Jump to content


Photo

Planation


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 669 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 24 July 2017 - 03:51 PM

 

Wibble: You invariably mention planation when you want to bring up evidence of youth. Can you give me an example please for me to scrutinize


Oard: In the case of mountaintop planation surfaces, they are best explained as a function of the Recessive Stage of the Flood. During Flood water runoff, the continents and mountains rose with much erosion.1,2,11 It is expected that during uplift rapid currents would plane the top of the rocks by erosion. Continued uplift and channel erosion would divide large planation surfaces into isolated remnants near the tops of the mountains At lower elevations this erosion would divide the planation surfaces into large areas, such as plains or plateaus, depending upon the amount of uplift. The major planing episodes would have happened during the Abative or Sheet Flow Phase of the Flood.12 As mountains and plateaus rose above the Flood water, the water was forced to channelize down valleys. Within mountain valleys, fast flow toward the sinking ocean basins created planation surfaces along the edge of the mountains, called pediments.1,2,13 The planation surfaces and pediments still exist because there was insufficient time for erosion to destroy these features, especially in arid to semi-arid areas. The lack of erosion provides another piece of evidence that deep time is an invalid construct, and that planation surfaces are very young.


A planation surface is a large, level, or nearly level, land surface that has been ‘planed’ flat by running water (figure 1).[/size]2 Scientists believe that running water cut these surfaces because they are covered by rounded rocks (figure 2).[/size]3 Water is the only agent we know that can produce rounded rocks, by tumbling them against each other as it transports them along.[/size]
It is important to understand that a planation surface was cut into hard rock by an erosive watery mechanism. It is not a surface where sediments are deposited, like a river terrace, a gravel bar or a flood plain.
Planation surfaces can be amazingly flat. Once a planation surface has formed, creeks and heavy rain will often cut grooves and gullies into the surface, dissecting it into smaller areas (figure 3). Some planation surfaces are large, extending over 1,000 square kilometres. Yet, from the way they have been dissected, we can tell that they were even larger in the past.
Planation surfaces sometimes cut across tilted sedimentary rocks. They are especially easy to recognize (figure 4). The layered sedimentary rocks are often a combination of hard and soft rocks. Surprisingly, the watery mech­an­ism that formed the planation surface eroded the layers evenly (figure 5). Today, normal erosion by rainfall and weather erodes the soft rocks into valleys, leaving the hard rocks as ridges (figure 6). Only a gigantic, fast-running water flow could have cut both the hard and soft rocks evenly.
Planation surfaces worldwide
There are many landscapes on the earth that defy conventional (long-age) explanation.
Geomorphologist Lester King4 has documented that planation surfaces are abundant on allcontinents and found at different elevations. He noted about 60% of Africa is a series of planation surfaces. Some planation surfaces are located on the top of mountains (figure 7), including some that rise out of the Antarctic Ice Sheet. Australian geomorphologist Rowl Twidale5 accepts King’s general scheme that remnants of planation surfaces punctuate the scenery of all the continents, usually at three elevations.....

Geologists who believe that erosion happened slowly have concluded that some planation surfaces formed many tens of millions of years ago. Yet they have remained flat to this day. The flat to undulating plateau of western Arnhem Land, Queensland, is conventionally ‘dated’ at over 100 million years old.7
Yet, at today’s rate of erosion, the continents would be reduced to near sea level in 10 to 50 million years.8 Obviously, these flat landscapes cannot be that old. They are clear evidence that something is wrong with the dating methods.

http://creation.com/its-plain-to-see
Seems like aclear cut case to me. ;)

All agree that planation surfaces were formed in the past by water. The water would need to have been moving at high speed to erode soft and hard rocks evenly and leave boulders on the surface. [/size]


Since "all agree" it was water, with massive force, can you explain just HOW it would only be, "superifical" evidence? It seems to me, it is close to PROOF that a giant body of water cut the planated surfaces all over the world, and to say it doesn't count as Noah's flood, but it is okay that it counts as evidence of evolutionary past flooding of some sort, is a double standard fallacy and a contradiction. It is powerfully strong evidence of a flood, and it is direct evidence. Whether you like it or not, it is enough as evidence, to conclude a very majorly vast flood happened in the past and created these flat surfaces. Note it isn't a building process, it's not about the rock there, it's about the rock removed. The force necessary to remove it was great. Why would you believe that this doesn't favour a flood strongly? Deep down I believe you must know that it does.

 


This is snipped over from the other thread as it doesn't belong in that topic. I'll address this more another time but for now I'm not seeing how flat or slightly undulating plains are strong evidence in favour of the global flood view given that over millions of years normal erosion processes will inevitably flatten topography if the area is tectonically stable and not experiencing uplift.

What I was really after when I asked the question about planation though was not a cut and paste from CMI but a good example of what you referred to when you said about soft and hard rocks being sheared off evenly. There is a picture (fig 4 ) in your link but it is a very poor picture to be able to assess that claim (probably purposely so).



#2 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 669 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 27 July 2017 - 05:11 AM

Nothing to say Mike ?

 

Planation due to Noah's flood is not even internally consistent. Your flood is supposed to have scoured the Earth's surface down to Precambrian rock and laid the resulting sediments on top. At the recessional stage of the flood where would these boulders have come from that is stated in your copy paste as laying on top of sheared off tilted sedimentary rock layers ? (which actually would not be hard rock at all but rather would still have to be unconsolidated sediment)



#3 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,111 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 05 August 2017 - 07:39 AM

[mc]"Mike, that person can't have run a marathon because he isn't even wearing the correct athletic clothing. You're telling me a man dressed as a banana ran a marathon! Ridiculous, therefore it is impossible that he ran a marathon" - A Wibble-style complaint.[/mc]

 

(mc = mischief content.) :P

 

Think about it my lad, you do make some rather tenuous complaints, now some watery-eroded boulders somehow mean a flood can't have happened because Wibble doesn't know where the boulders would come from? Boulders can be transported great distances, not everything within an unconsolidated mass, is jello, but things within a large mass can be unharmed. You could find after a mega tsunami, a barbie doll intact. Those boulders are about the same relevance as a Barbie doll, in their size compared to a world flood.

 

My answer; Gordon Bennet!

 

"Look at this car, it can't have been designed it doesn't have a differential to solve wheelspin. If it was designed it would have had one, therefore all cars you say were designed before the invention of the differential, in fact were not designed and evolved from naturally occurring metal."

 

;)

 

"You cannot be serious." - John McEnroe.

 

 

 

which actually would not be hard rock at all but rather would still have to be unconsolidated sediment

 

Incorrect;

 

 

The easiest way to answer this is to imagine what happens to a fish when it dies. After (for most) floating on the surface while being attacked by various scavengers, what is left (if anything) sinks to the bottom. Here, rather than lying quietly for thousands of years being gradually covered up by slowly settling sediment, it will be attacked further by fish, crabs, and many other creatures.

Bacterial attack will also contribute to the process of disintegration. Even in a sterile, low oxygen environment, the flesh rapidly becomes soggy and falls apart,2 leaving no trace of the beautiful structures which the fossil illustrated, for example, shows. That is why, when snorkelling on the sea floor, one does not see thousands of dead fish resting quietly on the ocean bottom in part-way stages of fossilization!

To preserve such features, it is obvious that the creature needs to be buried quickly. Not just that, but the enclosing sediment needs to harden fairly quickly. If it stayed soft and unconsolidated for years, the fact that oxygen, moisture and bacteria could easily access the carcass means that one would very quickly have a disintegrated, stinking mess.

 

Fossils of soft toys also are rock solid after a year, in Yorkshire where people place them under falls which leak sediment from limestone.



#4 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 669 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 05 August 2017 - 02:37 PM

Think about it my lad, you do make some rather tenuous complaints, now some watery-eroded boulders somehow mean a flood can't have happened because Wibble doesn't know where the boulders would come from? Boulders can be transported great distances, not everything within an unconsolidated mass, is jello, but things within a large mass can be unharmed. You could find after a mega tsunami, a barbie doll intact. Those boulders are about the same relevance as a Barbie doll, in their size compared to a world flood.


A Barbie doll would float on the surface. Boulders would sink in a watery catastrophe and be overlain by fine sediment, not the other way round. Do you disagree with that ?
 

Fossils of soft toys also are rock solid after a year, in Yorkshire where people place them under falls which leak sediment from limestone.[/font]


This is the kind of partial truth that CMI articles rely on. Just because a particular form of limestone can form quickly does not mean that therefore sandstones, siltstones and the rest can also harden quickly. Which fallacy have you committed there ? Its ironic you are so unaware of your own logical fallacies.

I haven't looked up your fossil toys but I suspect it is tufa, which is where calcium carbonate saturated groundwater degasses CO2 on emergence and this particular form of limestone is consequently deposited due to the increase in pH. This in no way explains rapid lithification of every sedimentary layer.



#5 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Referent Police

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,224 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 10 August 2017 - 02:46 AM

Think about it my lad, you do make some rather tenuous complaints, now some watery-eroded boulders somehow mean a flood can't have happened because Wibble doesn't know where the boulders would come from? Boulders can be transported great distances, not everything within an unconsolidated mass, is jello, but things within a large mass can be unharmed. You could find after a mega tsunami, a barbie doll intact. Those boulders are about the same relevance as a Barbie doll, in their size compared to a world flood.


A Barbie doll would float on the surface. Boulders would sink in a watery catastrophe and be overlain by fine sediment, not the other way round. Do you disagree with that ?

Fossils of soft toys also are rock solid after a year, in Yorkshire where people place them under falls which leak sediment from limestone.[/font]


This is the kind of partial truth that CMI articles rely on. Just because a particular form of limestone can form quickly does not mean that therefore sandstones, siltstones and the rest can also harden quickly. Which fallacy have you committed there ? Its ironic you are so unaware of your own logical fallacies.

I haven't looked up your fossil toys but I suspect it is tufa, which is where calcium carbonate saturated groundwater degasses CO2 on emergence and this particular form of limestone is consequently deposited due to the increase in pH. This in no way explains rapid lithification of every sedimentary layer.

.
The grass is remarkably similar over here. "Same as it ever was", ... rinse, repeat.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users