Jump to content


Photo

Important Difference Between Flood Events And Uniform Processes


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,407 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 24 November 2017 - 10:52 AM

One issue with the flood is that we can't repeat it's effects, which means opportunists can capitalise on this by basically finding strange features of geology and then appealing to our lack of knowledge by saying, "how could a flood have caused this."

 

If people are honest with themselves, uniformity is the "present is the key to the past" type thinking, but if strange features were created by a flood and we never see how a flood could cause them, then we are basically being asked to explain things for which it may be either impossible to know or very difficult to know. When we also consider the mess of a flood with it's many convolutions, fully knowing what did happen and how each and every specific feature was caused, is like trying to unscramble an egg.

 

So a key difference is that with uniformity we can see present day processes and imagine how they might have caused X feature, but if a flood did cause that feature, it may well be almost impossible to know the unique circumstances that caused it, because we don't have any key to the past in the present, with a flood, it was a unique and unprecedented, and unrepeatable event.

 

Conclusion; I think rhetoricist, seasoned trolls and the laymen spin doctors of evolution, take advantage of this by appealing to the *blank* we all have in our imagination, when confronted with a peculiar geologic feature, for often the convolutions of the flood don't leave us with any easy way to imagine how it could have happened but that very reason is why it may well be a good reason to believe a flood did do it, because such a world-scale catastrophe would almost be 100% bound to throw up some very strange, unprecedented and convoluted geological activities never witnessed in the present.

 

This was somewhat displayed in the Mt St Helens canyon, 1/40th size of Grand canyon when we see that strange movements of flows created unconformity in a section of rock only separated by perhaps hours of time.

 

https://dl0.creation...iffface-lge.jpg

 

 

Here we can see the strata and the canyon cut out in days, looking very similar to grand canyon in some ways, but note it took days to form;

 

https://dl0.creation...-Canyon-lge.jpg

 

Many scientists would never have predicted such effects. (And that's my point) You can read all about it here;

 

https://creation.com...mount-st-helens

 

 

 

One of the many surprising results was an 8 m (25 ft) thick sedimentary deposit exposed in a cliff alongside the North Fork Toutle River (figure 4). It is composed of finely-layered sediment (figure 5). From eyewitness reports, photographs, and monitoring equipment, it is known that this whole deposit formed in just three hours, from 9 pm to midnight on 12 June 1980.1 It was deposited from black clouds of fine, hot ash mixed with gas, blasting at high speed from the volcano—a pyroclastic flow. Ash-laden and heavier than air, the flow surged down the side of the volcano and along the river valley at more than 160 km/hr (100 mph), hugging the ground and depositing ash.

The big surprise was that the sediment deposited in fine layers called laminae. You would expect a catastrophic, high speed ash flow to churn the fine particles and form a uniform, well-mixed deposit. Thus, it had been conventionally thought that fine layers had to accumulate very slowly one upon the other over hundreds of years. But Mount St Helens showed that the coarse and fine material automatically separated into thin, distinct bands, demonstrating that such deposits can form very quickly from fast flowing fluids (liquids and gases). Since then, laboratory experiments have shown that fine laminae also form quickly from flowing water.2 This shows how finely-layered sandstone deposits in other situations, such as some of the lower layers in the Grand Canyon,1 likely formed rapidly,

 

CONCLUSION: If there are such examples of laminae which were previously thought to only be able to occur over long periods where they happen in hours, this is an example of how it is not correct logic to make false predictions of what a flood would or would not create without actually scientifically knowing.

 

So I think the most germane point is this; I could have argued before Mt St Helens, like this; "such fine laminations are impossible for a quick catastrophe such as a flood, they can only happen over long ages." How many other events in a flood will never happen, and so will never show us that in fact those types of evidences, can be caused by such a flood? mt St Helens shows us some small versions/effects of catastrophic flows but it certainly doesn't show us all the effects a world flood would cause. However had Mt St Helens blown thousands of years ago I would bet my pet echinoderm and my house that they would have said the 1/40th scale mini canyon formed over thousands of years.



#2 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 25 November 2017 - 06:20 PM

Seems to me that you are dogmatically avoiding an obvious conclusion by resorting to claiming the flood was just unexplainable according to the features we observe in an attempt to nullify all the evidence that crushes you. Why not allow the observable features to inform your conclusion rather than ignore all those inconveniences and fixate on an a priori belief ?

 

So I think the most germane point is this; I could have argued before Mt St Helens, like this; "such fine laminations are impossible for a quick catastrophe such as a flood, they can only happen over long ages."


Those fine laminations didn't form from a flood, they were a result of the pyroclastic flow from Mt St Helens, which is composed of airborne volcanic ash. What about the mudflow deposit that lies above the pyroclastic deposit, are there laminations in that ?

 

It's just so vacuous to claim the Mt St Helens canyon proves that the Grand Canyon also formed catastrophically. How are you so unaware of your logical failures ? Unless you can show that the Mt St Helens strata contains distinct fossil assemblages in discrete layers of sandstone and limestone rather than purely being composed of sediment resultant of volcanic activity. Unlike the GC with it's tight meanders and vertical cliffs (e.g. Redwall limestone) the Mt St Helens one has a relatively straight channel with slumping cliffs not solid rock. Why aren't there Grand Canyons dotted all over the globe at the edge of continents if they are formed by a retreating Flood ? Do you just blank these issues out ?



#3 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,407 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 27 November 2017 - 04:27 AM

 

 

Wibble: Unless you can show that the Mt St Helens strata contains distinct fossil assemblages in discrete layers of sandstone and limestone rather than purely being composed of sediment resultant of volcanic activity. Unlike the GC with it's tight meanders and vertical cliffs (e.g. Redwall limestone) the Mt St Helens one has a relatively straight channel with slumping cliffs not solid rock. Why aren't there Grand Canyons dotted all over the globe at the edge of continents if they are formed by a retreating Flood ? Do you just blank these issues out ?

 

It's not that I blank them out it's that I I know that what you say is of no consequence. For example when you say, "unless you can show X" that's a common style of argument from you, a red-herring. "show what Wibble demands or your arguments don't count."

 

Erm, not really Wibble, no.

 

 

 

Wibble: Those fine laminations didn't form from a flood, they were a result of the pyroclastic flow from Mt St Helens, which is composed of airborne volcanic ash. What about the mudflow deposit that lies above the pyroclastic deposit, are there laminations in that ?

 

Didn't you read the article?

 

 

 

Link: The big surprise was that the sediment deposited in fine layers called laminae. You would expect a catastrophic, high speed ash flow to churn the fine particles and form a uniform, well-mixed deposit. Thus, it had been conventionally thought that fine layers had to accumulate very slowly one upon the other over hundreds of years. But Mount St Helens showed that the coarse and fine material automatically separated into thin, distinct bands, demonstrating that such deposits can form very quickly from fast flowing fluids (liquids and gases). Since then, laboratory experiments have shown that fine laminae also form quickly from flowing water.2 This shows how finely-layered sandstone deposits in other situations, such as some of the lower layers in the Grand Canyon,1 likely formed rapidly

 

So these are actual flume-experiments which have observed the laminated strata form, facies are well known to form this way.

 

 

 

Wibble: It's just so vacuous to claim the Mt St Helens canyon proves that the Grand Canyon also formed catastrophically.

 

Well that's just a use of epithets. I could also say, "it's just to vacuous to say Muhammad Ali was the greatest boxer of all time." You really must cut down on the rhetorical spin in your posts, they're laced with it.

 

I think if we have laminated stratified sediment formed in a canyon which looks like a mini version of grand canyon and actually has a paraconformity, with the mud flow on the top layer, and many other strikingly similar features such as the topography, and we know from observation the 1/40th size canyon formed in days, then to say this indicates and is evidence Grand Canyon can't form quickly is logically absurd when science has now provably shown that you can get something in almost identical miniature formed in days.

 

At the very least just looking at those photographs alone should drastically alter your perceptions, showing how deeply ingrained the dogma of evolution is in you, for the photos alone speak volumes.

 

So this is actually 100% proof a canyon with laminated, stratified rock can be created in days even with identical features such as paraconformities and rock chaffing and so forth. I have the photos of rock similar to Grand canyon in a small canyon looking very similar. Can you now show some pictures of rocks scientists observed to be created over a very long time, or how partially gathered laminated strata are occurring in a canyon which is slowly being created over millions of years, or do you just get to assert things without any actual scientific evidential backing? So then, at the very least this fast canyon showing all these features, is proof such a canyon can be created quickly. Even if this didn't technically prove a flood it would still be direct proof canyons can be created quickly, whereas there isn't any proof they can happen slowly, only arguments from circumstantial evidence.

 

So it's proof or circumstantial evidence. Erm, I think if someone tells me someone is proven to be a killer of children whereas there are testimonials saying the murderer is a nice lad, somehow I am going to go with the proof and not let him anywhere near my children.

 

 

 

Wibble:  Why aren't there Grand Canyons dotted all over the globe at the edge of continents if they are formed by a retreating Floo

 

This is a false conditional implication;

 

"If there was a flood there would be many such canyons all over the globe."

 

Why is that precisely? Because Wibble says so? You have no knowledge as to why one that large and unique would form that way. It could be simply a combination of factors, some of which may not be known at this time. It's like me saying, "if evolution happened there would be species equal in sentience to humans all over the world". How can my statement be falsified? yet certainly my example is a more reasonable argument. So the type of reason you used here was outlined in my opening post - that you are appealing to our ignorance and pretending ignorance is sufficient to dismiss a flood. If that's true I could use all of the same type of arguments for evolution. "Why are monkeys still here - therefore evo is false." (poor reasoning)

 

 

 

Wibble:  Unless you can show that the Mt St Helens strata contains distinct fossil assemblages in discrete layers of sandstone and limestone

 

That's a weak red-herring, and I gave a disclaimer in the opening post. My claim isn't that Mt St Helens would produce the same things Grand Canyon contains, for how could it produce fossils if none were buried for example? But if you read all of the article it does give an argument for log-mats which is interesting. A possible way to explain features of the fossil record proposed by Austin. Nor would there be any world-scale biogeographical provinces for one volcano blowing it's top. :gotcha:



#4 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 01 December 2017 - 04:47 PM

It's not that I blank them out it's that I I know that what you say is of no consequence. For example when you say, "unless you can show X" that's a common style of argument from you, a red-herring. "show what Wibble demands or your arguments don't count."


You know what I say is of no consequence ? That’s just one big hand wave due to the fact that you have no plausible answers but you are too afraid/obstinate to admit it. For example, the tight meanders present in the Grand Canyon are an extremely pertinent point because they make zero sense from your point of view of a retreating floodwater rapidly cutting through soft sediment. When a real world observation of an analogous process on a small scale is observed (the rapid cutting of the Mt St Helens canyon), it of course produces a basically straight canyon.
 

So these are actual flume-experiments which have observed the laminated strata form, facies are well known to form this way.


Only under very tightly controlled conditions of non turbulent , steady flow. Even then most of the mixtures of particles they used failed to produce laminations. Where they did it seems it was just caused by fine particles falling between coarse particles thereby leaving coarse particles on top. This doesn’t match particle size distribution that we see in the geological record does it ? This is all moot anyway because my point was that the laminations you highlighted at Mt St Helens were formed due to the pyroclastic flow not by water borne sediment. I was asking whether there are laminations on the overlying mud layer, and you have ducked that. In fact if you look at the mud layer above and below the laminated pyroclastic layer in the images you linked (particularly the second one) you can see lots of rocks randomly mixed in. That’s what you might expect of a turbulent, high energy flow. Under calm conditions of slow sediment deposition you wouldn’t have rocks mixed in, obviously, and if you look at geological formations with sequences of mudstone and sandstone, indeed you don’t (generally speaking).

So basically, Mt St Helens, the creationist Exhibit A for the Flood, and the flume experiments, provide scant evidence to explain the sedimentary layers, while mainstream explanations make abundant sense.

All the Mt St Helens canyon proves is that a fast flowing torrent of water will make a linear cut through soft sediment, which is pretty obvious, rather than a make a 180 degree loop back on itself.


 

Wibble:  Why aren't there Grand Canyons dotted all over the globe at the edge of continents if they are formed by a retreating Flood


"If there was a flood there would be many such canyons all over the globe."
 
Why is that precisely? Because Wibble says so? You have no knowledge as to why one that large and unique would form that way. It could be simply a combination of factors, some of which may not be known at this time... So the type of reason you used here was outlined in my opening post - that you are appealing to our ignorance and pretending ignorance is sufficient to dismiss a flood.

 


Again you are appealing to ignorance in place of an explanation, which seems to be your stock reply as it was with Siccar Point. As the observations pile up with no Flood explanation but instead with sensible mainstream explanations then has it not occurred that your view is actually wrong, or does evidence not matter ? If you lean towards the idea that the waters of a retreating flood carved the canyon into the flood caused sediment layers then there should be every expectation of dozens or hundreds of similar canyons around the globe if the flood dumped sediment across the globe as you believe. If you think the rushing waters of a post flood dam burst caused the GC then you still have the problem of the tight meanders amongst a host of other issues.
 

CMI: Creationist geologists agree that rushing water formed Grand Canyon. Some suggest it was Noah’s floodwaters as they flowed off the continent (Genesis 8:3). Others suggest it was a post-Flood regional catastrophe caused when a huge mass of inland water, left over from the Flood (and excessive post-Flood rainfall), suddenly breached its natural restraints and rushed to the sea.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users