frustrated.
Its up to you to falsify.
Not me to read links. (by the way I read them and they were a waste of my time).
I have read dozens of geology books or more. Honest.

Your right it required great pressure to fold those mts in the pics.
We say that it was done and could only be done by the power of water or crustal sudden movement or volcanoes or all three at once.
Creationists like these folded rocks.

Baggins and company. I'm not being unreasonable.
Truly you did not falsify creationist geology.
You did not show one place where sediment is on its way to becoming rock. It will become rock in time.
Any drill downwards only discovers sediment at a particular stage.
yes I can accept this stage is in between sediment and sedimentary rock but that is not evidenceof how it got there.
You are presuming a long time.
I presume a instant act and any sediment on top since is a coincidence.
By the way I also see post flood sedimentary rock creation but i don't want to confuse you. It makes no difference for this discussion.

It has been up to you to falsify and I have answered your attempts.
You haven't dealt with my criticisms of your answers.

My whole point is that created rock happened only on earth because of episodes during the flood or some after.
Therefore I conclude no rock could be made, other then these episodes. since as it requires too much time or just not enough new sediment has made a dent anywhere.
Anywhere that sediment is piling up is just a coincedence or when it gets too high the inflow will be washed out to sea and so no more weight to turn the sediment at the bottom into rock.
(I'm giving a close arguement).

Even if you find mud changing into more compact mud its not evidence its on the way to rock for practical problems on earth now.

You are not falsifying that sediment can not turn into rock over time (though I suspect it can't) you are falsifying that this is not happening today.

I guess I'm saying sediment has never turned into sedimentary rock in the long process claimed.
So its not happening today either.
Maybe over the long times you talk about it could. (I suspect not)
However it has not and is not today because processes are not there to finish the job.

Is sediment turning into rock today anywhere.
Perhaps we could chew over a actual place on earth.
Whew
Robert Byers

 

[Baggins]

Your both too wordy or picturey.

So we are both too verbose, and not verbose enough? That shows your usual standard of logic.

It is a sign to me your frustrated.

It is you're not your.

Why shouldn't we, professional geologists, be frustrated with an armchair pontificator like you?

Its up to you to falsify.

Done that

Not me to read links. (by the way I read them and they were a waste of my time).

Sure you did. Learning is never a waste of anyone ones time. It is shame that you don't feel the need.

I have read dozens of geology books or more. Honest.

I find that difficult to believe. You may have read them but you don't seem to have understood them.

Your right it required great pressure to fold those mts in the pics.

You're right it did.

We say that it was done and could only be done by the power of water or crustal sudden movement or volcanoes or all three at once.
Creationists like these folded rocks.

Shame they can't explain how they happen and geologists can. Folding of rocks requires heat, pressure and time, something that YECs don't have.

Baggins and company. I'm not being unreasonable.

Perhaps not, I believe it is possible that you don't have the wit to understand what we are telling you. I think it is more likely that you cling so hard to the religious dogma that you believe that you can't take on board what we are telling you. To do so would destroy your world view and most people can't accept that.

Truly you did not falsify creationist geology.

No we didn't. Men like James Hutton and Charles Lyell did that 200 years ago.

We were standing on the shoulders of giants.

You did not show one place where sediment is on its way to becoming rock.

We showed you that this is happening in every sedimentary basin and delta on earth.

It will become rock in time.

It will indeed

Any drill downwards only discovers sediment at a particular stage.

No it discovers all stages in the journey from unconsolidated sediment to solid rock as you get deeper.

yes I can accept this stage is in between sediment and sedimentary rock but that is not evidenceof how it got there.

The evidence is that there is a continuum from sediment to rock that we can correlate with depth and therefore pressure.

You are presuming a long time.

No, that is whatthe evidence shows. It is not a presumption

I presume a instant act and any sediment on top since is a coincidence.

Yes you do presume, as you have no evidence.

By the way I also see post flood sedimentary rock creation but i don't want to confuse you. It makes no difference for this discussion.

I don't see a flood at all. I don't think aI am the one who is confused by basic geology.

It has been up to you to falsify and I have answered your attempts.

True, but not with evidence. Just nay-saying.

You haven't dealt with my criticisms of your answers.

It is difficult to deal with people whose basic answer is just to gainsay.

My whole point is that created rock happened only on earth because of episodes during the flood or some after.

In that case your basic point is wrong and without evidence. Bad luck.

Therefore I conclude no rock could be made, other then these episodes.

Which I have shown to be wrong citing scientific papers on rock creation.

since as it requires too much time or just not enough new sediment has made a dent anywhere.

We have plenty of time and therefore plenty of sediment.

Anywhere that sediment is piling up is just a coincedence

A river delta is a coincidence?

or when it gets too high the inflow will be washed out to sea and so no more weight to turn the sediment at the bottom into rock.

Out to sea in basins is one place were rock formation is occuring

You don't even have any idea about how and where deposition of sediment takes place do you?

Even if you find mud changing into more compact mud its not evidence its on the way to rock for practical problems on earth now.

Yes it is, we can show a continuum from mud to compact mud to mudstone.

You are not falsifying that sediment can not turn into rock over time (though I suspect it can't)

We don't need to, it is self evidently happening, you can deny reality all you want, it won't make reality go away.

you are falsifying that this is not happening today.

I guess I'm saying sediment has never turned into sedimentary rock in the long process claimed.

I guess you are wrong then and I have given the links to primary sources that prove that.

So its not happening today either.

Wrong

Maybe over the long times you talk about it could. (I suspect not)

You can suspect all you want, you are geologically illiterate and uneducated it matters not a jot.

However it has not and is not today because processes are not there to finish the job.

You better contact the oil companies to explain to them that they are wasting millions of dollars in research in fields like diagenesis and lithification of reservoirs then.

Is sediment turning into rock today anywhere.

Just about everywhere you would expect it to.

Perhaps we could chew over a actual place on earth.

Mississippi delta for a start

Then every other delta on earth and then every sedimentary basin.

Whew

Come on, making stuff up as you go along isn't that much hard work.

Actually researching your answers and proving them with hard data, like scientists do, is the hard bit

 

[RobertByers]

OK. I'll give you another chance. This time no saying some other authority backs you up. Use your geology competence.

The mississippi delta.
Now I say that this delta is not today or in the last 3000 years adding sediment of enough weight to have turned any underlying sediment into rock.
Perhaps it has made mud underneath more compact but nor ROCK.

Therefore how could you show that in these 3000 years and today sediment has changed deeper sediments composition into rock?
Is this process at work today?

Now what doesn't count is if a great surge of great amounts of sediment , from some sudden earth action or glacial meltwater (like the missoula flood) suddenly is dropped in this delta. For this would be mimicing the biblical flood on a smaller but effective scale.

This is why I picked the 3000 year boundary.

I say in the last 3000 years no weight of sediment has changed underlying sediment into rock.
Its not happening today. Its neutral.

I don't know how you could prove it. Thats your problem.
Real evidence and not repeating presumptions

The geologists here have not understood our discussion by the answers they give.

Again I say no rock has been created in this delta since a last tremendous sediment sudden load drop.
Rob byers

 

[Baggins]

OK. I'll give you another chance. This time no saying some other authority backs you up. Use your geology competence.

I don't like to make assertions without the evidence to back me up. But if you are willing to accept my word as someone who has studied earth sciences then fine.

The things is even if I tell you what I know from my own experience I am almost certain you won't accept it. Your world view is based on your faith not on reason.

The mississippi delta.
Now I say that this delta is not today or in the last 3000 years adding sediment of enough weight to have turned any underlying sediment into rock.

I say you are wrong. If the Mississippi delta were only 3000 years old it is just possible that you may have a point but it is a lot older than that so you don't.

Perhaps it has made mud underneath more compact but nor ROCK.

All the drilling by oil companies intoi the delta would prove you wrong then because there is a mass of underlying solid deltaic rock underpinning today's delta.

Therefore how could you show that in these 3000 years and today sediment has changed deeper sediments composition into rock?

Because the delta is not 3000 years old. The sediments deposited inthe last 3000 years may be unconsolidated and poorly consolidated deltaic deposits but there are deposits going back many millenia below these.

You can't just take an arbitrary cut off point like 3000 years and say that because none of the sediment deposited within that timeframe has become rock that rock cannot form. That is just nonsense, the eaarth is 4.5 billion years old, the Mississippi delta is at least 30,000 years old and 7 miles thick, it is also intensively drilled as it produces 18% of the US' oil.

You could avail yourself with a little bit of the knowledge that geologists have learnt over the last half century and more of drilling in the delta.

Is this process at work today?

well first you need to check that the Mississippi river is still flowing, if we assume that that is the case sediment will be being carried by that flow of water, that sediment will be deposited when a running river hits a stationary body of water like a sea, the mississippi does indeed flow into a stationary body of water, it is valled the Gulf of Mexico. that being the case it will give up its sediment load which will be deposited over the top of the delta adding to the pressure on the sediments below, at some depth this will be causing the final transition of sediment to rock, how could it not?

I know you can't be bothered to read links but some people like the extra information so here is a link to Nature and a paper about rates of subsidence in the Mississippi delta.

origin.www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n3/full/ngeo129.html

you will need to register to read the paper.

We have established

- The Mississippi river is flowing
- It carries sediment
- it runs out into an ocean
- that will make it drop its sediment
- it will drop its sediment over the area called the mississippi delta
- This will increase the pressure at depth
- pressure makes sediment turn into rock
- the Mississippi delta area is subsiding measurably.

I can't put it any simpler than that, given these points how can you continue to claim that lithification is not happening today?

Now what doesn't count is if a great surge of great amounts of sediment , from some sudden earth action or glacial meltwater (like the missoula flood) suddenly is dropped in this delta.

This would be evident from the type of sediment and how it was deposited.

For this would be mimicing the biblical flood on a smaller but effective scale.

So what. You can postulate such a thing happened but now you need to gather evidence to show that it did, I don't believe you will be able to do that.

Of course there have been a large number of localised flooding events across the delta we saw one a couple of years ago. Geologists know what these look like in the record.

This is why I picked the 3000 year boundary.

Which was pointless and arbitrary, we have now established the delta is a lot older than that

I say in the last 3000 years no weight of sediment has changed underlying sediment into rock.
Its not happening today. Its neutral.

And what I have posted above proves you wrong, because the process of deposition and subsidence is provable and the delta is over 30,000 years old and 7 miles thick at its greatest extent. It is inevitable that rock is being formed in a pile of sediment that deep and getting ever deeper.

I don't know how you could prove it. Thats your problem.

Done it, it wasn't hard, as long as you accept the existence of the Mississippi river I don't see how you can now deny that sedimentary rock is forming as we speak in the depths of the mississippi delta.

I know you will try and deny it, and that as well will be most illuminating to the onlookers.

Real evidence and not repeating presumptions

No presumptions other than one you have already accepted that an increase of pressure with depth forms sediment into rock. But that too is experimentally demonstrable.

The outflow of sediment on to the delta and the subsidence of the delta are both measurable phenomena.

The geologists here have not understood our discussion by the answers they give.

I'm sure they understand just fine. I am surethey are flabberghasted as I am that there are creationist would even deny the processes of lithification and diagenesis are ongoing.

I have never heard of such a thing before. It is akin to deny that the earth is orbiting the sun.

Again I say no rock has been created in this delta since a last tremendous sediment sudden load drop.

You are wrong as I have now conclusively shown.

I will beinterested to see how you weasel out of that one, and, yet again, that will be most illuminating for the lurkers

I thank you, you are providing an illuminating example of creationist thought processes.

 

[juvenissun]

Does it annoy anybody else that the term "Flood Geology" is used to describe something other than the geology of floods?

Either your sense of logic is poor, or you do not know what geology is.

Flood geology is about geology,
Geology of flood is about flood.

The former is much wider in content than the latter.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Either your sense of logic is poor, or you do not know what geology is.

Flood geology is about geology,
Geology of flood is about flood.

The former is much wider in content than the latter.

OK Juvenissun, your geology knowledge on the line now;
1. point to the marker bed for the Noachian Flood in the geologic column (any locale)

2. Correlate it sufficiently that you provide overwhelming evidence for a global catastrophic flood

3. Explain the formations below that "time-rock horizon".

YEC bluster so much but I don't see much detail. And as you would know, as a scientist, an hypothesis isn't worth much if the details fall apart upon close examination.

 

[juvenissun]

OK Juvenissun, your geology knowledge on the line now;
1. point to the marker bed for the Noachian Flood in the geologic column (any locale)

I only go for one question at a time.

How about the unconformity between the middle Proterozoic and the late proterozoic? On every continents.

 

[flatworm]

I only go for one question at a time.

How about the unconformity between the middle Proterozoic and the late proterozoic? On every continents.

Psst... Check the fossils!

 

[thaumaturgy]

I only go for one question at a time.

How about the unconformity between the middle Proterozoic and the late proterozoic? On every continents.

OK, fine. What is it about this particular unconformity that pegs it for you? Is it the total lack of human remains before this or anytime for quite some time after it?

Is it the total lack of vertebrate fossils anywhere near this unconformity?

Even all the missing bio and thanatocoenoses, what is the most compelling aspect to this particular unconformity.

Oh, and while we're at it, is radiometric dating so "wrong" on the age of these rocks or did the Flood of Noah happen about 1.2 billion years ago?

(And this time, please post some references so we can all see the data, as scientists you and I both know the value of backing up a claim with data.)

 

[Baggins]

At least he named a point that enables us to point and laugh at him.

Most creationists and all professional ones will never actually point to a place which marks the global flood because they know it will be instantly shown to be in error.

In this case I know Juvenissun will not be able to show one chaotic marine rock formation ( which a flood would produce ) worldwide at this point.

So you have to ask why he chose it, does he believe the flood left nothing but an hiatus. Surelythe recession of the flood waters would be a depositional event not one leading to an unconformity.

So while Juvenissun is obviously wrong kudos for him allowing us to show it. Most Creationists run a mile if they are asked to actually identify where the evidence of the flood is.

 

[Baggins]

At least he named a point that enables us to point and laugh at him.

Most creationists and all professional ones will never actually point to a place which marks the global flood because they know it will be instantly shown to be in error.

In this case I know Juvenissun will not be able to show one chaotic marine rock formation ( which a flood would produce ) worldwide at this point.

So you have to ask why he chose it, does he believe the flood left nothing but an hiatus. Surelythe recession of the flood waters would be a depositional event not one leading to an unconformity.

So while Juvenissun is obviously wrong kudos for him allowing us to show it. Most Creationists run a mile if they are asked to actually identify where the evidence of the flood is.

 

[RichardT]

We were standing on the shoulders of giants.

Good quote.

 

[juvenissun]

OK, fine. What is it about this particular unconformity that pegs it for you? Is it the total lack of human remains before this or anytime for quite some time after it?

I don't think you understand the meaning of a "global" unconformity.

Let me ask you: do you think we have a global unconformity today over all the continents? Obviously we do not. But why not? How could we eliminate that exception and make it become one?

 

[thaumaturgy]

...