The Flood

[juvenissun]

no worries. I really have no intention of writing a 25k character post again myself. (it took me 2 days to get through it all) I will definitely consolidate thoughts in the future.

If you get a hard question in geology from other posts and like to know more, you may consider to transfer it to me. I will try to explain it to you. I do not reply directly to those posts because those issues have been talked about many times in the past.

To consider a geological question in theology, only knowledge may not be enough.

 

[Orogeny]

How on earth could climate change, or diversification of species account for sudden, rapid changes in the color/composition of the dirt?

Argument from incredulity. Also, misunderstanding of basic geology. It is not DIRT. It is SEDIMENT. Sand. Silt. Grit. Boulders. You don't even have a grasp on basic concepts or terminology. Why do you think you are able to argue something as complex as the origin of the sedimentary record?

Anyway, changes in color and composition are the result of changes in depositional processes and/or diagenetic processes.

do you think there was a cataclysmic event, separating every age?

No. Please don't try to strawman my arguments.

you don't find that everywhere and you don't expect to, and neither do I.

Correct. But we do find these deposits in rocks of every age, so these processes were in play during every age. They would not be if the entire sedimentary column were the result of a flood, or even if only one age (the Cretaceous, say) were the result of a flood. These deposits disprove your flood unless you can show that they originated from flood processes.

I, like you, I presume would only expect to find that feature where sedimentary deposits are, or were introduced to water. Do you think that I think the whole world was near the beach? In the places that you do find it, I have no reason to doubt that you are correctly interpreting the data. The only issue I would take is the rate of deposition.

Your writing is pretty poor, so I'm not quite sure what point you're making here. But I will reiterate that the presence of tidal flats, lacustrine deposits, and cyanobacterial deposits in every level of the sedimentary column cannot be explained by a flood model, but are easily explained in the context of old earth geology.

The grand canyon is about a mile deep and the bottom is about 1.6 billion years old.

OK.

As far as I know, the uniformitarian principle postulates that the exposed layers in the canyon walls exist everywhere in the northern half of the US except maybe the rocky mountains and the Cascade Mountains.

Nope. The stratigraphy exposed in the grand canyon is present primarily on the Colorado Plateau.

That is a lot of dirt.

It's not dirt.

where did the dirt come from?

The SEDIMENT came from erosion of highlands and, in the case of the carbonates, from precipitation of calcium carbonate via biological and non-biological processes in ocean water.

Now, the area of that particular arrangement of stratification could extent all the way to the east coast, up into Canada, and Down into Mexico. But if it doesn't, then what protected the area immediately surrounding the grand canyon from erosion for 1.6 billion years?

Nothing. There are major erosional unconformities exposed in the walls of the Grand Canyon.

and if it does, then where did the dirt come from? I'm sure you don't believe the diameter of the earth was 6.28 miles bigger 1.6 billion years ago.

Dunno where this came from.

In the Rockies are 10% of the land mass of the US then were they 62.8 times bigger back then? Where did a mile thick of dirt come from over that big of an area?

Just trying to strawman your way through this, aren't you? Find a geology 101 book. Read it. Please.

yeah, I know. they came from the flood... Oh, did you have a different answer? if so I didn't hear it.

The SEDIMENT came from erosion of highlands and, in the case of the carbonates, from precipitation of calcium carbonate via biological and non-biological processes in ocean water.

We are observing the same thing. But we are talking past each other to some extent. I believe that that stuff that got eroded all got eroded in one cataclysmic event (not necessarily the biblical flood) and the top layer is in a state of stability.

Please provide evidence for this. If all sediments were eroded at once, there should be a massive, globally correlateable erosional surface. There is not, thus, this cannot be the case.

(unless it is subjected to another cataclysmic event) What I am hoping for is for you to explain how the very top layer is continuing to accumulate more stuff so that we will have more layers on top of the same configuration of the same dirt 100 miles from there in the same climate.

I have no idea what this means. Please write coherently.

I believe the dirt 100 miles from there will remain in a stable state unless effected by a catastrophe.

100 miles from where? Also, why couldn't rocks simply be eroded down over the course of years? Why must erosion be catastrophic?

Yes stuff changes. Yes stuff erodes down while other stuff builds up. And you have showed me a picture of a canyon that was eroded down, presumably by water.

OK.

You could also show a picture of Hawaii, presumably built up by volcanic material.

Not presumably. Hawaii IS volcanic.

But if you look at the canyon walls in your picture you will see straight lines.

ok

If straight lines are the norm, (and rivers erode them) then what mechanism do you have to add layers/straight lines/the norm.

Shoreface processes, fluvial processes, alluvial processes, volcanic processes, eolian processes, tidal processes, lacustrine processes, etc, etc, etc.

You still haven't answered my question. I am not being facetious and It very well may be possible for you to answer it if you took the time. I honestly think that this is such a glaring problem that somebody must have taken the time to come up with a better answer.

Glaring problem where? If you opened just one intro level geology book you would find myriad explanations for stratification. The only reason you don't have this knowledge is because you have made no effort to attain it.

For every square mile of deposition, a foot thick, there must be an equivalent amount of dirt lost from some place else. What mechanism allows for such extreme losses in one place, while leafing such crisp, razor sharp graduations in another place? Particularly if we must allow for some force to deliver the new dirt to the unmolested resting place?

Anyway, erosion and deposition allow for these losses. Gravity is the force responsible for both. It's that simple.

if its a strawman I would think somebody would take more time to answer it more properly than just calling it a strawman. Until such an event occurs, I will continue to think it is legitimate.

Yes, because someone ELSE should do all the work for you and just tell you the answers. This is my main problem with creationists. You're lazy. Instead of putting in some effort to learn you just say "Well I think it may be BLAH BLAH BLAH and until someone proves me wrong I'LL JUST SAY I'M RIGHT!" Disgusting.
The argument is a strawman, and therefore a fallacy. The answer is that nobody makes this claim except for you.

I re read my post and I can't find that. That does not mean it is not there, but I suspect you heard somebody else say it.

1) the question about the strata and layers, all the geologic column would be flood layers via hydrologic sorting.

Regardless, even if I did say that, that is not what I believe, nor did I believe it when I posted.

And there go those goalposts.

Like I already said, they have to dredge the Mississippi regularly, we can observe the Niagara falls receding in a single lifetime, we can observe the wind carrying sand dunes, we can identify deposits of volcanic ash. We can observe stuff changing. A lot of it is changing so fast that the uniformitarian is forced to conclude that it has not always been changing as rapidly as it is today despite a lack of evidence to the contrary.

All strawmen, already addressed.

In addition I'm sure there are geological connundrums where nobody has come up with a suitable answer.

Yep. That's why we keep studying.

There are some things, like the "fossil graveyards" I cited earlier, or the accounts of human artifacts being found in billion year old dirt in coal mines where I say "The uniformitarian principel is completely inadequate to account for this."

Or you could simply say that your understanding of old earth geology is inadequate (it is), and that your billion year old coal artifact is probably yet another instance of YEC 'scientists' making a mess of things for their own benefit.

But I would say that I currently think that 70-90% of the stratafication we observe on earth would be the result of a single global catastrophe.

Yeah? Which parts? Which ages? How can you tell the 'global catastrophe' deposits apart from the regular type?

One cool example that I don't feel like looking up is some island city in the Meditranien (Tyre, maybe?) and some war general (Alexander the great, maybe?) dumped dirt in the ocean to build a land bridge to ransack the city. That was a while ago, but today his land bridge is a thick peninsula. It created a large eddy, and more sand continues to be deposited there.

Cool.

 

[Orogeny]

29.2M cubic meters a year http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/ocea...ns_ndt_about_08_head-passes-hopper-mujica.pdf for one us river
it doesn't matter to me. the rate at which sand moves has, in my opinion, zero weight either for or against a young or old earth. I am actually not sure why you think it would be a problem for me.

no, I mean it probably got buried at different times long after the flood. 29.2 miullion cubic meters a year for the Mississippi alone?

Let's do some math, shall we? Let's say that that sediment actually made it through the mouth of the Mississippi and into the Gulf of Mexico. Let's then say that that sediment was all deposited in an area 10km by 10km (which is small enough to be wildly unrealistic, but we'll use it anyway to make the math easy). How thick would that layer of sediment be? 29,200,000m^3, spread over an area 10,000m on a side. That's 100 million square meters. So your sediment layer would only be 29cm thick.

If we were to use a more realistic number for the dispersal of that sediment, like, say 100km by 100km, your sediment layer shrinks to just 3mm thick.

that's enough dirt to bury 3 reefs over 6000 years.

The Capitan reef complex covers an area ~90 miles by 150 miles (144km by 225km, see here for report). So if we take the sediment load that you say 'could bury 3 reefs' and spread it over that area, we'd end up with a layer 0.9mm thick every year. 0.9mm is the diameter of a single coarse sand grain.

Wanna do some more math? The Capitan reef complex is 500m thick. If our sediment accumulates at a rate of 0.9mm per year, it would take 555,555 years to bury the Capitan reef complex.

Your arguments from incredulity are wearing thin. Just because you don't understand how the world could be old, or how sedimentary systems work doesn't mean that other people don't.

Hopefully this has already been covered. Yeah, I don't have a problem with sedimentary deposits. I have a problem with crisp, razor sharp graduations in dirt in the middle of a continent that are not accounted for by volcanic ash, river flow, wind or other catastrophic forces.

I have a very hard time taking you seriously when you can't even use simple terminology correctly. Again, open just one geology book. Take one geology class. I can't teach you everything on an internet forum.

ok, this confuses me. I don't know how far a basin has to be from a delta to receive a different classification but unless I am missing something I would think that fluvial deposits would continue to encroach on whatever basin they are flowing into.

This is generally correct. Deltas are deposited into basins (the gulf of mexico is a basin).

Are we only talking about observations made on a chunk of dirt that is dried up and we are looking at it after the fact? I feel like I am missing your point here.

Nope. And the point is:
A. Rivers generally don't bury reefs, and
B. The sediments that DO bury reefs accumulate a lot more slowly than river sediments.

I sorta covered this earlier but just to reiterate, It seems like the percentage of the earth that is in a state of stratafication is too great for the percentage of the earth available to create the stratafication.

The area of the earth available to create stratification (ie, subject to erosion) is 100%. Any rock or sediment can be eroded. This is not an issue in geology, it is an issue with your understanding of geology.

if by pratt you mean "point raised a thousand times" then I would agree with you. If you mean "point refuted a thousand times" then I'm still waiting for the first refutation.

You know what it means. And it has been refuted a thousand times. The argument starts with the faulty assumption that the Mississippi would have been flowing for 6 billion years. This is a strawman. Nobody makes this claim. The argument also assumes that there would be no basin floor subsidence and resultant increase in accommodation space once sediment was loaded onto the sea floor. Yet another faulty assumption. There are more problems with this argument, but either of these is enough to tank it anyway.

The flood model accounts for the excess sediment my postulating that the river was much bigger shortly after the flood as is accommodated all the runoff east of the Rockies.

In this case we should see large boulders and cobbles at the base of the mississippi river delta, since a larger river flowing at a faster rate would be able to carry larger clasts. We do not see this. Also, if the river was 'much larger' 6000 years ago, it would consequently have cut and occupied a much larger river bed. We do not see this remnant river bed. We should also see boulder erratics scattered about the flood plane, since flow would have been much higher. We do not see this.

ok. I will tell you my personal theory. It is not published and nobody teaches (proselytizes?) it.

Translation: You made it up.

I think the earth, in its antedelluvian state had massive aquifers much bigger than it does today. And it also had masses of molten rock nearly the same size as it does today. I think the ground cracked probably in the places on that color coded oceanographic map I linked to, the earth settled in, pushing the water out and flooding the earth.

You understand that aquifers are not big, empty voids in the earth's crust, yes? And you understand that unless aquifers were big, empty voids in the earth's crust, there would be nothing to 'settle in' to, yes? And you understand that if there were big, empty voids in the earth's crust, you would need to provide a structural mechanism for these voids to exist, as I've asked you for and you've failed to provide, yes? Ok. Just making sure we're on the same page.

I

think this settling caused much more stress on the tectonic plate (singular) and it cracked under the Himalayas, Rockies, etc...as it was under tension from sloughing into the voids that are now the oceans.

Any evidence of these cracks, or are you just making things up?

I think so much magma came out of these new cracks that it displaced the water, revealing continents.

How would 'displacing water' reveal continents? When water is displaced from ocean basins, it impinges on the continents, covering them in shallow seas.

To the extent that the earth's crust is about 5 times thicker under the continents than it is in the ocean.

Yep. And if massive amounts of magma poured from the mid-ocean ridges, then the crust around those ridges would be thicker than the continents, right?

Yeah, I think it may have been all as thick as it is in the oceans before the flood. So I don't have a problem with weird stuff happening to the dirt, I think it moved a lot while it was still under water.

Any mechanisms to explain the 'weird stuff' that happened to the 'dirt' during the flood, or are you just chalking it up to being weird?

But you can't rip me apart on this.

Why not? Because you made it up? 'I made this up, so I should get a free pass!'
That's not how it works, pops.

Until now I haven't told anybody and I have not tried to convince anybody. I don't even know if it would be possible to dissipate that much heat that rapidly without frying everything. But there is a lot of magma down there right now and it hasn't fried us yet.

There's not. There really isn't.

And if my theory were true, water would have flowed down into the crack and met the magma at a depth that it currently is. And even if its not true, which it most likely isn't, that still doesn't mean other weird stuff cant happen.

So your argument is basically 'I dunno, but things I don't understand can happen'? We agree on that.

 

[Orogeny]

well we have an aspiring geologist in this very thread that told us all that the mountains are made up of fossilized marine life.

1. Do not misrepresent me. I am not an 'aspiring geologist'. I am a degreed, certified geologist.
2. Do not misrepresent my positions. Nowhere did I say that 'the mountains' are made of fossilized marine life. I said that some mountains are made of fossilized marine life. Understand the difference.

Call me crazy, but I bet he thinks the tops of all the mountains we have today were a lot closer to sea level some time ago.

Certainly. But it is not because sea level was 8+km higher at one point, as you seem to be implying here.

 

[Preecher]

It's amazing and humorous watching people trying to explain a miracle of God by their own wisdom. The Flood was miraculous. You simply cannot explain a miracle. If you could, it wouldn't be a miracle. God created everything by His Word. He also could delete whatever He chose to by His Word. I.E. water. The Bible is a Book of miracles.

 

[Assyrian]

It's amazing and humorous watching people trying to explain a miracle of God by their own wisdom. The Flood was miraculous. You simply cannot explain a miracle. If you could, it wouldn't be a miracle. God created everything by His Word. He also could delete whatever He chose to by His Word. I.E. water. The Bible is a Book of miracles.

The thing is, the bible describes God using natural processes to send the flood, rain and subterranean fountains, and wind to make the waters subside. You see, some miracles you cannot explain naturally, healing a man born blind, the resurrection, others can be explained naturally because God used natural processes, look at the plague of locusts which came when God sent an east wind that blew blow all day and all night. The locusts arrived the following morning. Where did they come from? Well, you get locusts in Arabia which is just across the Red Sea to the east of Egypt.

 

[Preecher]

The thing is, the bible describes God using natural processes to send the flood, rain and subterranean fountains, and wind to make the waters subside. You see, some miracles you cannot explain naturally, healing a man born blind, the resurrection, others can be explained naturally because God used natural processes, look at the plague of locusts which came when God sent an east wind that blew blow all day and all night. The locusts arrived the following morning. Where did they come from? Well, you get locusts in Arabia which is just across the Red Sea to the east of Egypt.

They are still miracles. God caused them to happen.

 

[Assyrian]

They are still miracles. God caused them to happen.

I don't deny that, just your claim they cannot be explained. If God uses natural processes, then we can explain and understand the natural processes.

 

[Preecher]

I don't deny that, just your claim they cannot be explained. If God uses natural processes, then we can explain and understand the natural processes.

How could God create by His Word? Everything came into existence by His Word. Unbelievers have to explain it by 'evolution'. But they are wrong. It was a miracle.

Psalms 33:6
6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

 

[Assyrian]

How could God create by His Word? Everything came into existence by His Word. Unbelievers have to explain it by 'evolution'. But they are wrong. It was a miracle.

God's command does not mean he cannot use natural processes. The bible says God formed me in my mother's womb, does that mean the scientists and doctors who explain it in terms of human sexual reproduction are wrong? What about when the bible says God is the potter and we are the clay? Genesis uses the same word for potter to describe God forming Adam from a lump of mud. Why is it alright to take the potter and clay metaphorically and say God used biology to make you and me, but it is wrong to say that about God forming Adam?

If you read Genesis 1 it describes God commanding the earth to produce living creatures. Gen 1:24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds..." I don't see any conflict between that and God decreeing that the different kinds of animals are produced by natural processes.

Psalms 33:6
6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

Job 37:6 For to the snow he says, 'Fall on the earth,' likewise to the downpour, his mighty downpour.

Psalm 147:15 He sends out his command to the earth; his word runs swiftly.
16 He gives snow like wool; he scatters hoarfrost like ashes
17 He hurls down his crystals of ice like crumbs; who can stand before his cold?
18 He sends out his word, and melts them; he makes his wind blow and the waters flow.

Psalm 148:8 fire and hail, snow and mist, stormy wind fulfilling his word!

Doesn't mean God can't use natural processes to fulfill his word, natural processes that can also be explained by physicists and meteorologists.

 

[Preecher]

God's command does not mean he cannot use natural processes. The bible says God formed me in my mother's womb, does that mean the scientists and doctors who explain it in terms of human sexual reproduction are wrong? What about when the bible says God is the potter and we are the clay? Genesis uses the same word for potter to describe God forming Adam from a lump of mud. Why is it alright to take the potter and clay metaphorically and say God used biology to make you and me, but it is wrong to say that about God forming Adam?

If you read Genesis 1 it describes God commanding the earth to produce living creatures. Gen 1:24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds..." I don't see any conflict between that and God decreeing that the different kinds of animals are produced by natural processes.


Job 37:6 For to the snow he says, 'Fall on the earth,' likewise to the downpour, his mighty downpour.

Psalm 147:15 He sends out his command to the earth; his word runs swiftly.
16 He gives snow like wool; he scatters hoarfrost like ashes
17 He hurls down his crystals of ice like crumbs; who can stand before his cold?
18 He sends out his word, and melts them; he makes his wind blow and the waters flow.

Psalm 148:8 fire and hail, snow and mist, stormy wind fulfilling his word!

Doesn't mean God can't use natural processes to fulfill his word, natural processes that can also be explained by physicists and meteorologists.

I'm not sure if we disagree or not. But Biblical miracles are clear cut miracles. As in 2 Ki 6 where God made the axe head float on water.

 

[juvenissun]

The thing is, the bible describes God using natural processes to send the flood, rain and subterranean fountains, and wind to make the waters subside. You see, some miracles you cannot explain naturally, healing a man born blind, the resurrection, others can be explained naturally because God used natural processes, look at the plague of locusts which came when God sent an east wind that blew blow all day and all night. The locusts arrived the following morning. Where did they come from? Well, you get locusts in Arabia which is just across the Red Sea to the east of Egypt.

What you said is very similar to the debate on the concept of TE.

In many situations, evolution process can be described and be explained by natural principles. But, sometimes, some evolutional changes can not be explained in such a manner. Thus, some degree of miraculous action is needed from God to complete the whole process of evolution.

I guess you will object furiously to the above statement. Right? But if you have that attitude toward the interpretation of Global Flood process, and other miracles, why don't you have the same attitude toward the process of evolution?

 

[Mallon]

It's amazing and humorous watching people trying to explain a miracle of God by their own wisdom. The Flood was miraculous. You simply cannot explain a miracle. If you could, it wouldn't be a miracle. God created everything by His Word. He also could delete whatever He chose to by His Word. I.E. water. The Bible is a Book of miracles.

I take it you don't advocate Flood Geology, then?

Good!

Hope to see you around here a lot more every time a YEC like Papakapp claims to have scientific evidence for the Flood. You can just tell them it was all a miracle and that there is no scientific evidence for the Flood (as Orogeny has so aptly shown).

 

[Assyrian]

I'm not sure if we disagree or not. But Biblical miracles are clear cut miracles. As in 2 Ki 6 where God made the axe head float on water.

You mean ignoring the explanation Elijah stuck the stick in the hole in the axe head? But no, we seem to agree God works both through supernatural miracles as well as through natural processes, through we probably disagree over which he used when, but then the bible doesn't usually tell us how God worked in each case.

 

[Assyrian]

What you said is very similar to the debate on the concept of TE.

In many situations, evolution process can be described and be explained by natural principles. But, sometimes, some evolutional changes can not be explained in such a manner. Thus, some degree of miraculous action is needed from God to complete the whole process of evolution.

I guess you will object furiously to the above statement. Right? But if you have that attitude toward the interpretation of Global Flood process, and other miracles, why don't you have the same attitude toward the process of evolution?

The problem is Creationism and ID haven't shown evolution is impossible. It's that old 'personal incredulity' again. Just because you want to believe it is impossible doesn't make it so. Not sure what attitude difference you are talking about between the flood and evolution though. In both cases, young earth creationism and a global flood are rejected because the scientific evidence tells us this simply isn't what happened. In both cases I go back to the scriptures to see if there are other ways to understand the passages, and there are. Though my interpretation of the creation accounts and the flood narrative are quite different, but that is from the texts themselves.

 

[juvenissun]

The problem is Creationism and ID haven't shown evolution is impossible. It's that old 'personal incredulity' again. Just because you want to believe it is impossible doesn't make it so. Not sure what attitude difference you are talking about between the flood and evolution though. In both cases, young earth creationism and a global flood are rejected because the scientific evidence tells us this simply isn't what happened. In both cases I go back to the scriptures to see if there are other ways to understand the passages, and there are. Though my interpretation of the creation accounts and the flood narrative are quite different, but that is from the texts themselves.

The problem is that every evolution scientist is still trying desperately to show that evolution is possible, even the idea has been taken as a truth for centuries.

What a funny situation.

 

[Mallon]

The problem is that every evolution scientist is still trying desperately to show that evolution is possible, even the idea has been taken as a truth for centuries.

Right. That must surely be why evolutionary theory is a standard part of the biology curriculum and intelligent design/YECism is not. Makes complete sense, that.

 

[Assyrian]

The problem is Creationism and ID haven't shown evolution is impossible.

The problem is that every evolution scientist is still trying desperately to show that evolution is possible, even the idea has been taken as a truth for centuries.

What a funny situation.

Yes that is a good example, you take the fact scientists are a still studying evolution and try to change that into the suggestion that evolution doesn't work. The fact scientist are still studying isn't a problem, it is how science works. Now the fact creationist have been trying to refute evolution for 150 years and haven't come up with anything, now that is a problem.

 

[juvenissun]

Yes that is a good example, you take the fact scientists are a still studying evolution and try to change that into the suggestion that evolution doesn't work. The fact scientist are still studying isn't a problem, it is how science works. Now the fact creationist have been trying to refute evolution for 150 years and haven't come up with anything, now that is a problem.

Creation is a statement which takes no argument. There is no burden of proof.

Evolution is a statement which has many arguments, but never be enough. I do not have to say that it is impossible, I am saying it has hard time to be proven possible.

OK, shall we go back to the issue of the Flood?

 

[juvenissun]

Right. That must surely be why evolutionary theory is a standard part of the biology curriculum and intelligent design/YECism is not. Makes complete sense, that.

Do you know why is there a concept of the end time in Christianity? What you said is one of the major reason. The end-time concept is anti-evolutional.