Where do the flood strata start and end?

[troodon]

But Permian layers are not the same everywhere and that was the point I was making.

Correct, and I'm not saying flood deposits need to be the same. I'm saying they need to be identifiable.

So now let's apply this same logic to sedimentary layers. Most Sedimentary rock is formed when mineral matter of plants and animals settle out of receding waters. The most common materials for sedimentary rocks are fossils, formed when sediment covered dead and dying plants and animals as the sediment of receding waters over time form into rock. Sometimes the movement of earth covered by flowing magma can produce fossils in as little as a few hundred years.

Most sedimentary rock is made up of abiotic clastic material, not biominerals or fossils. Most fossil-bearing units have no association with igneous rock. And none of that is relevant to my simple question.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

I went to creation.com, typed "white cliffs of dover" into their search box and came up with this:

I know you've visited that website before, so try searching through it. They must have thousands of pages in their archives. I'm regularly surprised by what I can find there.

thanks for taking the time to look that up. i read through most of the link. one side says it's possible, the other side says no. as i am strickly layman on geology, i cant say one way or tother who is correct.

 

[Papias]

thanks for taking the time to look that up. i read through most of the link. one side says it's possible, the other side says no. as i am strickly layman on geology, i cant say one way or tother who is correct.

Except that practically all actual geologists agree that the creationists are wrong, and there are practically no actual geologists on the creationist side.

That's like if* there was a disagreement about whether or not HIV caused AIDS, and practically all medical doctors said that it did, while the "no it doesn't" side contained practically no actual doctors. The solution is simple - listen to the side that the expers agree with.

Papias

* Yes, there really are HIV-AIDS deniers.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

Except that practically all actual geologists agree that the creationists are wrong, and there are practically no actual geologists on the creationist side.

That's like if* there was a disagreement about whether or not HIV caused AIDS, and practically all medical doctors said that it did, while the "no it doesn't" side contained practically no actual doctors. The solution is simple - listen to the side that the expers agree with.

Papias

* Yes, there really are HIV-AIDS deniers.

i hate to have to admit it, but i'm an HIV=AIDS denier. but i agree on the geology.

 

[ChetSinger]

thanks for taking the time to look that up. i read through most of the link. one side says it's possible, the other side says no. as i am strickly layman on geology, i cant say one way or tother who is correct.

I'm a layman, too, and expect to remain that way. The field of geological history doesn't keep my interest, because it's not testable enough.

Those white cliffs of Dover are a perfect example, imo. The Creation article says they could have formed very quickly. Other geologists say otherwise. Is one side right and the other wrong? Are both wrong? Could either be right?

How can you put such hypotheses to the test, anyway?

The sad fact is, such hypotheses can't be tested. Not really. We don't have labs big enough or lifetimes long enough. So the field has too much arguing and not enough certainty for me.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

when i consider the white cliffs of dover, having no geology training, i think that all that must have taken many thousands of years to build up. it didn't happen in any biblical flood. the flood is supposed to have lasted a year or so, and the earth only 6000 years old.

i saw a vid on youtube, and this man lived near to the creation museum in the usa, and he had collected fossil coral, and glued it together. he proved that the coral must have been growing in that location, as any great flood would have distributed the bits over such a wide area, that you'd never find the bits. so there was once a sea, where the creation museum now is.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm a layman, too, and expect to remain that way. The field of geological history doesn't keep my interest, because it's not testable enough.

Those white cliffs of Dover are a perfect example, imo. The Creation article says they could have formed very quickly. Other geologists say otherwise. Is one side right and the other wrong? Are both wrong? Could either be right?

How can you put such hypotheses to the test, anyway?

The sad fact is, such hypotheses can't be tested. Not really. We don't have labs big enough or lifetimes long enough. So the field has too much arguing and not enough certainty for me.

We try our best. There are ways to approach it. The purpose is to learn, not to prove.

 

[juvenissun]

In your first post you said:

"Fourth, a large flood or the Global Flood will create extensive erosional surface, on which, NOTHING was deposited."

The amount of flow we're talking about with the great flood absolutely would have created an erosive contact. I did the math for my last response to you but didn't post it because you agreed with me. If we assume the flood was sufficient to cover all extant topography (I don't know how Floodists feel about that assumption, but there it is) it would have required .25cm of precipitation per second for 40 straight days! That's a huge amount of water flow blanketing the entire earth.

And even if this isn't true. Even if we shouldn't expect a flood unconformity, creationists have to be able to come up with other ways to identify Flood beds. We're not talking about the Mary Celeste here where it's just a mystery and no one knows and we'll never be able to answer it. This is science, and if creation "scientists" want to play with the big boys they need to be able to answer the most fundamental of questions as far as their model is concerned.

More likely, at least in the US, it's because the USGS was formed in the 1800s and the global flood had already been falsified by then. And I want to be clear here, I'm not asking just for a formation be identified as flood strata. If you have a formation in mind that you know is pre-flood, and another formation stratigraphically above it that you know is post-flood, I can start with that.

I can go out to the Moenkopi Formation in Arizona and identify individual river floods. Identifying a world-ending global flood should not be impossible.

Absolutely I would expect them to be able to identify sediments (not formations, these aren't rocks) that are pre- and post-flood. According to this they've recently managed to do just that using seismic profiling near Gibraltar.

You should have a better picture on how would a Global Flood proceed in terms of the condition of fluid regimes. There are places where the strata could be violently interrupted at the initial stage. An example is the sedimentary layers near Gibraltar where the water fell down from the Atlantic Ocean. But perhaps at most part of the Mediterranean region (or earth), people only see the water level steadily rise. This would hardly interrupt any sedimentary sequence. Not a surprise, new sediments would be added onto the pre-Flood surface conformably. The type of sediments would also vary depends on bathymetry and other local sedimentary conditions. Also, the thickness of such layer should be thin due to the short time duration, except locally where the sediments were allowed to accumulate.

Under such a depositional conditions, I think you really should reconsider your "basic" question, which is not an appropriate one.

(I am repeating my explanation. Hope I won't have to do it again. I believe you may be a good sedimentologist)

 

[pshun2404]

Correct, and I'm not saying flood deposits need to be the same. I'm saying they need to be identifiable.

Most sedimentary rock is made up of abiotic clastic material, not biominerals or fossils. Most fossil-bearing units have no association with igneous rock. And none of that is relevant to my simple question.

I disagree and believe it is. Whether or not we identify specific "flood" layers is what is irrelevant as any numbers of sedimentary layers could have been caused by such a flood. Taken along with the fossil pits formed by allcthonous transport from transverse geo-physical regions, the witness of many, many, of the oldest highest mountains replete with oceanic fossils, cone structures and ocean salt clusters, and many, many other potential evidences taken together can and have been certainly seen as presenting this possibility...

THEREFORE, it is your question that is irrelevant, because provisional interpretation and other human factors (like having to rely on lines of best guess in dating), and so on, does not demonstrate such an event never happened.

Combined with the witness of nearly all cultures from long before they ever heard of a Noah or a Bible is additionally compelling. The secular excuse which says "these accounts do not matter" only do not matter because it demonstrates they are incorrect, and for those who try and claim "well all prominent civilizations grew up around rivers, lakes, ponds, coast lines, etc., thus it is obvious stories of flooding would be in their tribal folklore" is nothing less than an intentional misdirection from the truth. It is a logical absurdity to ASSUME that all these tales which share the essential details is obvious or expected is fallacious accusation. As Dr. Custance pointed out the ideas of this occurance being for moral reasons (angering God (s) the ancestors, etc.,) and that one person or family alone survives, by being TOLD to build a craft, that lands on a mountain top and the common theme of the involvement of animals?!?!

IMO only a moron (and I am not saying youi) or someone trying to force the facts to fit their theory would deny the witness of such a mathematically improbable agreement by such diverse peoples with such diverse cultures and beliefs....

IMO what is obvious is whether geologists or creationists can ever prove or disprove this event is what is irrelevant (according to what they will accept as proof...which of course will only be that which is interpreted to agree with their theory)...it happened! Universal human experience out trumps both camps theories and petty disputes.

Now I will make you exceedingly happy (I will await a final insult from you if you wish to try and belittle me or discard the truths I have shared) I am done here. Hope you find what you are looking for from this and the consequence thereof be upon you as mine are upon me...

Paul

 

[pshun2404]

Except that practically all actual geologists agree that the creationists are wrong, and there are practically no actual geologists on the creationist side.

That's like if* there was a disagreement about whether or not HIV caused AIDS, and practically all medical doctors said that it did, while the "no it doesn't" side contained practically no actual doctors. The solution is simple - listen to the side that the expers agree with.

Papias

* Yes, there really are HIV-AIDS deniers.

Good point only "experts" include more than just geologists and we must not forget that those who pose questions or interpret information against or contrary to the status quo (the will of the ruling pedagogues) will not be passed in their courses (not giving the answer required) and will not be allowed to continue to teach...

But as for Creationists, Intelligent Design theorists, and other quality scientific minds and scholars who at least believe in a God(s) or some higher order intelligence involved in bringing all this about there are millions, thousands of which have MA's and Ph.D.s in their fields (Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc.,)

So we must not dismiss any possibility remembering that much of which science declares emphatically as established or obvious over time becomes obsolete or no longer dependable.

In His name

Paul

 

[troodon]

(I will await a final insult from you if you wish to try and belittle me or discard the truths I have shared)

When did I insult you?

Edit: and no, your leaving the conversation does not make me happy. I may not be answering the bulk of your posts (because I want to keep the thread on the tracks) but rest assured I am reading them.

 

[verysincere]

Good point only "experts" include more than just geologists and we must not forget that those who pose questions or interpret information against or contrary to the status quo (the will of the ruling pedagogues) will not be passed in their courses (not giving the answer required) and will not be allowed to continue to teach...

Evidence please? In all of my years as a young earth creationist university professor NOT ONCE did I observe any such discrimination.

So tell us about YOUR first-hand experience in academia? What is your background? (Or are you just retelling tall tales?)

 

[verysincere]

I'm a layman, too, and expect to remain that way. The field of geological history doesn't keep my interest, because it's not testable enough.

....How can you put such hypotheses to the test, anyway?

The sad fact is, such hypotheses can't be tested. Not really. We don't have labs big enough or lifetimes long enough. So the field has too much arguing and not enough certainty for me.

As a layman, you clearly do NOT understand how hypotheses are tested.

We cannot fully model the entire solar system in a laboratory. So does that mean the heliocentric model is not testable?

Rubbish.

 

[ChetSinger]

As a layman, you clearly do NOT understand how hypotheses are tested.

We cannot fully model the entire solar system in a laboratory. So does that mean the heliocentric model is not testable?

Rubbish.

Not rubbish.

There's a difference between testing events that are repeatable in the here and now, and testing events that happened once in the past.

We've been testing the heliocentric model in the here and now for centuries. It's movements are repetitive, and our predictions have been regularly tested and verified against subsequent observations.

In contrast, the formation of the white cliffs of Dover happened once in the distant past, and was not observed by men. It is not repeatable, but must be inferred by extrapolation. And if there are multiple extrapolations that permit their formation, how do we know which (if any) is the correct one?

That's why the branches of science that deal with history, such as cosmology, paleontology, or historical geology generate more controversy than branches that deal with the here and now, such as optics, metallurgy, or acoustics. The conclusions of those historical branches are less testable.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

...

 

[troodon]

And if there are multiple extrapolations that permit their formation, how do we know which (if any) is the correct one?

I think that, at least in the case of geology, a lot of merit has to be granted to the extrapolations which fit into a coherent and well-explained grand scheme. In geology we have a detailed timeline in which geologic formations can be placed and for any one geologic formation we can almost always describe for you the paleogeography during the period of deposition, the tectonic setting in which the basin existed, and the sort of paleonenvironment which was responsible for its deposition.

By contrast we have creationism which, if the posters in this thread are to be believed, relies on "I don't know" and "we can't tell" to describe the conditions in which sediments were deposited. They can't tell me when in the strata the largest geologic event in the history of the world occurred. To me that speaks volumes about the kind of geologic expertise we're talking about here. I point to a geologic formation and a creationist can't tell me if it was pre- or post-flood? Can't tell me how it was made? Can't tell me how it gets its fossil assemblage? Where all the sediment came from in such a short time? What created so much accommodation space so quickly?

It's all just a big mystery and, I guess, I'm expecting too much to expect answers to these sorts of basic questions.

Yeah, the two sides of this scientific debate are not equal.

 

[verysincere]

Not rubbish.

There's a difference between testing events that are repeatable in the here and now, and testing events that happened once in the past.

We've been testing the heliocentric model in the here and now for centuries. It's movements are repetitive, and our predictions have been regularly tested and verified against subsequent observations.

In contrast, the formation of the white cliffs of Dover happened once in the distant past, and was not observed by men. It is not repeatable, but must be inferred by extrapolation. And if there are multiple extrapolations that permit their formation, how do we know which (if any) is the correct one?
.

No.

No.

Not at all.

Rubbish.

(Get a clue. The "historical science" versus "operational science" distinctions of creationists is bogus and not recognized by science---for a reason. It breaks down quickly. Sheesh.)

 

[juvenissun]

By contrast we have creationism which, if the posters in this thread are to be believed, relies on "I don't know" and "we can't tell" to describe the conditions in which sediments were deposited. They can't tell me when in the strata the largest geologic event in the history of the world occurred. To me that speaks volumes about the kind of geologic expertise we're talking about here. I point to a geologic formation and a creationist can't tell me if it was pre- or post-flood? Can't tell me how it was made? Can't tell me how it gets its fossil assemblage? Where all the sediment came from in such a short time? What created so much accommodation space so quickly?

Just try to prove my point.

I would say the Global Flood deposited the Dakota Formation nearby the Cedar City of Utah.

What say you?

 

[Papias]

verysincere wrote:

Rubbish.

(Get a clue. The "historical science" versus "operational science" distinctions of creationists is bogus and not recognized by science---for a reason. It breaks down quickly. Sheesh.)

Right. However, on first glance, someone could think that the distinction was real. To help them see it's bogus, it helps to illustrate it by looking at other fields of science, and I've found mentioning Last Thursdayism helps too.

Chet, ALL sciences work by using past events to predict future results. That's why forensic murder analyses are very important in court. If there were some distinction like creationists suggest, then murder trials couldn't use science (and as you probalby know, they are often very science heavy). Heliocentrism, too, is based on observations of where the bodies were in the past.

Are you familiar with Last Thursdayism? Any argument you make to refute Last Thursdayism works equally well to refute the creationist line about "past" science. And of course, I'm sure we both agree that to accept Last Thursdayism is absurd.

Papias

P. S.

Juvie wrote:

Just try to prove my point.

I would say the Global Flood deposited the Dakota Formation nearby the Cedar City of Utah.

What say you?

I say you are again making an unsupported statement, out of ignorance of the evidence and contradiction of actual geologists, and you are therefore very likely to be wrong.

If you want to read what real geologists know from studying actual evidence, they explain how the Dakota formation actually formed around 95 million years ago from a local incursion.

On the other hand, it was a local incursion of unsupported statements by a non-expert that resulted in post #38.

/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=dakota%20formation%2C%20cedar%20city%2C%20utah&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgeology.utah.gov%2Fonline%2Fss%2Fss-143%2Fss-143.pdf&ei=O6AsUcSFJcS1qgGrzoHQAw&usg=AFQjCNH9RJR_94OpDXY9BUOswNbo5bO5xQ

and http://www.academia.edu/225911/Cret...arowan_canyons_western_Markagunt_Plateau_Utah

 

[ChetSinger]

I think that, at least in the case of geology, a lot of merit has to be granted to the extrapolations which fit into a coherent and well-explained grand scheme. In geology we have a detailed timeline in which geologic formations can be placed and for any one geologic formation we can almost always describe for you the paleogeography during the period of deposition, the tectonic setting in which the basin existed, and the sort of paleonenvironment which was responsible for its deposition.

By contrast we have creationism which, if the posters in this thread are to be believed, relies on "I don't know" and "we can't tell" to describe the conditions in which sediments were deposited. They can't tell me when in the strata the largest geologic event in the history of the world occurred. To me that speaks volumes about the kind of geologic expertise we're talking about here. I point to a geologic formation and a creationist can't tell me if it was pre- or post-flood? Can't tell me how it was made? Can't tell me how it gets its fossil assemblage? Where all the sediment came from in such a short time? What created so much accommodation space so quickly?

It's all just a big mystery and, I guess, I'm expecting too much to expect answers to these sorts of basic questions.

Yeah, the two sides of this scientific debate are not equal.

I've looked around a bit and YEC geologists don't agree on where the Flood boundary is. Some say the K/T boundary, while others disagree.

If this helps, here's a recent article by Michael Oard where he puts forth his thoughts on it, and gives some examples. I have no training in geology so I can't critique it. But here it is.

Kt boundary flood 1
KT boundary flood 2
Kt boundary flood 3