RightWingGirl said:
There is a single band, comprised of many layers--it is usually known as the "geological column."
The geological column is not a single band. It varies widely from formation to formation. Different parts of it require different environmental conditions. Some cannot possibly form in flood conditions.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/#column0
I has not answered this yet becuase I doubt that we could ever agree on something like this. It is impossible for science to prove anything, and no man living has seen the global flood. I could not then prove that it was made by a world-wide flood, and any evidence I show can be taken by you as evidence of a local flood, even if it is a very large one. Science cannot faithfully speak of the past, only the present, as the scientific theory deals only with those things which are reconstructable, and testable.
Let's remember that what I was talking about was not missing evidence that would support a global flood, but observed evidence that is impossible if a global flood occurred.
You seem to be suggesting that such evidence could be re-interpreted to be consistent with a global flood.
The challenge you face is coming up with a re-interpretation for each of these (and there are dozens if not hundreds). And furthermore, the re-interpretation for each bit of evidence must be consistent with all the other re-interpretations. Because scientific explanations have to be self-consistent.
Again, you show a disturbing lack of curiosity on the nature of such evidence.
A global flood would make more than one environment, although not in the same place at the same time. If, as is thought, the continents split during this time we would not only have water, but mud flows, earthquakes, volcanoes, Tsunamis on giant scales, and hurricanes.
Who thinks this? Why? Do they have any more reason to think this than that they apparently need it to account for geological features that could not be accounted for by the biblical description of the flood.
Continent dividing is another ad hoc addition to scripture.
And, it also adds to the heat problem. By the time you have all this happening, you have boiled away the oceans and raised the atmospheric temperature to more than boil lead. How do you expect any life at all to survive?
You must be thinking of a diffent kind of stone.
No, your source confirmed what I was saying. And it does not contradict the conditions under which shale forms or the time it takes.
A website which shows the process of Shale forming shows it's formation in the ocean, near the beach. The ocean water near the beach does not stay still for long periods of time. Found here.
Look at your graphic again. It is the sand that is near the beach. The shale is in deeper water on the shelf, where the surface wave action does not affect the quietness of the deeper water.
Under "normal" evolutionary conditons, what provides the intense weight and pressure of water and more sediment to allow it to lithify.?
Geology and physics don't depend on "evolutionary" conditions. We are talking about non-living matter here. The weight is provided by gravity (as all weight is). Gravitational pressure from new sediments accumulating above every day, from the weight of the water above the sediments and the weight of the atmosphere above the water. Additional pressure from the movements of tectonic plates and the upwelling of molten rock from the mantle can heat and distort sediments into metamorphic and even igneous rock.
As I said before, the continents spliting in the space of a year would make many, many volcanoes.
You haven't said why a flood would trigger volcanoes, and now you want to add a new element that would produce even more heat, with still no justification for adding either of these to the scenario at all. And you are not dealing at all with the consequences of either of these. Even disregarding the heat problem, they would also leave evidence. Where is the lava and ash from the volcanoes? What indicates a recent continental split?
No human living has seen the flood. How would you tell? however they would probably occur throughout the flood, but primarily at the beginning.
You would tell by the evidence they left. For example,
pillow lava
Now what is the basis of your answer. Are you not just guessing that "they would probably occur throughout the flood, but primarily at the beginning"? Why do you make this guess rather than another? Just so that you will seem to have an answer?
"I don't know" is the best answer to give when that is the truth.
But since you chose to give an answer, the next question is, "how do you propose to test the validity of your answer?"
Rocks formed by lava, quanities of ash, etc.
And how has it been shown that these are related to a global flood? e.g. what happens to volcanic ash when it is deposited on water?
Could you give me sources?
Where did all the heat go? If the geologic record was deposited in a year, then the events it records must also have occurred within a year. Some of these events release significant amounts of heat.
Magma. The geologic record includes roughly 8 x 1024 grams of lava flows and igneous intrusions. Assuming (conservatively) a specific heat of 0.15, this magma would release 5.4 x 1027 joules while cooling 1100 degrees C. In addition, the heat of crystallization as the magma solidifies would release a great deal more heat.
Limestone formation. There are roughly 5 x 1023 grams of limestone in the earth's sediments [Poldervaart, 1955], and the formation of calcite releases about 11,290 joules/gram [Weast, 1974, p. D63]. If only 10% of the limestone were formed during the Flood, the 5.6 x 1026 joules of heat released would be enough to boil the flood waters.
Meteorite impacts. Erosion and crustal movements have erased an unknown number of impact craters on earth, but Creationists Whitcomb and DeYoung suggest that cratering to the extent seen on the Moon and Mercury occurred on earth during the year of Noah's Flood. The heat from just one of the largest lunar impacts released an estimated 3 x 1026 joules; the same sized object falling to earth would release even more energy. [Fezer, pp. 45-46]
Other. Other possibly significant heat sources are radioactive decay (some Creationists claim that radioactive decay rates were much higher during the Flood to account for consistently old radiometric dates); biological decay (think of the heat released in compost piles); and compression of sediments.
5.6 x 1026 joules is enough to heat the oceans to boiling. 3.7 x 1027 joules will vaporize them completely. Since steam and air have a lower heat capacity than water, the steam released will quickly raise the temperature of the atmosphere over 1000 C. At these temperatures, much of the atmosphere would boil off the Earth.
Aside from losing its atmosphere, Earth can only get rid of heat by radiating it to space, and it can't radiate significantly more heat than it gets from the sun unless it is a great deal hotter than it is now. (It is very nearly at thermal equilibrium now.) If there weren't many millions of years to radiate the heat from the above processes, the earth would still be unlivably hot.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#flood
Only the magma would come from volcanoes, but I included the rest of this section so you can see how significant the heat problem is if you try to have all these heat-producing events occurring in a short space of time.
Again, could I have sources?
The Rierdon formation is a set of interbedded marine and evaporitic rocks. Some times the ocean covered the area and then it was exposed long enough for gypsum and anhydrite and once again salt to be formed.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/#column
Evaporitic rocks cannot be formed in the middle of a flood. They could be formed as the earth was drying up, but then they could not be interbedded with marine deposits.
This fish was supposed to have lived in a large, still, shallow sea covering parts of modern-day U.S.A. What killed it(without leaving marks) so quickly after eating another fish, perserved it, sank it to the bottom, and finally what fossilized it?
It would take expert examination of the fossil to develop a thesis on what killed it. How do you know it left no marks? If you can identify the fossil, you can probably find a report on it that would answer your questions. But other than "what killed it?", I don't see any problem with a general answer to the rest. Why would it be a surprise if a fish was killed shortly after swallowing another? Surely it would sink before being preserved. The picture does not give an idea of scale. How large a fish was it? Since there is only a skeleton, there was presumably decay before the bones were preserved and fossilized in the usual way.
I don't know what sort of problem you are imagining here. I don't see one.
Do you know of any place on the earth where particles that small could slowly fill a foot print?
Coconino Sandstone--part of the Grand Canyon formation. There are footprints of spiders in this sandstone. Also fossils of raindrop impact craters. Both occur only under very dry conditions, indicating, among other things, that this formation could not have been produced in a flood.
Let me emphasize, that what we have looked at so far is a mere fraction of just the geological evidence that the flood could not be global. There is a whole lot more geological evidence, and we haven't begun to touch on fossil evidence, or biological evidence.
Since you seem to depend on creationist sources, you are probably unaware of most of this evidence.
For example, check out what this post has to say about underground river beds.
http://www.christianforums.com/t1155768-the-quiet-thread.html&page=2
Has any creationist source even mentioned them? How can they possibly exist if the whole geological column is flood deposits?
) This mobility coupled with nothing more than basic physics (matter settles in positions which give it its lowest gravitational potential - a uniform spherical distribution being ideal) would mean that a global flood model must be substantiated by a near-uniform sediment thickness all over the oceans.
