Fossil Record Observation

[46AND2]

It does. We can identify many sedimentary rocks deposited during a flood. For example: a shale.

You know as well as I do that shale is produced by calm waters. How can that possibly be the case in floods of Biblical proportions?

 

[juvenissun]

Hi Juven...been a while since last we spoke. Have a question for you: What makes you think that a 3 meter per hour increase in water depth wouldn't cause significant waves? Every instance of such massive increases in water volume that I am aware of has been rather devastating.

A minor example is the rising of Mississippian River flood water at, for example, Memphis, TN. The river flow appears to be normal, but the water level will keep rising for a few days.

Water gushed out from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge will not cause a single wave at New York. The sea level will only rise quietly.

 

[juvenissun]

You know as well as I do that shale is produced by calm waters. How can that possibly be the case in floods of Biblical proportions?

A lot of mud will be deposited in the ocean after the Flood.

 

[46AND2]

Good thinking.
But there will be a lot of sedimentary material after the flood.

I'm disappointed, Juve. It seems that you are continually growing farther and farther from your geologic educational roots. It used to be that your biggest fault was that you were non-committal when it came to dating the age of the earth. Which is fair enough. You didn't want to pin a number. Now, you are arguing about shale being part of the flood deposit, when you KNOW that it goes against everything that geology teaches.

You mentioned that the flood would have left plenty of fine sediment to settle and become shale. Well, yes, but there are MANY layers which we find ON TOP OF and IN BETWEEN shale layers in the geologic record.

Shale is one of many smoking guns in favor of flood-deniers, including evaporites, paleosols, coccalithofores, and many others.

 

[46AND2]

A minor example is the rising of Mississippian River flood water at, for example, Memphis, TN. The river flow appears to be normal, but the water level will keep rising for a few days.

Water gushed out from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge will not cause a single wave at New York. The sea level will only rise quietly.

1. Never does it reach anywhere near 3 meters per hour.
2. You are comparing localized water increases to a flood which supposedly spanned the whole world. Your comment about a localized increase not affecting an area outside of that locale is completely irrelevant. Your hypothetical 3 meter rise would affect ALL locales, since it was an allegedly GLOBAL occurrence.

 

[46AND2]

A lot of mud will be deposited in the ocean after the Flood.

Indeed, and as I stated, there are layers of shale BETWEEN many other types of deposits, including subarial igneous layers.

 

[juvenissun]

That's a fabulous pic. Just look at it...how can you NOT see that it was slowly eroded over time? It's simply obvious to me. In addition to the meandering, if it happened suddenly in the flood, why are the sidewalls not sheared?

It is not that simple. Meandering process does not show when river flows on bedrock.

 

[juvenissun]

1. Never does it reach anywhere near 3 meters per hour.
2. You are comparing localized water increases to a flood which supposedly spanned the whole world. Your comment about a localized increase not affecting an area outside of that locale is completely irrelevant. Your hypothetical 3 meter rise would affect ALL locales, since it was an allegedly GLOBAL occurrence.

It is only a scale problem. I did not calculate. May be someone should do that.

 

[46AND2]

It is not that simple. Meandering process does not show when river flows on bedrock.

The meandering, to me, is a secondary observation. The point of my post was to identify the stepped nature of the sidewalls.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm disappointed, Juve. It seems that you are continually growing farther and farther from your geologic educational roots. It used to be that your biggest fault was that you were non-committal when it came to dating the age of the earth. Which is fair enough. You didn't want to pin a number. Now, you are arguing about shale being part of the flood deposit, when you KNOW that it goes against everything that geology teaches.

You mentioned that the flood would have left plenty of fine sediment to settle and become shale. Well, yes, but there are MANY layers which we find ON TOP OF and IN BETWEEN shale layers in the geologic record.

Shale is one of many smoking guns in favor of flood-deniers, including evaporites, paleosols, coccalithofores, and many others.

So? I don't see how would other layers of rocks interfere the arguments about the Flood.

 

[46AND2]

It is only a scale problem. I did not calculate. May be someone should do that.

It is not only a scale problem. You introduced an argument which included one locale not being affected by the water rise. In a global flood, no locales are unaffected.

 

[46AND2]

So? I don't see how would other layers of rocks interfere the arguments about the Flood.

How can there be multiple shale layers separated by other sedimentary (and subarial igneous) layers in a single flood?

 

[juvenissun]

The meandering, to me, is a secondary observation. The point of my post was to identify the stepped nature of the sidewalls.

That is the feature not clear to me.
Why would the width of the channel continue to shrink? And it seems the steep wall should be on the outside of the curve.

 

[juvenissun]

How can there be multiple shale layers separated by other sedimentary (and subarial igneous) layers in a single flood?

If not likely, so what?

 

[juvenissun]

It is not only a scale problem. You introduced an argument which included one locale not being affected by the water rise. In a global flood, no locales are unaffected.

Did I? I don't know that.

 

[46AND2]

Did I? I don't know that.

You did when you spoke of the Mississippi River and New York...a totally irrelevant situation.

 

[46AND2]

If not likely, so what?

Not likely? I asked how it's POSSIBLE? You know that it isn't.

 

[46AND2]

That is the feature not clear to me.
Why would the width of the channel continue to shrink? And it seems the steep wall should be on the outside of the curve.

Really? You've never, as a geologist, observed a cut created by water in which the channel continues to narrow? You think that all rivers carve perfectly vertical sidewalls?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It seems to be one of you favorite argument. But I don't see any relevance of this feature to the Global Flood.

That is because you have been spewing nonsense and no nothing of this science at all.

Try to explain how that formed and I will explain to you why you are wrong. There is a right answer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's a fabulous pic. Just look at it...how can you NOT see that it was slowly eroded over time? It's simply obvious to me. In addition to the meandering, if it happened suddenly in the flood, why are the sidewalls not sheared?

And please note that the sidewalls from cliffs or are very very steep. Soft sediment does not make stable slopes with that steep of a slope (sadly in my are we found out that steep hills, not nearly as steep as those pictured, are not stable for unconsolidated sediments. Google Oso Landslide if you want to.

Here is a link to the picture, one click and it is enlarged to full screen. A second click and it is enlarged about three more times. The resolution is fantastic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goosenecks_State_Park