Pick an area, any area ...

[shernren]

... and let's discuss its geological history.

I've been getting through some of the ICR modeling stuff raised here. Some of it is actually rather technically proficient. I especially liked this one - I've seen similar conclusions reached before so it looks legit.

But how well does it explain the real world? I've already seen at least one article that cites Baumgardner's numerical model of ocean currents and shows that it renders traditional flood geology explanations (of the Ruhr coal beds, in this case) quite invalid. Shall we have another try here? Pick an area, any area. And then let's scour it for clues of whether or not it could have been formed by a global flood, taking into account the surrounding topography and geology.

Of course a global flood theory is complex - but if it is so complex that it can't even explain a confined area then what use is it and what can it possibly mean for it to be "valid"?

Actually the fossils and the other geologic strata are exactly as one would expect after a global flood (Noah). Far from giving evidence for old age or evolution, they stand as silent solid testimony to the truth of Scripture.

 

[laptoppop]

Sounds fun -- I'm gonna have to beg off for a while, but I'd like to join in. My kids school year is ending and I've got a huge project at work starting up (total redesign of our web presence and back end architecture / servers. The site is pretty big - it has a couple thousand pages, hosts a digital library with over 200,000 articles, is Google PageRank 9, and gets about 3 million pageviews each month). Probably for the next month or so, I'm only gonna have little bits of time here and there -- but after that, hopefully, it sounds like a good discussion.

An interesting area for me would be the grand canyon area - but I'm open to lots of places. There's less hard data in the open web-- ICR, for example, sponsors trips/investigations into various sites, but they don't typically write them up, they just use them for the graduate program. So it could be a cool bit of extra research/thought.

Or... I could just say a true flood model is so complex it can accommodate anything <grin>.

 

[shernren]

Sounds fun -- I'm gonna have to beg off for a while, but I'd like to join in. My kids school year is ending and I've got a huge project at work starting up (total redesign of our web presence and back end architecture / servers. The site is pretty big - it has a couple thousand pages, hosts a digital library with over 200,000 articles, is Google PageRank 9, and gets about 3 million pageviews each month). Probably for the next month or so, I'm only gonna have little bits of time here and there -- but after that, hopefully, it sounds like a good discussion.

An interesting area for me would be the grand canyon area - but I'm open to lots of places. There's less hard data in the open web-- ICR, for example, sponsors trips/investigations into various sites, but they don't typically write them up, they just use them for the graduate program. So it could be a cool bit of extra research/thought.

Or... I could just say a true flood model is so complex it can accommodate anything <grin>.

In fact, my semester exams start tomorrow. I shouldn't even be here.

I'd love to take this up again when the time is right.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Noah's flood cannot be properly studied from the ground in small (carefully selected) places. A flood of this magnitude must be studied from above using satellite imaging. The study along with any flood models must fit the scale of the flood: global, worldwide.

 

[laptoppop]

Noah's flood cannot be properly studied from the ground in small (carefully selected) places. A flood of this magnitude must be studied from above using satellite imaging. The study along with any flood models must fit the scale of the flood: global, worldwide.

While I agree that satellite and topographical data could be helpful, I believe we need to look below the surface. The boundaries and extent of the deposits is good to look at, but so is the thickness and volume. The amount of material transported is huge, and that has to consider thickness as well.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

While I agree that satellite and topographical data could be helpful, I believe we need to look below the surface. The boundaries and extent of the deposits is good to look at, but so is the thickness and volume. The amount of material transported is huge, and that has to consider thickness as well.

I'll go with that as well.

 

[juvenissun]

... Baumgardner's numerical model

He only see things possible in the mantle. He did not have the mind to think about what would be the consequence on the surface.

If the subduction process ran away as his model suggested, then we should see a lot of strange features everywhere on the earth. For example, the oceanic crust would have very big "holes" (which means no basalt cover on the mantle-like rocks), and the geomagnetic pattern of the ocean floor should also be different.

I do not feel good when think about the idea of an accelerated plate tectonics.

(I am not sure what I said here is relevant to your post. Just some ideas).

 

[Jadis40]

This reminds me of what I just posted last night in the After the flood thread, in which I stated that there's plenty of geological proof of the glaciers that once covered this area (northeastern Indiana), but zero for a global flood. There are plenty of physical signs left behind attesting to the ancient history of this region, including the remains of what once was a coral reef, 400 million years ago.

Here you go, a list of features to watch for on a field trip:

http://www.geosci.ipfw.edu/g100fldt/g100fldt.html

IPFW is in Fort Wayne, which is only 25 miles northeast of here. I drive on US 24 on a regular basis, so I'm extremely familiar with it, and the features mentioned.