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.
I still don't understand how the receding flood waters could have carved through hundreds of feet of wet sediment that had recently been set down by the flood itself. When did it become rock?
I do not believe geologists ever believed such a thing.
It wasn't exactly instantly. The Missoula floods (all 80 or more) carved out the landscape over a 2,000 year period.
.
You mean the Nova show where they debunked Creationism in 2 hours?It was instant. Thats the whole case about the missouls flood. Later floods are suggested, probably not true, to have come the same way. Yet the great creations were done by a single flood. There was a great Nova program once on it that all origin thginkers should watch.
Rob Byers
What are you saying?The sediment wasn't wet. It was alreadt rock. The process f or forming rock from sediment was from pressure created by moving water squeezing the sediment by the water pressure or other sediment being squeezed by sediment.
Most Geologiests in 1920s America would have been Christian. Maybe you can't ignore your religious bias, but scientists can.Yes geology said uniformitatirison (sp) was the creation of earth scenery. The missouls flood was fought desperately by geologists of the day probably because thet thought great sudden water earth creations would uncourage opposition to the antbible aggression of geology. They did cling to it today.
Hardly, the events took place thousands of years before Creationism says that the Earth was even formed. You can't cherry pick the evidence.The missoula flood case was a great gain for creationism.
Water moving parallel to a surface does not create more pressure than stagnant water. How can a large column of water squeeze water out of sediment?The sediment wasn't wet. It was alreadt rock. The process f or forming rock from sediment was from pressure created by moving water squeezing the sediment by the water pressure or other sediment being squeezed by sediment.
"Antibible aggression?" Do you really think hyperbole helps your case here? In any case, "Deep" Time was conceived by Christian geologists in the early nineteeth century.Yes geology said uniformitatirison (sp) was the creation of earth scenery. The missouls flood was fought desperately by geologists of the day probably because thet thought great sudden water earth creations would uncourage opposition to the antbible aggression of geology. They did cling to it today.
The missoula flood case was a great gain for creationism.
Rob byers
The sediment wasn't wet. It was alreadt rock. The process f or forming rock from sediment was from pressure created by moving water squeezing the sediment by the water pressure or other sediment being squeezed by sediment.
Yes geology said uniformitatirison (sp) was the creation of earth scenery. The missouls flood was fought desperately by geologists of the day probably because thet thought great sudden water earth creations would uncourage opposition to the antbible aggression of geology. They did cling to it today.
The missoula flood case was a great gain for creationism.
Rob byers
I didn't see the Nova program. But I can tell you for a fact that there there were many Missoula floods, some say as many as a hundred or more. I'm a member of the Ice Age Flood Institute. I've been on field trips where we studied different Missoula flood events. Here's a link you need to read: http://www.iafi.org/It was instant. Thats the whole case about the missouls flood. Later floods are suggested, probably not true, to have come the same way. Yet the great creations were done by a single flood. There was a great Nova program once on it that all origin thginkers should watch.
Rob Byers
Except that the Missoula floods were many floods that occurred over a 2000 year period. Not only that, but the waters from those Ice Age floods rushed over and on top of the Columbia River Basalts. Which in case you might not know, the Columbia River Basalts is a basalt flood plain that was began 16 million years earlier with periodic basalt eruption continuing on and off for over a period of several million years. Those flood basalts even effected the geology here in Portland which is a good 250 miles from where the basalt erupted.Yes geology said uniformitatirison (sp) was the creation of earth scenery. The missouls flood was fought desperately by geologists of the day probably because thet thought great sudden water earth creations would uncourage opposition to the antbible aggression of geology. They did cling to it today.
The missoula flood case was a great gain for creationism.
Rob byers
Water flowing over sediment caused lithification of that sediment? We can see that this is untrue when we turn on a hose in our back yard and let it run over some sand. Moving water erodes sediment.
How much water pressure would it take to lithify sediments if they were indeed lithified by water pressure?
At what pressure does lithification of silisiclastic or calcic sediments begin?
What is the depth of water that would be required to produce this pressure?
How does this theory account for the angular unconformity seen in the lower portions of grand canyon stratigraphy?
At what velocity does water begin to flow in a meandering way, as seen in the features of the grand canyon? This is related to the angle below the horizontal of the surface the water is flowing over, density of the fluid, the sediment or rock type that the water is interacting with and this substrate's properties. What are the parameters of the flow that would be needed to produce the extant features in a short period of time, and are they realistically achievable? Are these parameters consistent with the unidirectional flow that your model assumes?
Should I ask more questions, or is this enough?
Show your work.Too many questions. Just make your best one and that should tell the tale.
You might be late to this discussion.
Creationism just says sediment was turned into rock by pressure instantly. The pressure came from the water, moving probably,. The sediment may of been made into rock by water pressure on sediment on underlying sediment. Same thing.
Different sorting and flows and different presures at different times explains everything.
Rob byers
Except that the Missoula floods were many floods that occurred over a 2000 year period. Not only that, but the waters from those Ice Age floods rushed over and on top of the Columbia River Basalts. Which in case you might not know, the Columbia River Basalts is a basalt flood plain that was began 16 million years earlier with periodic basalt eruption continuing on and off for over a period of several million years. Those flood basalts even effected the geology here in Portland which is a good 250 miles from where the basalt erupted.
The Missoula flood events that your highlighting hardly makes a case for creationism. In fact, if you really knew what you were talking about you would realize that just the opposite is true.
.
I studied this and am sure I'm right.
The great missoula flood event did create what is celebrated.
The evidence is of a single great flood and attempts to see others is based on varve etc that we reject.
The Missoula flood is one of the best things to come along for creationism on many levels.
By the way this creationist agrees in these basalt covering being recent. Only i would insist they are post flood , say about 1800 b.c and it was all along the spine of the new world.
<staff edit>
The evidence is of a single great flood
NOVA: Mystery of the Megaflood said:The evidence is overwhelming that there were multiple floods. Actually, the issue isn't so much were there multiple floods, but how big were the floods in the late Pleistocene? There's pretty good evidence that we're talking about scores of floods, maybe 100 or more. But it's less clear how big each was. There's a fair bit of evidence that many of them were extremely large by modern standards, but many were much smaller than others.
If you cannot answer the hard questions then all you have indeed is a "tale"... a Tall one at that.Too many questions. Just make your best one and that should tell the tale.
Then how is it possible that some sediment was caught in the middle of this "instant" transition? We should only see sediment, or rock... nothing in between.Creationism just says sediment was turned into rock by pressure instantly. The pressure came from the water, moving probably,. The sediment may of been made into rock by water pressure on sediment on underlying sediment. Same thing.
Or nothing.Different sorting and flows and different presures at different times explains everything.
Rob byers
Creationists Scientists reject out of hand anything that contradicts their dogma. They must.. they sign an oath that says they have to.The idea of many floods over a long period of time is rejected by creationists.
The evidence is of a single great flood and attempts to see others is based on varve etc that we reject.
This is actually true, but the "old geology" in this case is Flood Geology. And it was rejected back in the nineteenth century.Everyone should see the great Nova show on missoula and listen for how it contradicts errors of old geology and shows the future of geology in undersatanding events are the originators of scenery not long time ideas.
Robert Byers
Have you done any field work in the area?I studied this and am sure I'm right.
I'm curious about timing. There are many Columbia River basalt flood events recorded, maybe as many as 300. How long do creationist believe it took for all of these events to happen. If, as you say, all of that basalt poured out of the ground about 1800 bc, when did the Missoula floods happen? Where in time do you peg that event? And, because they are part of the geological structure of the NorthWest, when did the Cascade Mountains begin to grow?By the way this creationist agrees in these basalt covering being recent. Only i would insist they are post flood , say about 1800 b.c and it was all along the spine of the new world.
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?