Scientific proof of flood.

[duordi]

What mechanism started CPT movement? What mechanism stopped it? Where is the evidence of this? Where is the evidence of the heat it produced? How did steep and narrow volcanic mountains build during this process? How did they erode so quickly? And, as always, why the differences in dating?

Evidence would point us to the CPT model, it has not (and does not). You need to start your rewrite of science much further back and throw out much of what we know about geology and physics before your model explains the evidence better than the mainstream explanation (or even the no plume model). You are now borrowing from another model. If you take that model as valid, it does not support CPT unless you again, throw out the evidence and data that was used to build that model. What time frames does the Non-Plume model support? Plume or No plume, you still have a millions of years model. Can you find a mainstream (plume or no plume) geologist who would agree with your timeframes and dismissal of dating methods based on the evidence from either model?

So what you are saying is that if an idea is not mainstream it can not be correct?

Duane

 

[notto]

So what you are saying is that if an idea is not mainstream it can not be correct?

Duane

Not at all. What I'm saying is that the only people who suggest the CPT model as laid out our people who need it to have taken place due to religious beliefs, it is not an idea that was reached objectively as an explanation by scientists.

Much like people who suggest that all the meteors in Europe are the result of a single simultaneous event, the CPT model was developed to fit evidence to a belief instead of forming a conclusion based on the evidence.

It is usually helpful if a new model actually describes the evidence we have in addition to offering new value to making predictions of new evidence. Most YEC models can't explain the evidence we have without ignoring it or handwaving it away. Both the European meteor idea and the CPT model ignore the dating models we have along with other independent lines of evidence that falsify them (not to mention the heat!).

 

[duordi]

The point of the erosion is that the newer islands have not eroded to the current water level or below. There has not been enough time for them to do so after they became dormant. The same cannot be said for the rest of the chain of islands.

Agreed

If the volcanoes have only existed for a short time or they were created within the same short time frame we would either see

a) all of the islands above water because the erosion was too slow to erode them to sea level

b) all of the islands eroded below sea level because the erosion was fast enough.

I did not say the islands are the same age just that the time scale is incorrect.

We don't see this. We see some islands (the oldest by two other independent dating methods) eroded more than the youngest.

The erosion pattern we see correlates with 2 other independent lines of evidence that shows the islands are old.

Your evidence is not independent because your base assumptions used for determining dates have been constructed to give collaborating information.

If the islands were young, the rate of erosion that would be required to erode the islands that are now at sea level would be noticeable on the islands that are currently above water. It is not. The erosion of these volcanic islands is a slow process.

The profile of erosion we see correlates with what we would expect if the islands are very old and the erosion is due to the same erosion causing phenomena we currently see.

It does not as this would cause the submerged islands to be at a common elevation.

To suggest that these islands are young, the model would need to explain

1) how the mountain building process was accelerated from what we see today to build the islands in the first place

Agreed

2) how the plate movement was accelerated to show the island spread we currently see

Agreed

3) how the decay rates of the dating isotopes was changed

This is not necessary as the error in the radioactive dating theory is in the assumptions used not the decay rates.

The faulty assumption is that the rock is formed with a specific amount of trace elements.

The assumption of the amount of trace elements at inception can be adjusted to allow any date desired.

4) how the erosion rate was accelerated to show the profile we see

Agreed

The best model we have for the formation of the hawaiian islands that explains the evidence we see is that they are indeed old,

I disagree as the elevation of the submerged islands are not at the same elevation.

that physics hasn't changed,

Agreed

and that the process of erosion and island building we see going on today building and eroding is the same process that has been going on to give us the evidence we find in the chain today.

I disagree that conditions on Earth have remained the same for millions of years.

Suggesting that these islands were formed after the last ice age (which would require a lot of volcanic activity in a short amount of time)

Agreed

is as silly as suggesting that all the meteorites in Europe came from a simultaneous event.

Agreed as they are both very probable.

Neither model explains the independent methods we have that date these things.

Please take note of what you are suggesting.

The only way you will accept a theory is if the assumptions are modified to cause date projections to match the dates you have accepted.

This is exactly why your dating systems are not independent.

They have been adjusted to match each others information in order to be acceptable.

If you guessed right you are Ok, if you guessed wrong then all your dating systems have been adjusted to be incorrect.

Duane

 

[dlamberth]

I did not say the islands are the same age just that the time scale is incorrect.

What time scale would you use?

.

 

[notto]

They have been adjusted to match each others information in order to be acceptable.

No they haven't, hense they are 'independent'. The dating methods are internally consistent and handwaving (such as what you are showing here) will not change that.

In addition, the decay related dating methods (which is only one of the three) are also independent of each other (and of the assumptions you list). Within just that one independent method we have additional independent methods (that all just happen to agree with each other).

I would certainly like you to show how all of these have been adjusted to match each other. Otherwise, it is simply a handwave.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

No. Please reread what I said. All hypotheses go through this phase. However, because of the generality of CPT requires far more research and development before the hypothesis might exit this phase.

CPT is hardly a major hypothesis. It is just another failed attempt to reconcile a Bronze Age myth with modern science

CPT is a scientific hypothesis. Can you logically determine otherwise? You have never done this and I would be very surprised if you could. You have never even explained how you logically deduce falsification which tends to lead me to question your methods of scientific reasoning.

A scientific hypothesis is an attempt to explain observations. CPT was specifically formulated not because of observations but to try to come up with a "scientific" rationalization for the genesis flood. Further, a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable. All attempts to falsify CPT are met with ad hoc rationalizations such as accelerated radioactive decay to get it started and organized bouyant steam jets to carry the heat into space. If CPT is a scientific hypothesis as you claim what would falsify it?

Because the mechanism of hydrothermal cooling is shock hydrodynamic two phase. I know you have heard of the hypothesis of steam jets. It is unclear exactly how effective they would be, but--by my understanding--as a fundamental principle they are almost certain to have occured.

Steam might well have jetted out but those jets first have to make it through the ocean and then the air without transfering any significant portion of their heat into either. Less than 4% of the heat from the cooling crust alone would heat the oceans to the point where only thermophylic bacteria would survive and a small fraction of 1% would heat the air to the point that no air breathing life would survive. So that means that more than 96% of the crustal rock would have to be shock cooled. Doesn't shock cooling produce volcanic glass? Is 96% of the ocean crust volcanic glass?

It (volcanic glass) would probably be the main product near the vincinity of fractures where rigorous cooling is takes place. I have suggested that conduction through the spaces between hydrothermal conduits and veins would reheat and potentially recrystalize over time. What I have realized recently is that the mechanism of rigorous hydrothermal cooling will be relatively localized to major fractures and veins beyond the depth of the crust.

It that case the heat will released more slowly, not producing your magic organized jets into space and heating the oceans beyond the point that life could survive.

How much of that is received into the oceans? You have only speculated on this and even then all you've said is basically 'I don't know, but you only need this much!' Which doesn't really establish anything.

All of it is released to the surface of the earth including the oceans and the atmosphere. The heat can't be transferred down to the mantle once any cooling starts unless you have some mechanism for pumping heat from a cooler to a hotter body. Since the process occurs under water all of the heat is originally released in the oceans, at least until the oceans boil away, how much is retained by the oceans depends on how much is transferred to the air by latent heat from condensing steam. Let me ask again, how do you accomplish hydrothermal cooling using ocean water without heating the ocean water?

There are going to be some pretty massive steam driven hurricanes before the oceans boil away. Will the ark be destroyed by a hyper hurricane or a massive cyclonic current before it is parboiled? That is the question, but dead is dead.

dead has not been determined beyond speculation. Many of your core assumptions have been completely unmodeled--many of them even lack basic equations of support that do not fail from the existance of speculative auxiliary assumptions.

My core assumption is that the laws of physics, especially the laws of thermodynamics are not violated. Everything else follows directly from that.

I never said the bible was literally true. I am trying to determine the correct answer, not the simplest answer.

There is absolutely no reason to try to model the Genesis flood unless you believe not only in a literal Bible but in the YEC interpretation of that Bible.

(Regarding insect nests in paleosols)This depends on so many variables. For this reason it is best that we consider particular formations and and so I will address the Haymond formation later in this post.

In other words you know full well that paleosols with fossil insect nest could not have formed during a global flood and you have no way to address them. I know we have covered this subject before.

No theory has perfect consistency with the data. If this were not true, science would have no need for tentativity. I've already explained the status of the CPT hypothesis as a hypothesis in my last longer post so I don't know why you are making this statement anyways.

No hypothesis with so many inconsistencies with the data would ever be considered for long by anyone who didn't have a religious need to accept it.

Its been a while, but yes I have. I recall there being a lot wrong with Morton's logic.

There are several major holes in Morton's presentation. It is actually quite sloppy, IMO. I don't think he explained the geologic setting very well, While he says that they were Pennsylvanian, he does give any ages for the oldest and/or youngest beds. First he says that deposition would constitute approximately 30 days of time from the timescale of catastrophic geology, but later considers 95 days. He does not identify what species is responsible for the burrows, which is probably the biggest caveat of Morton's argument. We do not know what percentage of the burrowing species are found in the sandstones and shales or still in burrows. He argues that there should be a rim of material around the opening of the burrows if they had escaped, but of course this rim would not have maintained its topography in the wake of a turbid flow.

Can you explain how this structure formed during a global flood? Can you explain how the burrows of these sea dwellers were preserved if the mechanism of that flood was subduction of the entire sea floor? I think not.

And somehow he concludes that, "This is an indication of lots of time between the deposition of the sand and the digging of the burrows."

This conclusion has not been well supported.

What other conclusion could one draw from the data? Certainly not that these burrows were formed in a few days during a global deluge that was occuring because of subduction the entire sea floor and "Preflood" lithosphere.

I guess you don't understand that belief is not the business of scientists as scientists.

I understand that your beliefs are leading you to continue to promote a model that is totally untenable if you won't even admit it to yourself.

FB

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

(In reply to the fact that cooling the ocean crust would release about 10^28 J of heat into the oceans) Yes and the surface of the earth is also heated from the radiation of many of our galaxies stars. It just isn't significant.

We are talking about approximately 2000 times the amount of energy the earth receives from the sun in a year which is very significant.

I think that some of the pre-CPT oceans water was heated somewhat, although I presume that only a very small percentage of the heat was ultimately absorbed by the ambient ocean. But I do not know by how much--10%,

10% would have heated the oceans to about 170 degrees C.

2%, .001%. But you seem to know and I have argued that there is little reason for you to think you have.

You can make such an argument but it makes no sense. How could you cool the ocean crust and lithosphere by hydrothermal cooling and only heat a tiny fraction of the ocean water when the heat in the crust alone is enough to boil the ocean 3 time over? There is certainly no reason to think as you do.

I thought it was acceptable rhetoric as you have made assertions like "While you claim to not be a YEC you are still providing a pretty good imitation."

I guess that's because you are ignoring so much data against the CPT model that was developed by YECs for the sole purpose of trying to justify belief in a Genesis flood.

Considering the proposed mechanism of two phase high velocity vertical jets, this speculation is called into question.

You talk about high velocity vertical jets organizing, blowing through the ocean and the atmosphere and into space as a "mechanism" and then you talk about speculation! I am still waiting to see the calculations showing how this could happen.

I have no doubt that they would contribute significant heat to ocean water and atmosphere, but exactly how much? Keep in mind that heat is removed from cooling lithosphere both from existential temperature and kinetic potential by virtue of the velocity of the jets.

Remember that energy is conserved. The kinetic energy will be returned to the earth by any water that doesn't escape into orbit. And since you are trying claim that more than 96% if the heat got out by this mechanism you must shock cool 96% of the crust. Where is all that glass?

If the steam organizes into buoyant vertical jets to significant height much it may be ejected at high velocity outside of the atmosphere

You do know that high pressure steam is more dense than air don't you? You do know that steam pressure in air equalizes at approximately the speed of sound don't you? This whole steam jet into space idea just strikes me as a desperate attempt to salvage a fatally flawed model.

So these organisms cannot be passively redistributed on the ocean floor?

In CPT the entire ocean floor is being subducted. The new ocean floor is molten until it is shock cooled. How did organisms that grow attached to the ocean flood get fossilized in place? How did organisms that grow attached to the ocean floor get "redistributed". How did the burrows of organisms that burrow in the ocean floor get redistributed? The whole thing makes no sense at all.

I would guess that this fossil record is exhibited in seafloor sediments. Organisms will be preserved in sediments as sediment is deposited and subsequently perturbed by organisms and organisms are burried by such sediments. I am not seeing the issue here.

Then you are not thinking. How are organisms preserved? The old ocean floor is subducted. The new one is hot and supposedly sending jets into space. How did a fossil record of sessile benthic organisms and burrowing benthic organisms form under these conditions let alone the ordered record that is found.

FB

 

[dlamberth]

Notto asked a lot of very good questions about the basic aspects of CPT....

What mechanism started CPT movement? What mechanism stopped it? Where is the evidence of this? Where is the evidence of the heat it produced? How did steep and narrow volcanic mountains build during this process? How did they erode so quickly? And, as always, why the differences in dating?

Evidence would point us to the CPT model, it has not (and does not). You need to start your rewrite of science much further back and throw out much of what we know about geology and physics before your model explains the evidence better than the mainstream explanation (or even the no plume model). You are now borrowing from another model. If you take that model as valid, it does not support CPT unless you again, throw out the evidence and data that was used to build that model. What time frames does the Non-Plume model support? Plume or No plume, you still have a millions of years model. Can you find a mainstream (plume or no plume) geologist who would agree with your timeframes and dismissal of dating methods based on the evidence from either model?

To which durodi responds...

So what you are saying is that if an idea is not mainstream it can not be correct?

Please, I'm interested in the answers you give to notto's questions, not a flippant answer to one small part of what he wrote. Inquiring minds want to know.

And please, what time scale are YOU using?

 

[grmorton]

Its been a while, but yes I have. I recall there being a lot wrong with Morton's logic.


There are several major holes in Morton's presentation. It is actually quite sloppy, IMO. I don't think he explained the geologic setting very well, While he says that they were Pennsylvanian, he does give any ages for the oldest and/or youngest beds. First he says that deposition would constitute approximately 30 days of time from the timescale of catastrophic geology, but later considers 95 days.

Could you please tellme exactly where the 30 days is on that page? I looked and can't find it. Without a doubt, everyone is subject to error, but I see no place where I speak of 30 day time scale. The 95 days comes from having all the sediment deposited in a year. There are about 5000 m of total sediment and 1300 m of Haymond. If the 5000 meters took 365 days, then the Haymand time can be calculated. Thus, 1300/5000*365 = 95 days. Which means that the 15,000 layers would have to be deposited at the rate of 157 per day. Which means that every layer full of worm burrows must be done in 1/157th of a day. Quite a short time.

He does not identify what species is responsible for the burrows,

And why is this important to the calculation above? Do you know of a species which can be buried 157 times in a single day and still burrow a complete burrow on each buring?

which is probably the biggest caveat of Morton's argument.

So you are saying that one must know the burrower before you can identify a hole in the ground as being a burrow? What kind of illogic is this?

We do not know what percentage of the burrowing species are found in the sandstones and shales or still in burrows. He argues that there should be a rim of material around the opening of the burrows if they had escaped, but of course this rim would not have maintained its topography in the wake of a turbid flow.

If the flow was that turbulent, then why did SHALE whose particles can take months to fall a short distance even be deposited? Shale is deposited between the sand layers and that wouldn't happen in turbulent flow, thus turbulent flow will not explain the lack of rims around burrows.

 

[dlamberth]

What mechanism started CPT movement? What mechanism stopped it?

Because the flood is suppose to have been caused by God because of the evils of man, I'm thinking that God must than be the trigger that started CPT movement by causing the ocean crust to cool so it could sink thus generating heat to blow off steam to make it rain for 40 days and nights. And since God started it by cooling the ocean crust, God stopped it....but I don't know how yet. At least in a nut shell, this is what I'm getting from my readings about CPT.

.

 

[duordi]

Not at all. What I'm saying is that the only people who suggest the CPT model as laid out our people who need it to have taken place due to religious beliefs, it is not an idea that was reached objectively as an explanation by scientists.

Much like people who suggest that all the meteors in Europe are the result of a single simultaneous event, the CPT model was developed to fit evidence to a belief instead of forming a conclusion based on the evidence.

It is usually helpful if a new model actually describes the evidence we have in addition to offering new value to making predictions of new evidence. Most YEC models can't explain the evidence we have without ignoring it or handwaving it away. Both the European meteor idea and the CPT model ignore the dating models we have along with other independent lines of evidence that falsify them (not to mention the heat!).

I gave you a specific reason that your model does not work.
You are so intent on assigning motives and belief systems (I am a YBC) to my
thinking process that you have not even considered what I am saying.
I will try to make this as easy as possible.


1. The ocean level before the ices ages was 220 feet higher then it is now.

2. The Volcanos would have eroded to the pre-ice age ocean level and no further until the ice ages arrived regardless if the volcanos existed 1 million years before the ice ages or 60 million years before the ice ages.

3. All erosion from 220 above the current sea level to the current sea level must have been accomplished during the ice ages when the ocean level was lower.
So all erosion should be similar and one volcano should not show more erosion then another.

4. The ice ages also caused the continental shelf around the continents during low water levels.

5. If the volcano existed at the low point of the ocean level during the ice ages then it should have some evidence of a continental shelf or it should be eroded off level with the continental shelf elevation.

6. If no evidence of a continental shelf level erosion exists then the volcano is recent ( at least mid ice age).

7. If variations in erosion exist then the indication is that the volcanos with less erosion have existed for less of the ice age and more erosion indicates the volcano existed more of the ice age.

8. If a volcano is submerged then it is at least as old as the ocean level would indicate.
There is little chance of course that we will agree as what this age might be but at least we can agree to the principle.

If the evidence of ancient erosion (a continental shelf or a flat top at the continental shelf elevation) does not exist then your date assumptions are wrong.

It may be easier for you to pretend that the continental shelf does not exist then to accept that your dates are incorrect but you should at least consider it.

Duane

PS I copied this post to the bottom of the thread so I can find it.

 

[duordi]

Notto asked a lot of very good questions about the basic aspects of CPT....[/i]

To which durodi responds...
Please, I'm interested in the answers you give to notto's questions, not a flippant answer to one small part of what he wrote. Inquiring minds want to know.

And please, what time scale are YOU using?

Truecreation was discussing CPT not I and the individual seems to understand it well.

My personal ideas do not follow that path but some good arguments were given and I may have to reconsider my thinking.

If notto can not explain how it is possible for his time scale to exist why should I have to accept it?
See my post notto "I gave you a specific reason" above.

As for the time scale, I place the islands during to after last ice age as that is what the erosion information indicates.

Duane

 

[duordi]

I will try to make this as easy as possible.


1. The ocean level before the ices ages was 220 feet higher then it is now.

2. The Volcanos would have eroded to the pre-ice age ocean level and no further until the ice ages arrived regardless if the volcanos existed 1 million years before the ice ages or 60 million years before the ice ages.

3. All erosion from 220 above the current sea level to the current sea level must have been accomplished during the ice ages when the ocean level was lower.
So all erosion should be similar and one volcano should not show more erosion then another.

4. The ice ages also caused the continental shelf around the continents during low water levels.

5. If the volcano existed at the low point of the ocean level during the ice ages then it should have some evidence of a continental shelf or it should be eroded off level with the continental shelf elevation.

6. If no evidence of a continental shelf level erosion exists then the volcano is recent ( at least mid ice age).

7. If variations in erosion exist then the indication is that the volcanos with less erosion have existed for less of the ice age and more erosion indicates the volcano existed more of the ice age.

8. If a volcano is submerged then it is at least as old as the ocean level would indicate.
There is little chance of course that we will agree as what this age might be but at least we can agree to the principle.

If the evidence of ancient erosion (a continental shelf or a flat top at the continental shelf elevation) does not exist then your date assumptions are wrong.

It may be easier for you to pretend that the continental shelf does not exist then to accept that your dates are incorrect but you should at least consider it.

Duane

 

[notto]

It may be easier for you to pretend that the continental shelf does not exist then to accept that your dates are incorrect but you should at least consider it.

Duane

I've considered it. The levels of the Hawaiian islands have already been explained to you. The islands sink as they get older and they are not all at the current water level. Many are well below it. The point is that current above water islands show no evidence of ever being submerged in a flood.

Your recent formation model would also need to explain the coral reefs and atolls we find around these submerged and eroded islands. They cannot be explained with a recent formation and show us that either a) the islands continued sinking or b) the water level was at the level we find these coral reefs around the currently submerged islands at the time of their erosion.


I'm not sure where you are getting your inforation on the continental shelf but I don't think you can extend its formation to a small set of islands. The effects that cause the continental shelf with a large land mass would not be the same for a small island.

 

[duordi]

I've considered it. The levels of the Hawaiian islands have already been explained to you. The islands sink as they get older and they are not all at the current water level. Many are well below it. The point is that current above water islands show no evidence of ever being submerged in a flood.

If they have never been submerged then they could not have existed during the ice ages with a +200 foot water level.

Your recent formation model would also need to explain the coral reefs and atolls we find around these submerged and eroded islands. They cannot be explained with a recent formation and show us that either a) the islands continued sinking or b) the water level was at the level we find these coral reefs around the currently submerged islands at the time of their erosion.

The coral reefs are recent as they would show no erosion which would be caused by water levels 150 foot lower (during the ice ages) if they are dated before the ice ages.

I'm not sure where you are getting your information on the continental shelf but I don't think you can extend its formation to a small set of islands.

I use data that is prevalent, unbendable and extremely easy to understand.

If it is not it will be rejected quickly be those who have a strong attachment to there own theories.

If your proof was based on the existence of the continental shelf and mine was an assumption about the concentration of trace elements in a complicated radioactive dating procedure you would of course reject me immediately.

Because my evidence of the continental shelf is so vast and well documented you are forced to accept it and move your islands up and down several times as you progress through the variation in water levels during the ice ages.

Notice that if I held to a theory which had the islands moving up and down to follow the water line it would be considered foolish.

But when you hold to them they are logical and require no specific evidence as to what would cause this specific motion to occur.

The effects that cause the continental shelf with a large land mass would not be the same for a small island.

No not the same, it would erode it off at the continental shelf water line or at least leave the evidence an attempt was made to do so.

So in summary you choose to disregard the continental shelf erosion line and the variation of water levels during the ice ages.

It is not that I expect you to give up on a time scale you have accepted all your life but you must admit that a short time scale has some merit.

A shorter time scale does not require the islands to move up an down to keep pace with variations in the water line.

A shorter time scale does not expect coral erosion to vanish.

A shorter time scale does not expect a continent to develop an erosion line which causes a continental shelf while leaving an island untouched.

All that is required to achieve a shorter time scale is a modification to the amount of trace elements a rock has at inception and radioactive dating agrees with the short time scale giving you a theory which is consistent.

The remaining dating systems used can be adjusted to a shorter time scale as well as they are based on unknowns which can be assigned any value that is desired.



Major geological formations like the continental shelf however is pretty much set in stone.

Ha. Ha. ( dear drop ).

Duane

 

[notto]

If they have never been submerged then they could not have existed during the ice ages with a +200 foot water level.

The hawaiian islands are > 200 feet high. The mean elevation is > 3000 feet. The highest point > 10,000 feet.

The coral reefs are recent as they would show no erosion which would be caused by water levels 150 foot lower (during the ice ages) if they are dated before the ice ages.

The submerged coral reefs
1) are there
1) show erosion
2) are currently at levels where coral couldn't grow.

How did they get there?

 

[duordi]

The hawaiian islands are > 200 feet high. The mean elevation is > 3000 feet. The highest point > 10,000 feet.

This just proves the island is recent.

I agree with this of course.

The submerged coral reefs

1) are there

1) show erosion

2) are currently at levels where coral couldn't grow.

How did they get there?

Well with a short time scale evidence and expectations match.

The reefs were formed when the water level was at a low elevation during the ice age.

The water level receded below the reefs causing erosion and above them causing them to be submerged.

Cyclic movement of the island elevations is not necessary.

For this to occur the island only has to have existed through the last ice age.


Does the fact that we are moving on to the coral reef mean that you have accepted the continental shelf argument for requiring a recent ice age to present date for the islands?

Duane

 

[notto]

This just proves the island is recent.

I agree with this of course.

Actually, it proves no such thing.

Well with a short time scale evidence and expectations match.

The reefs were formed when the water level was at a low elevation during the ice age.

What was that water elevation again? How deep are the reefs again? You have been giving some fairly specific numbers for water level during the ice age. These levels don't match with where we find the reefs. Therefore, another mechanism must be responsible, right?

The water level receded below the reefs causing erosion and above them causing them to be submerged.

but because the reefs are there, we know that at some point the water level was at that level for quite a bit of time (or that the islands continued to sink as the area under them cooled). Reefs take awhile to build (as do islands). Suggesting that this happened since the ice age doesn't fit the evidence.

Cyclic movement of the island elevations is not necessary.

For this to occur the island only has to have existed through the last ice age.

The coral is well below sea level. Much deeper than the 200 feet you keep referencing.

Does the fact that we are moving on to the coral reef mean that you have accepted the continental shelf argument for requiring a recent ice age to present date for the islands?

No, because you haven't identified it as a problem for the hawaiian islands yet. What specific evidence do you have that leads you to believe that what we find there isn't exactly what we would expect to find? You keep referencing the change in water level during the ice age yet the height of the hawaiin islands and the depth of the coral reefs on the oldest islands are well outside the boundaries of this change in level. Different mechanisms must have caused what we see there now if this is the case. Those mechanisms have already been discussed. The islands sink as the area cools. The patterns we see matches what we would expect and correlates to the other independent indicators of age.

Your model (even with the 'continental shelf') doesn't explain the coral or the erosion profile. That is the point. To throw out the independent lines of evidence that show us the islands are old because you keep saying 'continental shelf' would be silly.

 

[dlamberth]

This just proves the island is recent.

I agree with this of course.



Well with a short time scale evidence and expectations match.

The reefs were formed when the water level was at a low elevation during the ice age.

The water level receded below the reefs causing erosion and above them causing them to be submerged.

Cyclic movement of the island elevations is not necessary.

For this to occur the island only has to have existed through the last ice age.


Does the fact that we are moving on to the coral reef mean that you have accepted the continental shelf argument for requiring a recent ice age to present date for the islands?

Duane

Good hard scientific study has proved that there is no short time scale evidence, unless one knows that in geologic times, 60 million years is but a blip on the geologic time scale. And the only expectations match for a 6000 year time scale happens only with in the realm of non-science.

I'm aware that I write this in frustration. I keep reading this stuff in this forum as well as on line as this thread has triggered that curiosity in geology that I have and I want to learn about CPT. And what I get is to make CPT work as I see it being described, except for the very small blips of scientific knowledge that clung if looked at sideways such that it might support the CPT model, vast amounts of scientific study and knowledge has to be thrown out the window and is being replaced with non-science trying to look like it is science. I want to see the science that backs up your premises!!! Thus far, you have given absolutely none!! Period!! All I have seen are ideas, images and could-have-been's...no science at all. Where IS the science!!

If what I read on line about CPT backed up the model with good science, you might have my attention. But that's not the case, which by the way continues to also shine thru your arguments I read in this thread.

.

 

[TrueCreation]

Could you please tellme exactly where the 30 days is on that page? I looked and can't find it. Without a doubt, everyone is subject to error, but I see no place where I speak of 30 day time scale. The 95 days comes from having all the sediment deposited in a year. There are about 5000 m of total sediment and 1300 m of Haymond. If the 5000 meters took 365 days, then the Haymand time can be calculated. Thus, 1300/5000*365 = 95 days. Which means that the 15,000 layers would have to be deposited at the rate of 157 per day. Which means that every layer full of worm burrows must be done in 1/157th of a day. Quite a short time.

Early in the article you say:

"Young-earth creationists must be able to explain why the sediment changed from 67% pure sand to nearly pure shale 15,000 times during the flood year. (This deposit could only represent about a month’s worth of time in the flood. There are 15,000 feet of strata in this area.)"

I assumed that your month is about 30 days?

Subsequently you made the calculation that you restate here. Also, perhaps the 15000 ft. is merely approximated, but 15,000 ft = closer to 4600 m. Oh well, still a lot for our consideration. You did not present actual ages or estimates of ages for the formation and the adjacent 3700 m of sediments either so I cannot confirm validity of your calculation here (95 days for the haymond). Assuming a 1 year event, one 'day' is equivalent to about 0.7 - 1.4 My of geologic time. Does the entire ~4600 m of sediment consist of turbidites?

And why is this important to the calculation above? Do you know of a species which can be buried 157 times in a single day and still burrow a complete burrow on each buring?

We don't know that single individuals burrowed 157 successive times per day. For all we know there could have been a population of millions of whatever the species was in this particular area and they could have burrowed an average of just a few times individually throughout the deposition of this formation. There is no data that you have presented that helps us constrain anything of this nature and this is just part of the reason that the conclusions of your essay are speculative. It is difficult to even begin approximating because we don't know what species made these burrows (as far as you have presented). This data is relevant, moreover, because I presume that different species create these burrows at different rates. If the species takes days to dig a 5 cm burrow then you have probably fairly well established a significant problem for any "catastrophic" hypotheses. If it is much less than your conclusion probably needs revision.

We should be able to determine rather directly what made the burrows just by finding examples of the organism burried within the burrow.

So you are saying that one must know the burrower before you can identify a hole in the ground as being a burrow? What kind of illogic is this?

No. It tells us about how long it probably took to excavate the burrow. If you don't know this than your conclusion is speculative at best. A good understanding of rates of various processes of bioturbation can tell us a lot about about the feasibility of rapid depositional processes for sediments adjacent to those bioturbations.

If the flow was that turbulent, then why did SHALE whose particles can take months to fall a short distance even be deposited? Shale is deposited between the sand layers and that wouldn't happen in turbulent flow, thus turbulent flow will not explain the lack of rims around burrows.

What? This is deposition out of suspension from a turbidity current. Density of the current increases nearer the surface upon which the current flows. Furthermore, there is no reason to think that the shale layer represents 100% of the fine grained component of the current. Most of the finer grained component of the flow probably settled within minutes.

I am going to run over to the library later and at least briefly study your references.

-Chris Grose