Noah's Ark (2)

[Orogeny]

We don't know
-When the food occurred
-What effect it had on the land masses
-or what the dynamics of the water movements were.

So your stance is 'tidal flat deposits weren't deposited by the global flood, but we don't know what was deposited by the global flood.'

Well that makes sense.

There are hundreds of thousands of geologists who have dedicated their lives to studying sedimentary processes and the deposits they make. They understand fluid dynamics, they understand tectonics, and they understand the way sediments interact with their depositional media. There is no depositional system that cannot at least in part be reckoned based on these understanding, yet not one single geologist has found a deposit that can be explained by a global flood and cannot be explained by processes that we see in action today.

There is mention of "waters of the deep" being broken up
plus rain for a certain time. But this is a local description
of the rain. In my town it's not unusual to have my windshield
wipers working and drive into sunshine and dry roads.

If the rain is local, why isn't the flood itself local? Why assume one and not the other?

So we really don't have enough data.

We have data about the entire rock record from all over the world. There are literally millions of pages of data available about sedimentary rocks. Lack of data is not an excuse.

"Biblical Flood Geology" is even more fictitious than mainstream science-fiction-geology is.

You're damn right it is. But then, it would be, since there is nothing fictitious about 'mainstream' geology. If there was, it wouldn't be the foundational scientific discipline that the world's most important industries are based upon.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I'm not a geologist or an expert on floods, but I don't think that a global flood would leave uniform evidence of a 'global flood'. I would guess that it would wash away much of the very evidence of its own passing.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

I'm not a geologist or an expert on floods, but I don't think that a global flood would leave uniform evidence of a 'global flood'. I would guess that it would wash away much of the very evidence of its own passing.

This is like saying a forrest fire that destroys everything in it's path would leave no evidence of anything ever being burned.

 

[Orogeny]

I'm not a geologist or an expert on floods, but I don't think that a global flood would leave uniform evidence of a 'global flood'. I would guess that it would wash away much of the very evidence of its own passing.

What would it wash away, and where would it be washed to? Once the 'evidence' was washed to wherever it is you think it was washed, it would necessarily have been deposited there, correct? Is there any reason, then, that we would not see these deposits and recognize them for what they would be?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What would it wash away, and where would it be washed to? Once the 'evidence' was washed to wherever it is you think it was washed, it would necessarily have been deposited there, correct? Is there any reason, then, that we would not see these deposits and recognize them for what they would be?

What if it was so powerful that it picked up several layers of past flood evidence, mixed them all together, and then strewed it our over hundreds of miles?
I was reading a geology survey recently that reported that large rocks that should appear at a site were gone and could not be found even though a wide area was thoroughly searched. I immediately thought, aha, 'Noah's Flood'!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

This is like saying a forrest fire that destroys everything in it's path would leave no evidence of anything ever being burned.

Not really. If a tsunami washed a village completely away in a few years there might be no evidence of either the village or the tsunami. Some flood evidence can be degraded over time by weathering or by subsequent local flooding, thus destroying any 'uniform' evidence that might once have existed of a single flood.

 

[Delphiki]

What if it was so powerful that it picked up several layers of past flood evidence, mixed them all together, and then strewed it our over hundreds of miles?
I was reading a geology survey recently that reported that large rocks that should appear at a site were gone and could not be found even though a wide area was thoroughly searched. I immediately thought, aha, 'Noah's Flood'!

If that were the case,then why would we even see sedimentary layers at all? I mean, we do, you know.

 

[Orogeny]

What if it was so powerful that it picked up several layers of past flood evidence, mixed them all together, and then strewed it our over hundreds of miles?

But those deposits, once entrained, would necessarily become flood sediments. Upon their deposition, they would, of course, become flood deposits. We should then be able to observe and analyze those deposits and recognize them as such, especially if they were deposited by a 'powerful' flood, as you say. You're not fixing your problem, you're just putting it in a different place.

I was reading a geology survey recently that reported that large rocks that should appear at a site were gone and could not be found even though a wide area was thoroughly searched. I immediately thought, aha, 'Noah's Flood'!

I was reading a geology paper the other day that reported trilobite fragments in Jurassic sediment. I immediately thought 'aha, evolution refuted!'. Of course I was wrong; the skeletal fragments had been resedimented from a Paleozoic unit.

The other day I was eating a sandwich, got up to get a glass of milk, and when I came back, my sandwich was gone. I immediately thought "aha, 'Noah's Flood'"! Of course I was wrong, and just thinking about something doesn't mean your thoughts are representative of reality.

Please post this geology survey, or at least post the abstract.

 

[Orogeny]

Not really. If a tsunami washed a village completely away in a few years there might be no evidence of either the village or the tsunami.

Except for the debris lag that the tsunami left behind, and the tons of human debris that would have been carried out into the marine basin and then deposited in an easily recognizable layer. You do realize that once something is destroyed, it doesn't just poof out of existence, right?

And before you say 'oh, the tsunami (flood) lag would be washed away later, keep in mind that you guys always say a buttload of sediment was deposited during the flood, and this would have buried and preserved this flood lag in at least some places. But we don't see it.

Some flood evidence can be degraded over time by weathering or by subsequent local flooding, thus destroying any 'uniform' evidence that might once have existed of a single flood.

At what point did 'uniform evidence' become necessary for identification of geologic phenomenon? The Iridium layer at the K-T boundary is anything but geographically uniform, but it is found at the exact same level globally. We don't need continuous outcrop to correlate between geographically distant localities.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

At what point did 'uniform evidence' become necessary for identification of geologic phenomenon? The Iridium layer at the K-T boundary is anything but geographically uniform, but it is found at the exact same level globally. We don't need continuous outcrop to correlate between geographically distant localities.

I have said this all along concerning Noah's flood, but have always been met with the demand for 'uniform evidence'. So which is it?

 

[Orogeny]

That depends on what 'uniform evidence' means. Based on your context, I took it to mean 'evidence that is evenly distributed and visible over the entire world'. In this case, no, uniform evidence is not required. If 'uniform evidence' means 'evidence that is internally and externally consistent with deposition by processes that would be active during a catastrophic, world-wide flood', then obviously uniform evidence would be required.

It is important that we be clear with our terminology. Would you like to define what you mean by uniform evidence?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That depends on what 'uniform evidence' means. Based on your context, I took it to mean 'evidence that is evenly distributed and visible over the entire world'. In this case, no, uniform evidence is not required. If 'uniform evidence' means 'evidence that is internally and externally consistent with deposition by processes that would be active during a catastrophic, world-wide flood', then obviously uniform evidence would be required.

It is important that we be clear with our terminology. Would you like to define what you mean by uniform evidence?

I'll defer to your definition, but stand by my assertion that uniform evidence of Noah's flood is just not possible. As a worldwide flood subsides I believe it would break up into a multitude of 'local' floods of different intensities, based on elevation and topography.

 

[Orogeny]

I'll defer to your definition, but stand by my assertion that uniform evidence of Noah's flood is just not possible.

Then we agree on this point. Understand, however, that this point in no way supports the possibility of a global flood.

As a worldwide flood subsides I believe it would break up into a multitude of 'local' floods of different intensities, based on elevation and topography.

We do not currently judge a flood by the smaller bodies of water it may break up into. Why would we do this for a global flood? And even if it did 'break up' into local 'floods', there should still be evidence of a large flood followed everywhere by smaller, waning-stage floods.

Once again, we see no evidence of this.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Then we agree on this point. Understand, however, that this point in no way supports the possibility of a global flood.

We do not currently judge a flood by the smaller bodies of water it may break up into. Why would we do this for a global flood? And even if it did 'break up' into local 'floods', there should still be evidence of a large flood followed everywhere by smaller, waning-stage floods.

Once again, we see no evidence of this.

I don't believe substantial erosion and deposition would even have occured until the flood had abated to lower elevations. The main volume of water would have returned to the sea without affecting the earth's surface very much, leaving the 'smaller' floods to leave the evidence locally.

 

[Belk]

I don't believe substantial erosion and deposition would even have occured until the flood had abated to lower elevations. The main volume of water would have returned to the sea without affecting the earth's surface very much, leaving the 'smaller' floods to leave the evidence locally.

And the reason you believe this is... ?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And the reason you believe this is... ?

Basic hydrology principles. Fill a large vessel with water. Place sediments on the bottom. Tip the vessel slowly to empty it. Notice that the sediments remain virtually undisturbed until the vessel is almost empty. The large volume of water is 'sliding' off the top in layers. The final layers sweep the sediments away. It's almost a siphoning effect. Flowing water 'pulls' the water behind it in a straight line towards the 'drain' point. Even in a bathtub the water is pulled in a staight vertical line down the drain until the water becomes shallow. It is only then that the bottom layer moves rapidly towards the drain taking any sediments with it.

 

[Belk]

Basic hydrology principles. Fill a large vessel with water. Place sediments on the bottom. Tip the vessel slowly to empty it. Notice that the sediments remain virtually undisturbed until the vessel is almost empty. The large volume of water is 'sliding' off the top in layers. The final layers sweep the sediments away. It's almost a siphoning effect. Flowing water 'pulls' the water behind it in a straight line towards the 'drain' point. Even in a bathtub the water is pulled in a staight vertical line down the drain until the water becomes shallow. It is only then that the bottom layer moves rapidly towards the drain taking any sediments with it.

So based on a model that would look nothing like what you would expect to see in the conflagration described as the global flood in the bible.

 

[Orogeny]

I don't believe substantial erosion and deposition would even have occured until the flood had abated to lower elevations.

OK, then you run into the problem of 'where did all the sediment come from'. If it came from the flood and not from anything before, then all the erosion that produced the sediment had to have been caused by the flood. So your erosion story is bust. And if it was eroded during the 40 days when the flood waters were actively rising, then deposition would have initiated when the waters began to recede. There would still be a huge, easily recognized pile of falling-stage deposits. These deposits would onlap any previous topography on the earth's surface and downlapping towards the ocean basins. Of course, we don't see this.
But Orogeny, what if erosion and deposition were happening AT THE SAME TIME?!?!??!? It is quite possible that this would happen, but if this were the case, we should see discrete areas of significant and near-instantaneous erosion and discrete areas that show signs of near-instantaneous deposition (such as abundant climbing ripples, large packages of massive bedding, a profound absence of bioturbation, convolute bedding caused by rapid deposition of water-rich sediment, and other indicators of rapid sediment build-up). We don't see this either.

Finally, none of this explains the whole 'fossils in the Himalayas' argument you jokers like to make all the time.

The main volume of water would have returned to the sea without affecting the earth's surface very much, leaving the 'smaller' floods to leave the evidence locally.

Returned to the sea? What filled the sea when the water it now holds was up and gallivanting around on the continents? Why don't we see evidence of multiple individual 'smaller floods' all over the world?

Seriously bro, if you're going to make stuff up, at least do it in a way that is creative. Challenge me. This junk is child's play.

 

[Orogeny]

Basic hydrology principles. Fill a large vessel with water. Place sediments on the bottom. Tip the vessel slowly to empty it. Notice that the sediments remain virtually undisturbed until the vessel is almost empty.

This experiment does not even remotely address something like a global flood as you propose it. First, 'place sediments on the bottom'? In other words, deposit sediment. Which you said doesn't happen in your model until the flood waters are already receding. So in order for your model to be even close to internally consistent, you would have to be swirling the vessel around to keep sediment entrained in the water column.

Utter hydrodynamic failure #1

The large volume of water is 'sliding' off the top in layers. The final layers sweep the sediments away. It's almost a siphoning effect. Flowing water 'pulls' the water behind it in a straight line towards the 'drain' point. Even in a bathtub the water is pulled in a staight vertical line down the drain until the water becomes shallow. It is only then that the bottom layer moves rapidly towards the drain taking any sediments with it.

Again,
Bathtubs drain from the bottom. When you drain a bubble bath, do the bubbles go first, or do they sit merrily on top of the water column as the tub drains? If a bathtub drained from the top, the bubbles would be the first thing to go. They are not. Likewise, 'draining' a flood would also draw water from the bottom of the column, not the top. This would particular be the case in a density stratified water column, which the oceans (at least in part) are and the flood likely would be.

Hydrodynamics fail #2.

Look, I'm really tired of having to correct you on incredibly basic mistakes. I would suggest you read my posts from earlier in this very thread, starting here. I make a case for a global flood using geologic principles and, even as a well-trained sedimentary geologist, cannot hold off a layman for more than a few of pages. All of my arguments are reliant on actual geologic principles, and so are significantly stronger than the arguments you are making right now. No offense, but if I can't convincingly argue for a global flood, you've got a snowball's chance.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

This experiment does not even remotely address something like a global flood as you propose it. First, 'place sediments on the bottom'? In other words, deposit sediment. Which you said doesn't happen in your model until the flood waters are already receding. So in order for your model to be even close to internally consistent, you would have to be swirling the vessel around to keep sediment entrained in the water column.

Utter hydrodynamic failure #1

Again,
Bathtubs drain from the bottom. When you drain a bubble bath, do the bubbles go first, or do they sit merrily on top of the water column as the tub drains? If a bathtub drained from the top, the bubbles would be the first thing to go. They are not. Likewise, 'draining' a flood would also draw water from the bottom of the column, not the top. This would particular be the case in a density stratified water column, which the oceans (at least in part) are and the flood likely would be.

Hydrodynamics fail #2.

Look, I'm really tired of having to correct you on incredibly basic mistakes. I would suggest you read my posts from earlier in this very thread, starting here. I make a case for a global flood using geologic principles and, even as a well-trained sedimentary geologist, cannot hold off a layman for more than a few of pages. All of my arguments are reliant on actual geologic principles, and so are significantly stronger than the arguments you are making right now. No offense, but if I can't convincingly argue for a global flood, you've got a snowball's chance.

Let's agree that if the flood occurred it was a supernatural event. That should make us both happy.