If a tsunami tilted the earth what could a global flood do?

A4C said:

If you consider that grasses grow on top soil and top soil would be the first to be covered in a flood it stands to reason that grasses are found at lower levels

Click to expand...

(emphasis mine)
That would make sense given a global flood scenario.
However, such is not the case. Grasses arent found in lower stratigraphic levels

A4C said:

sounds reasonable Where's the problem?

Click to expand...

Given a global flood, it would sound reasonable to expect such.
However, such is not the case

A4C said:

Not really. Fossils only account for those that perished by submersion under mud flows etc. A higher proportion might continually seek higher ground and finally succumb by drowning. We would not expect to find fossill remains of these but the large limestone deposits might well explain things

Click to expand...

Ah that old argument!
This, upon even rudimentary examination, falls apart.
What this theory fails to explain is why the various species are found at consistently regular strata.
I guess ALL the Phororhacoses could only climb so high


BTW, have you found any corroborating sources for your Mt St Helens claim? Have you found any site that actually states where they got their information from?
Or are you just going to continue to ignore that and hope I eventually forget about it?

A4C said:

Actually I am waiting for you to give me resuts of Hypothesis #1 and Hypothesis #2 that would either confirm or deny the claims made by multiple sites on the web..

Click to expand...

So I ask you for something and all you can do is tell me to go to Mt St Helens and check myself?
Sure thing
I'll just clear my calendar and go rushing off to do that

I'll take this as your final admission that you cannot or will not provide (or that the YEC sites cannot provide) any corroboration for the claims made.
Thanks for wasting my time, I'll remember your evasion tactics in the future.

A4C said:

So far I have heard nothing but accusations of lying

Click to expand...

The reason I called you a liar (as I already pointed out to floodnut) is due to the fact that you completely misrepresented what I was requesting, NOT due to the sites you were linking to and not due to your beliefs.
You lied, plain and simple

A4C said:

and a lot of hand waving. I am sorry but on such a simple matter I am appalled at the lack of scientific interest in this matter.

Click to expand...

Simple? "Go to the mountain and check for yourself" is simple?

Do you care to fund my travel expenses? If so, I will gladly go to St Helens and do all the checking you've asked.
Let me know when you have the money ready and I'll PM you my address so you can send me a check.

In the meantime, dont accuse me of "lack of scientific interest" when what Ive been trying to do is FIND OUT where the scientific backing is for this topic regarding St Helens.

A4C said:

My recollection is that there was no "acceptable" "scientific data concerning the formation of layers at Mt St Helens. Is this just another example of hand waving that has turned into arm flapping and soon to develop into full blown body twirling.

Click to expand...

Actually, no - there is no data at all provided. You gave us a site that openly admits that they confused new lava flow rock with the claim of sedimentary rock being dated and considering that there are no sources available from geologists (or anyone who has actually been to the site such as the USGS - which did an extensive analysis of the site) that discusses rock formation, the nature of the sedimentary rock (other than the claim itself), I think your claim is another unsupported creationist exaggeration and confusion. Give me one claim by even a creationist geologist and it might have some merit. That has yet to be provided.

Hand waving is suggesting that there are no sedimentary layers of rock on the east coast. Arm flapping is when it is brought up again even when extensive surveys and geological descriptions done by actual geologists are provided. Full blown body twirling will most likely come when you bring up these poor claims again as if they have never been discussed.

A4C said:

My recollection is that there was no "acceptable" "scientific data concerning the formation of layers at Mt St Helens. Is this just another example of hand waving that has turned into arm flapping and soon to develop into full blown body twirling.

Click to expand...

The layering at Mt. St. Helens was the result of lahars associated with the most recent eruption. The sediments there are NOT lithified, it's almost entirely unconsolidated ash and mud, which is completely irrelevant to the vast majority of the sedimentary rock record. That this layering effect, hardly comparable to almost all of the geologic record, was observed to form quickly is meaningless and only illustrates that you know nothing about geology.

But this has been explained to you before as being a terrible argument and the most gigantic non sequitur in the creationist flood geology arsenal.

That you come back with this example of unsupported creationist wishful thinking is the effect of your previous hand waving regarding previous refutations and explanations of the errors of this argument.

A4C said:

The claim being made is that rock layers can form in sedimentary layers and can do so in a short time. (ie months rather than millions of years) This of course has been an embarrassment to those scientists who have hitherto claimed otherwise and obviously desire that any attention to this phenomena be dismissed
Perhaps we ought to congratulate the Creation Scientists who in a true sense "keep the *****s honest.

Click to expand...

You still haven't pointed us to any claims by creation scientists who have stated this or that actually know enough about geology to not confuse sedimentary layers with lava flows.

Where is the study? Where is the evidence? All you have provided is a 2nd (or 3rd) party claim base on their misunderstanding of anothers work.

Let's take a look at the claim by the reference you provided.

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The eruption of Mount St. Helens produced up to 400 feet of stratified rocks which look millions of years old, but were produced in days or hours. Even though radioactive measurements of these rocks show them to be millions of years old, we know they were formed in 1980 because scientists saw them formed.

There is a fundamental problem with this statement that shows a lack of understanding of geology. Can you point it out? Obviously this is not a source you should rely on for accurate information about what is really going on at the site.

Considering that the source makes the following claim:
[/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Earth's spin is slowing down at a rate of one third of a second every year. Extrapolating this back billions of years, we obtain an unreasonable spinning speed for the Earth.

You would be advised to avoid them for any scientific knowledge. They can't even get the basics right.

[/font]

A4C said:

Actually I am waiting for you to give me resuts of Hypothesis #1 and Hypothesis #2 that would either confirm or deny the claims made by multiple sites on the web.. So far I have heard nothing but accusations of lying and a lot of hand waving. I am sorry but on such a simple matter I am appalled at the lack of scientific interest in this matter.

Click to expand...

Hey, I just LOVE how you completely ignored EVERYTHING else in post 441
Once more, I shall take note of your dishonest evasion tactics in the future


But hey, being the nice guy that I am, I'll give you a second chance.
Got any actual answers for post 441?

Of course, if you're willing to finance my travel expenses to Mt St Helens I'll forego any answers from you (not that I expect any) and prove or disprove your Hypothesis 1 and 2, and then I'll get back to you

So which is it?
1- Finance my travels and expenses to scientifically verify your YEC sites claims
2- Answer my other questions (I'll settle for just the questions from post 441 for now)
or
3- Concede that you dont have any answers

??

1, 2, or 3?
Your choice

You being a christian, I'll assume you are going to be honest, upfront and forthright

A4C said:

The claim being made is that rock layers can form in sedimentary layers and can do so in a short time.

Click to expand...

Except that's not entirely true, especially with the example provided because it is (1) largely pyroclastics and soil mixed together (i.e., not sedimentary, strictly speaking) and (2) unconsolidated, not actually lithified sediment as rock.

This of course has been an embarrassment to those scientists who have hitherto claimed otherwise and obviously desire that any attention to this phenomena be dismissed

Click to expand...

The only people embarrassed by this argument are the creationists who promote it because it shows they neither understand geology nor the argument they are making themselves.

Geologists don't claim that all sedimentation occurs over millions of years or that it cannot happen rapidly. This has been explained to you before as well, so you're deliberately arguing against a strawman of what geologists actually think.

Perhaps we ought to congratulate the Creation Scientists who in a true sense "keep the *****s honest.

Click to expand...

Dishonesty is the hallmark of creation science, as this argument is dishonest in itself as well. That should not be congratulated.

A4C said:

No amount of pontificating is going to dispell the reason for the "silence" (by the non ceationist scientific community) on the "quick" rock layer formation at Mt St Helens.

Click to expand...

A volcano went off. If you need an explanation for sediment from it, methinks you're beyond hope.

A4C said:

No amount of pontificating is going to dispell the reason for the "silence" (by the non ceationist scientific community) on the "quick" rock layer formation at Mt St Helens.

Click to expand...

Oh, the fact that there's no proof that actual rocks have been formed negates the need to address the point of fast rock formation.

After all, you have to have something to refute in order to refute it, otherwise you're just musing.

Unless you are referring to fast igneous rock formation anyway, in which case there really isn't anything to refute, as igneous and sedimentary rocks are VERY different.

A4C said:

No amount of pontificating is going to dispell the reason for the "silence" (by the non ceationist scientific community) on the "quick" rock layer formation at Mt St Helens.

Click to expand...

What quick rock layer formation?

Your source was wrong about the type of rock that was dated and made a mistake that is quite obvious.

Why don't we see rock 'quickly' forming every day? Why has the mud from the tsunami that you brought up not turned to rock?

What is special about the mount saint helens runoff that make you think it turned to rock?

This isn't pontificating, it's pointing out that your claims are untrue and have no basis in reality or actual geology.

A4C said:

Thank you for giving that information about what is contained on the site I referenced

Here are some more statements from the same source that might be of interest to many of you.

Rivers pour tons of material every year into the Earth's oceans. Scientists know with a fair degree of accuracy the quantity of each element's influx as well as the current concentration of these elements in the oceans. By simple division, they can calculate the time it took to reach present levels, even accounting for sedimentation and dissipation. None of these elements give an age of the Earth even coming close to billion of years.

and this one:

Polystratic trees are fossil trees that extend through several "strata" of rock, sometimes penetrating 20 feet deep. According to evolutionists, a 20 foot deposit of rock would take place slowly and uniformly, over a great many years. However, the tops of such tree trunks would have decayed long before the new rock layers had a chance to surround them.30 At Katherine Hill Bay, Australia, a fossilized tree can be seen extending over twelve feet, through several sedimentary layers. This tree is testimony to the catastrophic and rapid burial that must have taken place.

and even this :

When the carbon-14 test was first created, scientists used the process to date many different things including oil and coal. Tests of these two substances by this method revealed them to be only several thousand years old instead of millions of years old, as predicted by evolutionary theory. Once this method was shown to predict recent dates for oil and coal, scientists stopped dating oil and coal using this method.


By the way if anybody wants to be further convinced that the whole concept of an earth billions of years old is nothing more than an old wives tale you will find this site interesting :

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/youngearth.shtml

Click to expand...

Yep, I notice you avoided the PRATT that I pointed out from that site that shows why it's not really a good site to use. It is filled with misconceptions and lies. I notice the lack of references. That's a nice list of assertions and half truths you have there! Have fun!

For instance, assuming that no materials are removed from the ocean is just plain silly, wrong and, against OBSERVED processes. How can this site deny what we can go out and observe?

No amount of pontificating is going to dispell the reason for the "silence" on the lack of "quick" rock layer formation at Mt St Helens and as a result of the tsunami.

Why don't we see rock 'quickly' forming every day? Why has the mud from the tsunami that you brought up not turned to rock?

A4C said:

Obviously the conditions nececessary for laying of sediment and formation of rock were present in the catastrophic event of a global flood as well as the Mt. St. Helens eruption but not present in a tsunami.

Click to expand...

Which conditions would those be? How is the 'condition' of the mud at mount saint helens any different then that of the tsunami?

It isn't 'obvious' at all that the conditions necessary rock formation were present at Mount Saint Helens. If it was, the geologists from the USGS might have mentioned it in their very detailed study.

What is obvious is that you still haven't shown us any evidence that new sedimentary rock has formed at mount saint helens.

A4C said:

Are you talking about the mud created by the surge of water on land or the mud spewed out by seismic activity? Either way as the tsunami originates from undersea activity I thought the differences were obvious. Nevertheless perhaps rock formations did occur under the sea but I have not seen any reports of any

Click to expand...

And why doesn't the mud that it washed out turn to rock like the mud at mount saint helens. Why is the mud at mount saint helens any different than mud flows that we see all the time from flooding that don't turn to stone (hint - they aren't).

Doesn't the detailed study by USGS mention layered rock fomations?. Perhaps they missed it.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't because it doesn't exist. It is a misconception by a creationist who confused lava flows with sedimentary rock.

It looks like Austin missed it too and his is the article that was referenced with the claim. Not a single mention of this rock formation. Lots of talk about mud and sediment layers though

http://www.cnt.ru/users/chas/sthelens.htm

I gave you evidence and the site that it came from. Here it is again
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/sthelens.htm

Click to expand...

Yep - we know you have provided an unsupported claim by someone who doesn't seem to be familiar with geology, or even the tests they are discussing. The information is third hand (and confused) and shows that the source is not reliable. Combined with the other science mistakes that are on that site, I would recomend that if that is your source for the claim that new rock was formed, that you try to find another source because they don't know what they are talking about.

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The eruption of Mount St. Helens produced up to 400 feet of stratified rocks which look millions of years old, but were produced in days or hours. Even though radioactive measurements of these rocks show them to be millions of years old, we know they were formed in 1980 because scientists saw them formed.

[/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]These sediments were NOT the rocks that were dated in the study the author is referring to. He obviously doesn't know what he is talking about and is confused. You can't date sedimenary rock with the methods that are discussed. Get a new source. Preferrably one that understands the subject. Find a geologist, creationist or otherwise, that shows that new rock was formed. [/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/font]