Is Flood Geology Falsifiable?

[thaumaturgy]

If they were only geologic terms, what kind of evidence you want? Could you just look them up on yourself? If the terms are strange to you, I can give you their definitions. But you still have to use your own brain to understand them.

If you don't understand the word, how could you read an article?

I have had enough of your snark and bile. I didn't say the terms were strange to me. In point of fact I was initially impressed that a YEC or Flood Advocate even knew most of these terms.

But what you couldn't seem to do was provide any additional information. You throw out the terms, then tell us that if we are interested in understanding your hypotheses we'll do the leg work to prove the fundamentals.

I think my abilities are just fine. It's your abilities that seem somewhat lacking.

I mean, what kind of real scientist, in a debate about his own stuff says:

There will be no evidence for you, even I have it.

Why do I have to prove my idea by other peoples' work?

The idea is the most important. As to references search, a graduate student is perfectly capable to do that. If you are interested enough, you will find some references.

Based on your attitude, I am NOT going to give you any reference.

Wow, that's a lot of denials of evidence and refusals to provide supporting evidence. Kinda makes you look, well...of questionably integrity...is that the phrase I am looking for?

I don't like to accuse others of outright dishonesty, but I'm also no fool. So I'll just let your words stand on their own.

I may not be on any "committee" you have to answer to, but I thought the little bible you have in your faith icon indicated you thought you answered to a "higher committee". Hmmm.

 

[juvenissun]

I

But what you couldn't seem to do was provide any additional information. You throw out the terms, then tell us that if we are interested in understanding your hypotheses we'll do the leg work to prove the fundamentals.

If you really want to talk more about the hypothesis, you simply resume the discussion. Why don't you do that? I don't see you have any real interest in the issue.

Hey, what was going on in the Carboniferous? Why was so much coal made at that time? You don't have to explain cyclothem to me. But why didn't the same happen, say in the Cretaceous? Of course, this is a side question and you don't have to answer it. If you do, I can assure you that I won't ask for reference.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Hey, what was going on in the Carboniferous?

OK, so now we're shifting gears (jumping again), but thankfully you jumped into my area of expertise. My PhD was in coal chemistry.

Why was so much coal made at that time? You don't have to explain cyclothem to me.

Don't I? Really? But hey, kudos on yet another geologic term! Your dictionary is well-worn.

But why didn't the same happen, say in the Cretaceous?

Take a look at where the Carboniferous coal deposits were forming, equatorially on Pangaea.

(SOURCE)

Hot, tropical climate, good for plant growth.

The Gondwanaland coals you see in Australia are of a generally later time frame, late Carboniferous, into Permian-and Triassic. They show some of the hallmarks of being at higher lattitudes but also of general climactic changes:

Critical controls on the distribution and quality of coal in both regions appear to have been (1) a near-polar location with accompanying periglacial conditions, (2) Permian through early Triassic warming independent of any significant change in palaeolatitude, (3) associated floral changes from tundra vegetation to swamps and deciduous Glossopteris forests, (4) variable subsidence and sedimentation rates in foredeep, rift, and epicratonic basin settings, (5) local palaeotopographic effects, (6) eustatically induced changes in base level and marine transgression, and (7) a range of depositional systems from proximal conglomeratic alluvial fans through fluvial, delta-plain, lake-margin, back-barrier, and blanket peat mires in sediment-starved basins. (SOURCE)

Pangaea starts to break up in the Early-Mid Jurassic, climate changes, geography changes.

Of course, this is a side question and you don't have to answer it. If you do, I can assure you that I won't ask for reference.

But you see, I am a real scientist so I like to give references for my statements. It is part of my inherent desire at honesty with myself and others.

I am an atheist so I don't cleave to the honesty thing because some little book tells me to. I like to support my contentions for two very important reasons:

1. I might be mistaken and I would like to have my errors pointed out so I can learn from them.

2. I don't want anyone to simply take my word for anything.

You see, in addition, that is why we real scientists keep lab notebooks and do extensive literature reviews.

Every claim, no matter how much a "side topic" requires some back up. If I can't back it up I have to acquiesce that I can't prove it.

Oh, one other reference you might be interested in:

Stach's Textbook of Coal Petrology, 1982, by E. Stach, M. T. Mackowsky, M. Teichmueller. Gebruder Borntraeger Verlagsbuchhandlung. 535pp.

Here's a link for a copy of it.

I recently took my copy of it home, or I'd have provided you with some stuff from it that you could go look up too, if you're interested! Still, I highly recommend you read it.

 

[Loudmouth]

If I may step in, the focus of this thread is geologic features that a global flood geology could NOT produce.

Could we say that a global flood could not produce a complete lack of a global flood deposit? Even if receding waters eroded some areas it should erode through the flood deposits. This should be easily discernable in the geologic record.

 

[thaumaturgy]

(deleted...a "jump" in the timestamp...not unlike the jumpiness in Juvenissun's topics!)

 

[thaumaturgy]

If I may step in, the focus of this thread is geologic features that a global flood geology could NOT produce.

Could we say that a global flood could not produce a complete lack of a global flood deposit? Even if receding waters eroded some areas it should erode through the flood deposits. This should be easily discernable in the geologic record.

Indeed. A global flood would result in, as Baggins has proposed, a large marker bed of some sort. I think a major unconformity would be present, but clearly the sediment has to go somewhere. It isn't going to just go off into Heaven with the water (which Juvenissun never quite got around to accounting for in the earlier part of the thread).

But isn't it fun that Juvenissun has pegged the Noachian Flood at almost 1 billion years ago by going after an unconformity at the Stenian-Tonian boundary? Now he's asking about coal formation in the Pennsylvanian! What's the connection? There's only a difference of about 700 to 800 million years.

With error bars that big anything is possible!

Juvenissun's all over the map on these topics. He's really giving the ol' Geo 1 textbook a workout. I hope he doesn't break the spine flipping around so much.

I just wish he could stick with one geologic concept for more than 3 posts before jumping to the next "term". But when he's dealing with several geologists on this thread he's having to really jump around as he is faced with people who can ask the hard questions about his hypotheses.

I suspect this is quite different from dealing with the usual Floodians who simply drool over his big words and nod in furious agreement over God's wonder working powers.

 

[Loudmouth]

Indeed. A global flood would result in, as Baggins has proposed, a large marker bed of some sort. I think a major unconformity would be present, but clearly the sediment has to go somewhere. It isn't going to just go off into Heaven with the water (which Juvenissun never quite got around to accounting for in the earlier part of the thread).

Juvenissun also suggests that the topography was much flatter not to mention the lack of any oceans. This means that the flood layer has to below any major chalk or fossilferous limestone deposits. However, these marine deposits set atop mountains that were supposedly uplifted by runaway subduction (according to the flood models).

But isn't it fun that Juvenissun has pegged the Noachian Flood at almost 1 billion years ago by going after an unconformity at the Stenian-Tonian boundary? Now he's asking about coal formation in the Pennsylvanian! What's the connection? There's only a difference of about 700 to 800 million years.

Actually, we can drop the measured radiometric dates if Juvenissun wants. Any flood layer must be above fossils of modern species, including humans. According to modern radiometric dating the flood had to occur within the last 100,000 years with the emergence of anatomically modern humans, but the age can be ignored for the purposes of this argument.

As an example, features like the Karoo formation are problematic. This fossil graveyard contains billions of fossils and yet no modern mammal species are seen in this fossil graveyard. The same for the deposits that make up the Colorado plateau. This is in contrast to the Nebraska ashfall (from my state's supervolcano ) which buried modern mammal species like the rhinoceros.

Juvenissun's all over the map on these topics. He's really giving the ol' Geo 1 textbook a workout. I hope he doesn't break the spine flipping around so much.

While many of the geo terms escape me, it is plain that Juvenissun is not ready to cite papers that support his case. Even to a non-geologist this is quite telling.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Actually, we can drop the measured radiometric dates if Juvenissun wants. Any flood layer must be above fossils of modern species, including humans. According to modern radiometric dating the flood had to occur within the last 100,000 years with the emergence of anatomically modern humans, but the age can be ignored for the purposes of this argument.

Good point. I am fascinated though, that Juvenissun has yet to take any bait around radiometric dating. (obviously I like the chemical stuff, not such a paleontology guy). But you are correct, the fossil record must also be taken into account.

That is why I asked that he provide some more information about the lack of vertebrate fossils anywhere near his proposed Noachian Flood horizon in the Proterozoic.

This is in contrast to the Nebraska ashfall (from my state's supervolcano ) which buried modern mammal species like the rhinoceros.

You live in Wyoming? Near Yellowstone? I did some undergrad fieldwork out there. What a great place!

I did my unnergrad "field studies" class in 1985. We were "stationed" at SDSM&T and did trips out to the Black Hills for fieldwork. Unbeknownst to me, the woman who several years later I would meet in grad school and ultimately marry was also attending field camp at the same place at the same time! Our paths never crossed then. Several schools used the SDSM&T campus and dorms as bases of operation.

While many of the geo terms escape me, it is plain that Juvenissun is not ready to cite papers that support his case. Even to a non-geologist this is quite telling.

Like I said before I was actually quite interested when Juvenissun showed up and started using real geologic terms. It's not something you usually see in a "Floodian". I just wish he didn't appear to be just a "surficial" kind of approach to geology.

I think his tactic of throwing around the geologic terms might be useful in "impressing" most Creationists who don't have any geology background, but he's obviously hitting a wall here with geologists.

It frustrates me as well, not just that he won't dare support any of his own claims, but that he's actively snarky and nasty about it when people ask for references.

I actually did want to learn more about the global unconformity he was talking about. I wanted to learn something! But that ain't gonna happen.

 

[Split Rock]

The Gondwanaland coals you see in Australia are of a generally later time frame, late Carboniferous, into Permian-and Triassic. They show some of the hallmarks of being at higher lattitudes but also of general climactic changes:

Interesting stuff. I have a question. What is the age of the youngest coal formation on the planet?

 

[Loudmouth]

You live in Wyoming? Near Yellowstone? I did some undergrad fieldwork out there. What a great place!

Idaho, actually. The Nebraska ashfall was produced by the Bruneau-Jarbidge supervolcano which, if memory serves, is the same hotspot that is under currently under Yellowstone. The Bruneau-Jarbidge event is #12 (denoting an eruption 12 million years before present).

I'm in Boise.

I did my unnergrad "field studies" class in 1985. We were "stationed" at SDSM&T and did trips out to the Black Hills for fieldwork. Unbeknownst to me, the woman who several years later I would meet in grad school and ultimately marry was also attending field camp at the same place at the same time! Our paths never crossed then. Several schools used the SDSM&T campus and dorms as bases of operation.

There is a lot of interesting geology in my region as well. It has always been my goal to get an Idaho geology field guide and take some trips in the back country, Bruneau-Jarbidge being one of them. I went through the Craters of the Moon state park (the astronauts actually trained there) when I was a kid and hope to go back some time soon.

Like I said before I was actually quite interested when Juvenissun showed up and started using real geologic terms. It's not something you usually see in a "Floodian". I just wish he didn't appear to be just a "surficial" kind of approach to geology.

I think his tactic of throwing around the geologic terms might be useful in "impressing" most Creationists who don't have any geology background, but he's obviously hitting a wall here with geologists.

It frustrates me as well, not just that he won't dare support any of his own claims, but that he's actively snarky and nasty about it when people ask for references.

I actually did want to learn more about the global unconformity he was talking about. I wanted to learn something! But that ain't gonna happen.

I agree with all of your sentiments. Who knows, perhaps he will come back and amaze all of us.

 

[juvenissun]

Interesting stuff. I have a question. What is the age of the youngest coal formation on the planet?

That would depend on what do you mean by coal. Peat could be taken as coal. If so, I think it could be made pretty fast.

 

[Paulos23]

How fast is fast for you for peat? 1,000 years? 10,000 years?

 

[juvenissun]

Indeed. A global flood would result in, as Baggins has proposed, a large marker bed of some sort. I think a major unconformity would be present, but clearly the sediment has to go somewhere. It isn't going to just go off into Heaven with the water (which Juvenissun never quite got around to accounting for in the earlier part of the thread).

The impression of sedimentary deposition made by a flood comes from our common experience of small flood. A larger flood like one by the collapse of a glacial lake would most likely create more erosional features than depositional.

The sediments (and the water) made by the global flood, of course, were flushed into the oceanic basin (not on any continental shelf). So, the sediments would effectively disappeared from the earth.

Normal models in sedimentology (as taught in schools, include graduate school), most likely, would not work in the event of global flood. So it is useless to use features such as turbidity deposits or graded beds as arguments in an event of global flood.

-----

Stop being sarcastic. This is a warning. Or I will stop responding to you and leave you in your geological darkness. I don't have to teach you geology in this forum.

 

[juvenissun]

How fast is fast for you for peat? 1,000 years? 10,000 years?

It does not matter.
May be, say, less then one million years?

 

[juvenissun]

How fast is fast for you for peat? 1,000 years? 10,000 years?

It does not matter.
May be, say, less then one million years?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Interesting stuff. I have a question. What is the age of the youngest coal formation on the planet?

Coal is still being formed today.

Some of the newest coal is only 1 million years old, and coal is still being formed. In fact, some regions in the United States—such as the Great Dismal Swamp of North Carolina and Virginia, the Okefenokee Swamp in Georgia, and the Everglades in Florida—offer good coal-producing conditions today. As their plant life dies and is covered by silt, sand, and other materials, new coal beds may form.

-American Coal Foundation

Back in grad school, my first peer-reviewed pub was on a lignite that, was about 2 or so million years old. When the sample got to my lab I thought someone was pranking me since it looked like soggy, dark wood that someone had pulled from a lumberyard. The stuff was amazingly well preserved in terms of cell structure.

Part of my study even looked at changes in the summer and winter wood ring sizes preserved in the stuff. I was even able to see the bordered pits in the walls of some of the tracheids! (Wish I could find this one SEM we got of one. It was wicked cool).

 

[RichardT]

juvenissun, if you don't know how to support your claims, be honest about it and don't worry about it. If you could tell them that you really have no known supporting evidence for your claims (at least yet), it will be the honest thing to do. I apologize if I sound harsh but hand waving gets us no where

you will have to defend your thesis or your dissertation. At that point, when your committee members ask you to support a claim, you will not be allowed to say "any grad student can look it up, if you are interested you'll look it up too!"

And what do you reply?

Based on your attitude, I am NOT going to give you any reference. You are no member of any committee concerned to me. Read or respond to my post or not, do as you wish. Just like I said to Molal, I am not writing this post only for you.

You do know that defending your "thesis" is needed for this debate, right? thaumaturgy's is not mocking you. He is simply telling you what is required of you if this "debate" is to continue.

 

[Baggins]

The impression of sedimentary deposition made by a flood comes from our common experience of small flood. A larger flood like one by the collapse of a glacial lake would most likely create more erosional features than depositional.

It has got to be deposited somewhere. I causes bot erosional and depositional features. Neither of which we actually find across the earth at one time of course.

Thus falsifying a global flood.

The sediments (and the water) made by the global flood, of course, were flushed into the oceanic basin (not on any continental shelf). So, the sediments would effectively disappeared from the earth.

Last time I checked the bottoms of teh oceans were still on earth.

We have drilled extensively all over the seabed of the deep oceans and, sadly for your "hypothesis", what we see there is a very fine pelagic sediment rather than the vast piles of chaotic debris you would associate with the flushing of the sediment torn up by the flood into the ocean basins.

Nice idea

Evidence falsifies it.

Normal models in sedimentology (as taught in schools, include graduate school), most likely, would not work in the event of global flood.

No point asking for evidence for this is there? You have just pulled it out and made it up.

So I'll say I can see bno reason why the normal models a sedimentology would be suspended by a big flood as this would mean the suspension of the laws of physics which underpin depositional models, and I can't see why this would happen, can you?

So it is useless to use features such as turbidity deposits or graded beds as arguments in an event of global flood.

That's convenient

Stop being sarcastic. This is a warning. Or I will stop responding to you and leave you in your geological darkness.

You can stop responding to me, but I don't have to stop respomnding to you because I am not really responding to you I am just showing you up as the ad hoc merchant you are to the lurkers on this thread.

I don't have to teach you geology in this forum.[/

Which is lucky for all of us, it would be fails all round if you tried.

You are really funny, please continue, I love exploding your fantasy.

 

[Baggins]

Juvenissun's all over the map on these topics. He's really giving the ol' Geo 1 textbook a workout. I hope he doesn't break the spine flipping around so much.

.

Judging by the fact that he has just spouted Carbomiferous, coal, cretaceous and cyclothem I'd suggest he has just skimmed though C in the the index.

I looking forward to Devonian, diatoms, diagenesis and dinoflagellates next.

Especially the dinoflagellates, my favourite micro-fossil.

 

[thaumaturgy]

...