Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Valkyree makes so. many. claims about geology and sources none of them.
Living in the sea will do that though. And plate tectonics can push the sea bed up. We can measure the rate the Indian subcontinent is pushing into the Tibetan plateau and the rate the Himalayas are still being pushed up by it.
.
valkyree said:true - but we do not know if the present rate of uplift was the same in the past
i say the rocks tell us the rate of uplift was much greater in the past than it is today
today we measure a slower remnant uplift in the wake of a cataclysmic event
Actually you have to be a bit more precise here lest your explanation be torn apart. What is important is that after the initial release of water and the flood waters rose there was a period where the level stayed stable. That means that these "voids" were "closed" I could imagine that what happened is that the earth crust broke through -perhaps because of heat pressure and the water gushed out through a relatively small opening emptying the void. Then with all the debris and silt trying to flow back in, the opening could get blocked. Then the debris began to accumulate on top of this thin layer of crust finally coming to a point of total collapse due to the mass on top of it. This would cause a rapid inrush of water and debris causing powerful receeding water forces and forming the basis for the fossil fuel deposits.
And you offer no evidence for those conclusions whatsoever...
Actually we can measure the rate in the past because we can date the strata laid down before the various super continents broke up and we have a pretty good idea how far they had to go to get to where they ended up next. continental drift has been going at the present rate for hundreds of million of years. It is only when you get to the very early super continents when the crust was thinner and the earth warmer that we find plate tectonics was running a bit faster than it is now. Since rate of continental drift has no direct connection to radioactive decay rates, the fact they agree with each other give independent corroboration to both.true - but we do not know if the present rate of uplift was the same in the past
i say the rocks tell us the rate of uplift was much greater in the past than it is today
today we measure a slower remnant uplift in the wake of a cataclysmic event
Every lake bed, river delta and sea bottom on the planet has deposits of mud or sand full of animals and plants that have seen a violent death.no where on earth today are any deposits being formed of thick mud and/or sand full of animals and plants that have seen a violent death
Mostly, yes. Why not?how did those sediments get here? not by small local deposits being slowly deposited one thin layer at a time by small floods of small local streams
What fraction of fossils have preserved cellular details? And why won't a local flood, that may wash a foot (or ten feet) of mud over a body preserve cellular details?slow deposition will not preserve cellular matter
What makes you think all of the fossils we find were killed by deposition? You usually can't tell how a fossil died -- it's just an imprint of bones. Hundreds of millions of years of slow deposition will indeed bury trillions of plants and animals.slow deposition will not kill trillions of plants ansd animals
Where are there millions of huge fossil trees? And you do realize that when trees die in the normal course of things, they fall over, tearing off their roots? Except for blow-downs, which usually have their roots intact. Both kinds of fossil trees are seen.slow deposition will not uproot millions of huge trees tearing off the roots
And the evidence that they were buried alive is . . .?slow deposition will not bury alive billions of clams and small fish and scallops and other sea life
Any major river flood will do that.slow deposition will not fill caves with tons of tangled plant debris and broken pieces of saber toothed tiger carcasses and mastodon bones and huge wolf bones and other large animal bones from camels and giant sloths .....and many others
I've been to dinosaur fossil sites, and I've been to the Grand Canyon, and I've been to museums. How anyone could think that they were produced by a few thousand years and a single flood boggles my mind.go on some field trips and see for yourself
go to natural history museums and look at the deposits - not the imaginary stories on the walls
Why would that indicate either a young earth or a global flood? We know that volcanoes erupt, and we know that they can bury large areas and many animals? How does this show anything?Dinosaur Fossil Beds in Utah - thousands of dinosaurs buried in tons of volcanic ash - a cataclysmic event!!!!!
Here's the relationship:A
There is an interesting example of radiometric dating fitting continental drift if you look at the chain of islands from Hawaii to the Emperor seamounts We have a series of volcanic islands that formed as plate tectonics moved the seabed over a mantle plume. The oldest are eroded to seamounts, but the radiometric dating of the series of Islands shows they gradually get older the further from Hawaii they are. The radiometric dates matches the distance they would have traveled at the around the speed Hawaii is moving today. In fact Hawaii is moving slightly faster today. Over the 80 million years since the Emperor sea mounts were formed there hasn't been any significant change in the rate of plate tectonics.
Actually we can measure the rate in the past because we can date the strata laid down before the various super continents broke up and we have a pretty good idea how far they had to go to get to where they ended up next.
1 continental drift has been going at the present rate for hundreds of million of years.
2 It is only when you get to the very early super continents when the crust was thinner and the earth warmer that we find plate tectonics was running a bit faster than it is now.
3 Since rate of continental drift has no direct connection to radioactive decay rates, the fact they agree with each other give independent corroboration to both.
There is an interesting example of radiometric dating fitting continental drift if you look at the chain of islands from Hawaii to the Emperor seamounts We have a series of volcanic islands that formed as plate tectonics moved the seabed over a mantle plume. The oldest are eroded to seamounts, but the radiometric dating of the series of Islands shows they gradually get older the further from Hawaii they are.
4 The radiometric dates matches the distance they would have traveled at the around the speed Hawaii is moving today. In fact Hawaii is moving slightly faster today. Over the 80 million years since the Emperor sea mounts were formed there hasn't been any significant change in the rate of plate tectonics.
Every lake bed, river delta and sea bottom on the planet has deposits of mud or sand full of animals and plants that have seen a violent death.
."
Mostly, yes. Why not?
."
What fraction of fossils have preserved cellular details? And why won't a local flood, that may wash a foot (or ten feet) of mud over a body preserve cellular details?
."
What makes you think all of the fossils we find were killed by deposition? You usually can't tell how a fossil died -- it's just an imprint of bones. Hundreds of millions of years of slow deposition will indeed bury trillions of plants and animals.
quote]
they were not killed by deposition - they were killed by being tumbled around in great amounts of turbulent water - the individual fossils don't tell you that but the deposit taken as a whole tells you
trillions of years of slow shallow deposition will not kill, bury deeply and preserve/fossilize nearly as many plants and animals as catastrophic events that occur rapidly with great amounts of water accompanied with massive volcanic eruptions to provide the necessary silica to preserve them
land animal and plant fossils found in the rocks of earth are almost always found as partial and broken pieces and tangled with a variety of other species - like at La Brea Tar pits and many other places
sea life is almost always found in great numbers of like kind often with evidence of being buried while still alive such as being intact - like at Green River or the Grand Canyon or many other places
this is what would be expected if events were rapid and a lot of water caused them to be buried in thick sediments
Where are there millions of huge fossil trees? And you do realize that when trees die in the normal course of things, they fall over, tearing off their roots? Except for blow-downs, which usually have their roots intact. Both kinds of fossil trees are seen.
."
It isn't the number or the size of them, it is whether they are all together between two geological horizons, and whether within this region, all signs of life are gone. Unfortunately it isn't and we find signs of life footprints, nests, roots, burrows, soil formation, all though the geological strata.
I'm sorry, but geologists and paleontologists have spent generations studying and learning about fossils and rocks and how they form.
1 A young earth and a global flood simply make no sense at all of that data. This had already become apparent by the late 1700s, as naturalists (many of them Christian ministers) started to examine fossils and geological strata in detail.
2 A young earth and a flood have no explanation for the progression of life forms that one sees as one looks deeper into the earth.
3 They have no explanation for the many soil horizons that lie stacked on top of one another, each the product of many years of erosion and weathering.
4 They have no explanation for the vast deposits of layered stone made of fine marine sediment, interwoven with land deposits.
5 They have no explanation for radioactive dating, or for paleomagnetic data (no consistent explanation, that is).
."
They don't die individually, they attract predators who join them.
Not an assumption, I told you how it has been verified by radiometric dating1 - that is an assumption - that is not verified as truth - we know the opening of the Atlantic Ocean split a huge land mass in two pieces moving away from each other because of the many matching features on both sides of the split - but we do not know the speed with which it occurred
What about your assumptions, that continental drift moved much much faster in the past, that radioactive decay was much much faster in the past, and that for some reason these two separate processes matched each others rates of change?a scientist must learn to separate fact from assumption
That is a pity, because these earlier supercontinents are the only evidence we have that that plate tectonics moved a bit faster in the past. Of course the evidence we have for supercontinents like Ur, Kendorland and Rodinia are the same evidence we have for Pangaea, matching rocks found far apart that can be linked back through a series of supercontinent breakups.2 - there is not enough evidence to confirm the existence of ''very early super continents'' - this is geological make-believe - it's fun to make believe and get paid for it - but it is NOT science
No someone else told me (another way of saying I keep up to date with science) because the data fits their model. We can measure the rate the Atlantic is widening, we know how wide it is so it isn't a great leap to calculate how long it took at that rate. We can also use radiometric dating to find the age of the rocks formed when the split occurred. How old are the highest layers of rock found both in America and Europe. The ages match.3 - how do you know they agree with each other? someone else told you so because it fits the model they want to create
We don't know how fast the Atlantic Ocean opened up and we don't know if radiometric dating is accurate because we don't know if the decay rates have been constant for 4.5 billion years!! - so you are taking two statements of unknown value and claiming them to be true - then you are making a third claim of unknown value from them!!No I am taking two independent dating methods and showing they agree. They confirm each other. That is how science works, finding different ways to test a hypotheses.
Conspiracy theories and slander are always a great way to deny inconvenient evidence. The fact is, the rate the ocean crust has been moving over the hotspot matches the radiometric dating for 80 million years.4 yes these seamounts have traveled away from the same hot spot one after the other - this can be found at all hot spots - but this same claim as to radiometric dates is another convenient but unproveable claim from some professor to get govt grant money and keep his job!
Doesn't matter how long it took, the issue is the quantity of sedimentary rock that is supposed to have been laid down in the flood. And creationist regularly claim that most of the sedimentary strata we see today are the result of the flood, (though they cannot be pinned down on which strata are supposed to mark the beginning and end of the flood). If the geological strata creationists ascribe to the flood really were caused by the flood then there should be no evidence of life anywhere in these strata apart from the very bottom and the very top.WHOA. You're trying to tell me that ONE YEAR would leave record of all life being gone, and we'd find it? I know I know, you want to sell me tokens for the tollway through the scablands too?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?