Jump to content


Photo

Continent Wide Dispersion Of Sediment And Boulders


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
23 replies to this topic

#1 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 18 September 2010 - 06:49 PM

Scientists have recently discovered more evidence of catastrophe in the paleozoic.

Paper View Sept 14, 2010 — Geologists were baffled.  Something moved rocks up to 3,000 miles across whole continents.  They found evidence in Asia and also in America.  How on earth could that happen?  Their list of explanations omitted one possibility: the transporting power of water.  Maybe it’s because it would have implied a global flood like the world had never seen.
    An international team publishing in the GSA Bulletin wrote about “Extraordinary transport and mixing of sediment across Himalayan central Gondwana during the Cambrian–Ordovician.”1  They found similar detrital zircon samples across a wide swath of the Himalayan foothills, covering “great distances” of at least 3000 km and perhaps as much as 5000 km.  They used assumptions to rule out time as a factor, suggesting that this “extraordinary” transport of material occurred at one time.  What does it imply?  “In any case, by examining samples within a small window of well-constrained depositional ages from across the length of the Himalayan range, our data not only indicate extraordinary transport distances, but a high degree of sediment mixing and homogenization.”  They emphasized it again: “In this regard, both transport distances and sediment mixing within early Gondwana are extraordinary for the geologic record.”  It likely applies to “much, if not the whole of Gondwana” (the hypothetical supercontinent that broke up into today’s continents).
    The Himalayas are not the only location.  They referred to evidence published earlier that assigns the origin of many of the Grand Canyon sediments to the Appalachian mountains thousands of kilometers to the east (09/15/2003).  Again, extraordinary long-distance transport mechanisms must have been in operation.  What could possibly do it?  Their short list of possible mechanisms omits one that creation geologists would probably be saying is intuitively obvious: a global flood.

    The causes of such a pattern might be unique to time and place, and may include a combination of (1) lack of continental vegetation, (2) clustering of continents near the equator, (3) increased continental weathering rates, (4) widespread uplift and erosion associated with regionally extensive and relatively synchronous orogenesis [mountain-building] recording supercontinental amalgamation, and (5) production of significant relief, providing stream power for large-scale river systems.

A closer look reveals that none of those mechanisms contradicts a global flood; in fact, they would each appear to be consequences of one.  What else would produce any one or a combination of those causes?

Composite explanations are generally avoided in science because of Ockham’s Razor: “plurality should not be posited without necessity.”  If a scientist explains the yard being wet by saying, “It might have rained, or the sprinklers might have come on, or a water-spraying truck drove by,” the power of the explanation is decreased.  Here, the scientists admitted that something extraordinary – something possibly unique in the geologic record – occurred to move sediments so far at one time.  (Notice, incidentally, this amounts to a rejection of uniformitarianism.)  Nothing like that is seen happening today.  Special pleading is also to be avoided when explaining things scientifically, but isn’t that what they just did?  They did not explain with reference to natural law and observable, repeatable processes.  They said, essentially, that an extraordinary one-time effect might have been caused by five things or any combination of them.  On the surface of it, the explanation sounds weak.
    A scientific explanation is strengthened when a single cause explains multiple effects.  Suppose your yard is wet, some objects are knocked over and a swath of wetness covers several homes in a line.  Which explanation is better?  (A) House #1 turned the sprinklers on, house #2 had a watering truck drive by, house #3 got rained on and house #4 had an above-ground pool that leaked, and the houses just happened to be in a line.  (:lol: There was a brush fire nearby and a water-dropping plane doused the area.
    A global flood would produce all 5 effects that the geologists listed as causes: (1) a lack of continental vegetation, because it had been stripped away at the onset of the flood; (2) clustering of continents near the equator, because creationists generally agree the continents split apart as the fountains of the great deep opened; (3) weathering rates increased dramatically (well, duh); (4) widespread uplift and erosion associated with regionally extensive and synchronous mountain building occurred (because the mountain ranges formed as a consequence of the dividing continents, and erosion was intense); and (5) production of significant relief, providing stream power for large-scale river systems, because the new mountains caused dramatic runoff as the waters receded, transporting soft sediments over vast distances.  One more for good measure: a global flood would explain the “high degree of sediment mixing and homogenization” of sediments they observed.
    Notice that the secular geology explanation cannot account for increased weathering rates, widespread erosion, homogenization, synchronous mountain building and large-scale river systems (cf. 04/30/2009, “Are Secular Geologists Ready to Consider a Global Flood?”).  In the current example, the composite, special-pleading scenario in the paper leaves much to be desired as a scientific explanation.  Biblical creationists can point to a single cause that explains all the effects.  They have eyewitness testimony, too: Yes, uh... Noah.




http://www.creations...om/crevnews.htm


These patterns are also consistent with paloeocurrent data gathered from across the globe in the paleozoic strata.


http://www.evolution...indpost&p=52935


It also explains why the strata is folded without cracking or heat deformation.


Posted Image

Posted Image




Enjoy

#2 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 18 September 2010 - 07:36 PM

Thank you.

#3 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 07 October 2010 - 05:43 AM

When reading this review I came to ponder if the author(s) either lacks the ability to understand the scientific article in question or willfully decided to distort what was written by misstating what the article set forth.

Geologists were baffled.  Something moved rocks up to 3,000 miles across whole continents.  They found evidence in Asia and also in America.  How on earth could that happen?  Their list of explanations omitted one possibility: the transporting power of water. Maybe it’s because it would have implied a global flood like the world had never seen.


There are more false statements here than any bearing truth.

1) Nowhere in the article do the geologists state they were baffled, or show that this was the case. Why should they be? They did analysis of data and reached conclusions consistent with the data. None of the conclusions are outside of what is possible from known geologic principles involving natural laws.

2) There is no claim that rocks were moved up to 3,000 miles and across whole continents. The evidence reported does not show that rocks moved such distances, only that a portion of sediments that would come to be rocks appear to have been transported long distances. The paper does not even study or discuss whether or not rocks moved, except vertically, such as what happens in orogenic movement.

3) It is implicit or stated outright in several places in the article that transportation of the sediments involved was by water. Water driven transportation is directly stated in the last item of the list given in the conclusions of the article "5) production of significant relief, providing stream power for large-scale river systems" yet this review has the audacity to state “Their list of explanations omitted one possibility: the transporting power of water.“

4) There is not support in the data obtained in the study for a global flood. There is evidence to the contrary. From the proportions of zircon grains dated the same or of different ages there are multiple sources indicated that were derived from multiple orogenic episodes occurring millions of years apart. This is not consistent with a single global flood. But quite frankly no one single pulse of sediment over such distances is consistent with a global flood as postulated by the biblical account or any study of stratigraphy and sedimentation done to date. The only way to get this to occur is through special pleading of a flood unlike anything known to happen in floods.

An international team publishing in the GSA Bulletin wrote about “Extraordinary transport and mixing of sediment across Himalayan central Gondwana during the Cambrian–Ordovician.”1  They found similar detrital zircon samples across a wide swath of the Himalayan foothills, covering “great distances” of at least 3000 km and perhaps as much as 5000 km.  They used assumptions to rule out time as a factor, suggesting that this “extraordinary” transport of material occurred at one time. What does it imply?  “In any case, by examining samples within a small window of well-constrained depositional ages from across the length of the Himalayan range, our data not only indicate extraordinary transport distances, but a high degree of sediment mixing and homogenization.”  They emphasized it again: “In this regard, both transport distances and sediment mixing within early Gondwana are extraordinary for the geologic record.”  It likely applies to “much, if not the whole of Gondwana” (the hypothetical supercontinent that broke up into today’s continents).


“One time?” Well, only if you consider a number of sedimentation pulses or episodes taking place during an interval of 50 million years to fit such a definition. This review is really distorting what was written as the article does not suggest this at all. The authors limited the study to rocks formed from sedimentation taking place within an interval of time when orogenic events were shedding sediments into the Tethyan depocenter at different rates. The article is careful to use the term “time interval” not just “time” as misused here.

The article hinges on radiometric age dates. These dates are the only thing separating and distinguishing the zircons found in any of the samples. The rocks are not the same in other aspects. The reason that they used limits on the time interval they set was apparently to limit the sampled zircons to primary deposition related to the ongoing related orgenies and exclude the effects of later reworking which would blur the results. Notice that the dating technique used, based on the proportion of uranium to lead is not mentioned in the review of the article? I would guess that this is since creationists in general attack radiometric dating and call it unreliable and unusable. But it is the foundation upon which the conclusion of long distance transport is based in this and other studies. “Time” was not ruled out in regards to the dating of the zircons or in the use of fossils and biostratigraphy to define the limits of the time interval the authors used to limit the scope of their study. How many creationist reviews of other scientific articles dismiss the articles on the basis of their using radiometric or biostratigraphic methods of dating? So why make any case for the results found in this study?

The Himalayas are not the only location.  They referred to evidence published earlier that assigns the origin of many of the Grand Canyon sediments to the Appalachian mountains thousands of kilometers to the east (09/15/2003). 


Yes, the study of Dickson and Gehrels published in 2003 is cited. But so are several others such as DeCelles et al., 2000, Squire et al., 2006, Yoshida and Upreti, 2006, and Cawood et al., 2007. Also a modern example of long distance transport is cited. (Amidon et al., 2005). In the Appalachian study only a small portion of Grand Canyon sediments were assigned to a distant source, and these were dated using the same methods as this current paper to rather vastly different ages (involving differences of hundreds of millions of years).

Again, extraordinary long-distance transport mechanisms must have been in operation. 


No, the article did not say that extraordinary “mechanisms” of transportation were in operation. It said that a set of conditions seemed to setup the possibility of such transport and the results left in the geologic record may be rather unique due to those conditions.

What could possibly do it?  Their short list of possible mechanisms omits one that creation geologists would probably be saying is intuitively obvious: a global flood. 


Not only is this not obvious, but the “global flood” option cannot account for the data that was analyzed.

The causes of such a pattern might be unique to time and place, and may include a combination of (1) lack of continental vegetation, (2) clustering of continents near the equator, (3) increased continental weathering rates, (4) widespread uplift and erosion associated with regionally extensive and relatively synchronous orogenesis [mountain-building] recording supercontinental amalgamation, and (5) production of significant relief, providing stream power for large-scale river systems.

A closer look reveals that none of those mechanisms contradicts a global flood; in fact, they would each appear to be consequences of one.  What else would produce any one or a combination of those causes? 


This is largely not a list of mechanisms, but is more a list of conditions. Item #5 involves a mechanism. Some of what is listed is not compatible with the account of the flood in the Bible.

Composite explanations are generally avoided in science because of Ockham’s Razor: “plurality should not be posited without necessity.”  If a scientist explains the yard being wet by saying, “It might have rained, or the sprinklers might have come on, or a water-spraying truck drove by,” the power of the explanation is decreased.  Here, the scientists admitted that something extraordinary – something possibly unique in the geologic record – occurred to move sediments so far at one time.  (Notice, incidentally, this amounts to a rejection of uniformitarianism.)  Nothing like that is seen happening today.  Special pleading is also to be avoided when explaining things scientifically, but isn’t that what they just did?  They did not explain with reference to natural law and observable, repeatable processes.  They said, essentially, that an extraordinary one-time effect might have been caused by five things or any combination of them.  On the surface of it, the explanation sounds weak.


First of all nothing in the article rejects uniformitarianism. What we are offered here is a straw man concept of uniformitarianism. But even so, a modern example of long distance transportation is cited for modern river sediments along the Himalayan front. The irony of an advocate of a global flood (unlike any ever seen since) claiming that this article resorts to “special pleading” is evident. Anyway, this is not used in explaining the results in the study. They did in fact reference natural and observable processes throughout the paper.

They did not claim a “one-time” effect. The article does not claim that what they found was possibly unique in the geologic record in terms of moving sediments so far at one time. Once again this is a distortion of what was written. They emphatically did not make such a claim of “one time” as it is meant to be taken here. Is a period of 50 million years “one time” ?…this review would have us assume that this is what the paper stated. The study wasn't even limited to Cambrian times but bridged into Ordovian times. Studies from other portions of the geologic record showing similar transportation distances are cited in the paper. What they felt might be unique was that such distances and sediment mixing might apply to “much if not the whole of Gondwana” and they cite a study from 2006.

It is true that the sedimentary processes that result in stratified rocks can involve multiple processes. Perhaps that is why it takes years of study to master the principles of geology. But in reading Steve Austin's explanations of the creation of the Grand Canyon I seemed to note a composite of several different aspects or mechanisms of the flooding event being invoked.

A global flood would produce all 5 effects that the geologists listed as causes: (1) a lack of continental vegetation, because it had been stripped away at the onset of the flood; (2) clustering of continents near the equator, because creationists generally agree the continents split apart as the fountains of the great deep opened; (3) weathering rates increased dramatically (well, duh); (4) widespread uplift and erosion associated with regionally extensive and synchronous mountain building occurred (because the mountain ranges formed as a consequence of the dividing continents, and erosion was intense); and (5) production of significant relief, providing stream power for large-scale river systems, because the new mountains caused dramatic runoff as the waters receded, transporting soft sediments over vast distances.  One more for good measure: a global flood would explain the “high degree of sediment mixing and homogenization” of sediments they observed.


How would invoking a global flood provide a more reasonable explanation of a high degree of sediment mixing and homogenization? As stated this seems to be just arm-waving. The rest of the discussion here misses the point of the paper in question. Some of the five points are really quite inter-related and not really separate causes. Personally I don’t think the authors expressed themselves all that clearly in places. This is one part where they clearly assume that readers will know some basic geology. They do not explain what they feel will be obvious to an educated reader. The reviewer either misinterprets the intended meaning to make his own creationist point or does not understand the geology involved.

The first comment is really a reminder that there were no land plants in existence during Cambrian times. There was no continental vegetation to be stripped away. That is the point. Such non-existent vegetation did not put a control on erosion and mass wasting of sediments as it would today.

The second comment is also about erosion and not meant to be a statement of the “effect” of anything, and certainly not a comment about continents splitting apart. Other geologic studies have shown that this was just the opposite, a time of amalgamation of Gondwana not a time when it was splitting apart. Although not explained by the authors I assume that they were thinking of the increased rainfall that would occur in an equatorial geographical position which would increase erosion and also provide more charging to river systems which would result in greater discharge and a greater ability to carry sediment loads. The third comment is obviously related to this.

The article claims in item #4 “widespread uplift and erosion associated with regionally extensive and relatively synchronous orogenesis recording supercontinental amalgamation.” This is not “because the mountain ranges formed as a consequence of the dividing continents, and erosion was intense.” Dividing continents do not produce such orogenesis, nor was this a time of such dividing. A comment “production of significant relief, providing stream power for large-scale river systems, because the new mountains caused dramatic runoff as the waters receded, transporting soft sediments over vast distances” is curious to me. What drives this mountain building in the concept of splitting continents associated with “the fountains of the great deep”…? I think this last phrase seems to comment upon meteoric water entering into the bottom of ocean basins. Just how does this create mountains? The collision of land masses as is assumed in the paper does provide compressional forces that could result in such uplift. But I have a more general observation. The Biblical account of the flood does not mention mountain building. It talks about waters rising but not mountains. If it happened why is this not chronicled there? There is coverage of water covering hills but nothing about creating new ones. I think it is a huge stretch to interpolate such activity. When I was a child and being taught about the flood there was zero talk of mountains being thrust up and above the waters so they could be eroded. Considering how dramatic this would be in the time frame allowed, why is it not mentioned at all? If great mountains rose that had not been there just before the flood, don’t you think it would have been recorded? In its own way that is more fantastic then it raining and raining and everything being covered in water.

In the fifth item the reviwer added to what the paper stated: "production of significant relief, providing stream power for large-scale river systems".....with "because the new mountains caused dramatic runoff as the waters receded, transporting soft sediments over vast distances." Yet there are canyons cut through the rocks produced by such sediments. That is a problem with explanations of geology using the flood as the cause of both sedimentation and the erosive power that created such canyons, especially when it all must be fit into a time frame of only weeks.

Notice that the secular geology explanation cannot account for increased weathering rates, widespread erosion, homogenization, synchronous mountain building and large-scale river systems (cf. 04/30/2009, “Are Secular Geologists Ready to Consider a Global Flood?”).  In the current example, the composite, special-pleading scenario in the paper leaves much to be desired as a scientific explanation.  Biblical creationists can point to a single cause that explains all the effects.  They have eyewitness testimony, too: Yes, uh... Noah.


And how can it be claimed that the “secular geology explanation” cannot account for what is detailed here? This claim is made with no basis coming from either the discussion given or the paper itself. Special pleading is cited to attack article as poor science. But to me creationism is basically all about special pleading and invoking supernatural occurrences. But the paper in question does not rely upon special pleading and everything discussed within it fits within a geologic model following natural laws. This is unlike much of creationism where there are conflicting ideas set forth in attempts to fit all explanations to fit a single flooding event. Mt. Everest is often explained as being its present place when fossils were deposited on top of it yet dramatic mountain-building and erosion is taking place in the same area as discussed here. Rocks are described as all deposited below wave base and only become part of a dry land landscape when a drop of sea level exposes them with no deformation associated with tectonics. Folded rocks were all created when they were soft by the flood. Yet they were not so soft that they were eroded by violent waters having the force to create such deformation. The flood may be called a single cause, but it is said to cause quite a few vastly different effects needing quite different mechanisms that creationists can’t seem to formulate in a single coherent model.

So we have eyewitnesses to the flooding event? Then why didn’t Noah say anything about mountain-building? If great mountains rose that had not been there just before the flood, don’t you think it would have been recorded? In its own way that is more fantastic then it raining and raining and everything being covered in water.

#4 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 07 October 2010 - 08:32 AM

So we have eyewitnesses to the flooding event? Then why didn’t Noah say anything about mountain-building? If great mountains rose that had not been there just before the flood, don’t you think it would have been recorded?  In its own way that is more fantastic then it raining and raining and everything being covered in water.


The flood was witnessed by many and is preserved in ancient Hebrew, Chaldean, Greek documents. I can list them if you like.

The flood is found referenced as a historical fact in both the Old Testament and New Testament.

What's odd is that you list your religion as 'Christian' but oddly don't appear to believe in anything which the Bible says (i.e the flood).

#5 Jerry_Teps

Jerry_Teps

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts
  • Location:127.0.0.1
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Australia

Posted 07 October 2010 - 09:53 AM

What's odd is that you list your religion as 'Christian' but oddly don't appear to believe in anything which the Bible says (i.e the flood).


It may come as a surprise to you, but not every shares the exact same beliefs about Jesus as you. Literal belief in every aspect of the bible is not the only type of Christian.

The flood is found referenced as a historical fact in both the Old Testament and New Testament.


And Jesus was documented as a historical fact not to have died on the cross in the Qur'an.

#6 menes777

menes777

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Wichita, KS

Posted 07 October 2010 - 03:03 PM

The flood was witnessed by many and is preserved in ancient Hebrew, Chaldean, Greek documents. I can list them if you like.

The flood is found referenced as a historical fact in both the Old Testament and New Testament.

What's odd is that you list your religion as 'Christian' but oddly don't appear to believe in anything which the Bible says (i.e the flood).

View Post


Correct me if I am wrong here, but by many don't you mean 8 people?

#7 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 07 October 2010 - 06:31 PM

Correct me if I am wrong here, but by many don't you mean 8 people?

View Post


Who were the progenitors of many ancient different civilizations. If you look though folklore and mythology, you will find hundreds and hundreds of world flood myths - and all of these are preserved memories of the deluge.

#8 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 07 October 2010 - 07:13 PM

Correct me if I am wrong here, but by many don't you mean 8 people?

View Post

So I wasn't the only one thinking that. :)

#9 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 08 October 2010 - 04:15 AM

The flood was witnessed by many and is preserved in ancient Hebrew, Chaldean, Greek documents. I can list them if you like.

The flood is found referenced as a historical fact in both the Old Testament and New Testament.

What's odd is that you list your religion as 'Christian' but oddly don't appear to believe in anything which the Bible says (i.e the flood).

View Post


I will give you the benefit of a doubt and assume that you apparently have totally missed the point I was making due to an apparent rush to question my religious beliefs. But in doing so you have not made a comment relevent to the topic of thread. I posted:

So we have eyewitnesses to the flooding event? Then why didn’t Noah say anything about mountain-building? If great mountains rose that had not been there just before the flood, don’t you think it would have been recorded?  In its own way that is more fantastic then it raining and raining and everything being covered in water.


My first sentence was an obvious rhetorical question and not my questioning whether or not there were witnesses to the flood. I actually believe that Noah did in fact witness a flood and built an ark in which he took animals to preserve their lives. What I was asking is why mountain building is being cited in the creationist review of the scientific article as being compatible with the creationist viewpoint of The Flood when nobody, including Noah chronicled mountains being thrust up during the period of the flooding. Is not the Bible the primary source for the facts about The Flood?

Your statement about my faith is not based in fact as I have never denied that a flood took place. But "The Flood" is not the only thing described in the Bible, making your statement that I "don't appear to believe in anything which the Bible says" a major unfounded claim at best.

#10 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 08 October 2010 - 05:13 AM

I actually believe that Noah did in fact witness a flood and built an ark in which he took animals to preserve their lives.


So why are you picking and choosing? You believe in the flood, but not the literal creation account as described in Genesis?

Your statement about my faith is not based in fact as I have never denied that a flood took place. But "The Flood" is not the only thing described in the Bible, making your statement that I "don't appear to believe in anything which the Bible says" a major unfounded claim at best.


Your religion says ''theistic evolutionist''. You can't be a Bible believer and an evolutionist. It appears you are just picking and choosing parts of the Bible.

Also, it's odd you now claim you believe in the flood. For the last month or so, all you have done is post in flood myth/flood geology threads attempting to debunk them. Perhaps you though changed your beliefs?

#11 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 08 October 2010 - 11:13 AM

So we have eyewitnesses to the flooding event? Then why didn’t Noah say anything about mountain-building? If great mountains rose that had not been there just before the flood, don’t you think it would have been recorded?  In its own way that is more fantastic then it raining and raining and everything being covered in water.

Noah and his family were inside of an ark with water falling over the windows not to mention and volcanic ash in the air. I doubt that they saw mountains rising.

There is a scripture in the Psalms about this though, since we had eyewitnesses who were not on earth at the time. :)

#12 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 09 October 2010 - 03:50 AM

Noah and his family were inside of an ark with water falling over the windows  not to mention and volcanic ash in the air. I doubt that they saw mountains rising.

There is a scripture in the Psalms about this though, since we had eyewitnesses who were not on earth at the time. :D

View Post


Well, they might have been inside the ark, but during the whole time without coming out to take a look around? The Bible does not expound on this so it is only conjecture. There is bo mention of volcanism in the scriptures either, so the presence of ash in the air is conjecture.

Are you talking about Psalm 104, which at best is vague about what mountains are doing during the term of the flooding?

#13 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 09 October 2010 - 04:07 AM

So why are you picking and choosing? You believe in the flood, but not the literal creation account as described in Genesis?
Your religion says ''theistic evolutionist''. You can't be a Bible believer and an evolutionist. It appears you are just picking and choosing parts of the Bible.

Also, it's odd you now claim you believe in the flood. For the last month or so, all you have done is post in flood myth/flood geology threads attempting to debunk them. Perhaps you though changed your beliefs?

View Post


This appears once again to be an attempt to deflect discussion away from the actual topic at hand. Outside of the flood, the discussion is not about "the creation account" and whether you or I take one literal interpretation or another of what is in the bible. My post asked about why YEC talk quite a lot about events during the flood that do not appear in the Bible. The same YEC will citicize other Christians for not accepting the account there, yet seem to have no problem with making up quite a few tales of events not written in scripture.

My religion is "Christian" but the selections offered when I registered only gave a few options, to which "theistic evolutionist" is closest in regards to my views about evolution. Yes, one can believe in the Bible and in the validity of evolution. It is true that a minority of Christians believe there is incompatibility, but the reality is that many Christians do not see where the Bible must be read with the interpretation that YECs hold to and think evolution is not a topic of scripture. But this has been the subject of many threads, and is not the subject at hand. Your post appears to be basically using the "No True Scotsman" fallacy in regards to my my comments, instead of actually making valid arguments in rebuttal.

I have posted a small handful of times in the past month and they are not as you claim. In this thread I posted about how a YEC review of a scientific article made various false or distorted claims about the article that was reviewed. In particular making claims not in either the Bible or in the geologic evidence lowers the credibility of the review to the point where it is best disregarded.

#14 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 09 October 2010 - 05:10 AM

This appears once again to be an attempt to deflect discussion away from the actual topic at hand.


No, that would be you. The thread topic is ''Continent Wide Dispersion Of Sediment And Boulders'', yet in your post a few above you started attacking the Bible and claiming a lack of eye-witness testimony to the flood (like an atheist). I then simply asked your worldview since you were bringing up atheist arguments.

So we have eyewitnesses to the flooding event?


Here you asked the question of were there eyewitnesses to the flood. Now why would a Christian or Bible believer ask this? More importantly what does this have to do with the geology basis of the thread: ''Continent Wide Dispersion Of Sediment And Boulders''.

Outside of the flood, the discussion is not about "the creation account" and whether you or I take one literal interpretation or another of what is in the bible. My post asked about why YEC talk quite a lot about events during the flood that do not appear in the Bible. The same YEC will citicize other Christians for not accepting the account there, yet seem to have no problem with making up quite a few tales of events not written in scripture.

My religion is "Christian" but the selections offered when I registered only gave a few options, to which "theistic evolutionist" is closest in regards to my views about evolution. Yes, one can believe in the Bible and in the validity of evolution. It is true that a minority of Christians believe there is incompatibility, but the reality is that many Christians do not see where the Bible must be read with the interpretation that YECs hold to and think evolution is not a topic of scripture. But this has been the subject of many threads, and is not the subject at hand. Your post appears to be basically using the "No True Scotsman" fallacy in regards to my my comments, instead of actually making valid arguments in rebuttal.


You attack others faiths (YEC) and then complain when i bring this up. Perhaps you should read the forum rules.

#15 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 09 October 2010 - 07:48 AM

Hi Geode.

This appears once again to be an attempt to deflect discussion away from the actual topic at hand. Outside of the flood, the discussion is not about "the creation account" and whether you or I take one literal interpretation or another of what is in the bible. My post asked about why YEC talk quite a lot about events during the flood that do not appear in the Bible. The same YEC will citicize other Christians for not accepting the account there, yet seem to have no problem with making up quite a few tales of events not written in scripture.

My religion is "Christian" but the selections offered when I registered only gave a few options, to which "theistic evolutionist" is closest in regards to my views about evolution. Yes, one can believe in the Bible and in the validity of evolution. It is true that a minority of Christians believe there is incompatibility, but the reality is that many Christians do not see where the Bible must be read with the interpretation that YECs hold to and think evolution is not a topic of scripture. But this has been the subject of many threads, and is not the subject at hand. Your post appears to be basically using the "No True Scotsman" fallacy in regards to my my comments, instead of actually making valid arguments in rebuttal. I have seen this before.

I have posted a small handful of times in the past month and they are not as you claim. That is not surprising. In this thread I posted about how a YEC review of a scientific article made various false or distorted claims about the article that was reviewed. In particular making claims not in either the Bible or in the geologic evidence lowers the credibility of the review to the point where it is best disregarded. I have seen examples of this.

View Post



#16 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 09 October 2010 - 08:06 AM

Well, they might have been inside the ark, but during the whole time without coming out to take a look around? The Bible does not expound on this so it is only conjecture. There is bo mention of volcanism in the scriptures either, so the presence of ash in the air is conjecture.

Are you talking about Psalm 104, which at best is vague about what mountains are doing during the term of the flooding?

View Post

Okay, you do have valid points. It would be nearly impossible to have all of that extra water weight without volcanic activity... but yes that is speculation.


I used to think that all YE views were ridiculous. How much have you read? Some of the hypotheses really make sense... more so than mainstream science.

Come out of the ark? I don't think that would be possible.

I thought I found all of these in Psalms 104 but apparently not. lol anyway they are good don't you think?


5 He has founded the earth upon its established places;
It will not be made to totter to time indefinite, or forever.

 6 With a watery deep just like a garment you covered it.
The waters were standing above the very mountains.

 7 At your rebuke they began to flee;
At the sound of your thunder they were sent running in panic—
 8 Mountains proceeded to ascend,
Valley plains proceeded to descend—
To the place that you have founded for them.

6 You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
the waters stood above the mountains.

7 But at your rebuke the waters fled,
at the sound of your thunder they took to flight;

8 they flowed over the mountains,
they went down into the valleys,
to the place you assigned for them.

9 You set a boundary they cannot cross;
never again will they cover the earth.

Psalms 97:5 seems to indicate something as well.

#17 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 09 October 2010 - 08:38 AM

Geode wrote.... (post 3)
4) There is not support in the data obtained in the study for a global flood. There is evidence to the contrary. From the proportions of zircon grains dated the same or of different ages there are multiple sources indicated that were derived from multiple orogenic episodes occurring millions of years apart.


I would like to say first, the points you make about the paper itself--nowhere does it say (in the abstract) geologists were baffled, nor anything about boulders being transported. The dating was done on zircon crystals found along the strike of mountain layers.

But concerning the point above---you are claiming these episodes are evidence when they are based on actualist assumptions. The reasoning is circular. Different dating methods are not consistent as has been shown by the RATE team, and therefore not reliable as sure evidence. Also the samples from the same rocks from the same area many times show anomolous dates.

I do not want to deviate into dating--there are other threads for that. The issue, in my opinion, is that the deluge is absolutely precluded--ruled out beforehand---as an explanation, because there is an alternate timescale. It is treated as a legend for simpletons, when in fact they are blundering by not allowing eyewitness testimony into their mental processes. Instead they accept the assumptions of educated atheists who took over higher education.

#18 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 09 October 2010 - 09:17 PM

My religion is "Christian" but the selections offered when I registered only gave a few options, to which "theistic evolutionist" is closest in regards to my views about evolution. Yes, one can believe in the Bible and in the validity of evolution. It is true that a minority of Christians believe there is incompatibility, but the reality is that many Christians do not see where the Bible must be read with the interpretation that YECs hold to and think evolution is not a topic of scripture.

View Post

Yeah, I had a hard time picking a specific view so I just went with "Creationist". I don't fit into any neat little boxes. I don't believe that the 7 creative days were literally 24 hours each, though the scientific speculation on that is fascinating; I just don't think that the scriptures are necessarily meant that way. I also believe that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" occurred before the 7 days. I do believe in a young humanity and a literal worldwide flood though, so most would assume I am a YEarther. I guess we all need our own categories with the specifics. :) :)

#19 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 10 October 2010 - 06:06 AM

Perhaps we can get back to the OP. As usual, there is a debate over what the original paper says. If we actually READ it, and interpret it correctly, we can see a few things.

A confusing thing is that there is an article in the OP written by a creationist author, but there is an original journal paper from which he is quoting. Though there were some exaggerated statements by the creationist author, the overall theme of what he is saying is valid.

Here is the abstract from the original paper. This is the paper the article in the OP uses.


Extraordinary transport and mixing of sediment across Himalayan central Gondwana during the Cambrian–Ordovician

Abstract

Detrital zircon samples from Cambrian and Lower to Middle Ordovician strata were taken across and along the strike of the Himalaya from Pakistan to Bhutan (∼2000 km)


I'm sure Geode will correct me if I'm wrong, but this means that the zircon samples were broken grains (detrital) or larger crystals from rocks of differing ages (as it assumed and will be addressed later). They are now mixed in lithified sediment (sedimentary layers).

Now, this is the important fact I want to bring to your attention. The samples were "taken across and along the strike of the Himalaya from Pakistan to Bhutan (∼2000 km)." It is imperative that we understand when it says "along the strike," it means the samples came from the bedding between the SAME layers. Or at least it was at the same PLANAR level. If we use the law of original horizontality (the strike probably folds, inclines and declines in places), the crystals should have been laid at pretty close to the same time--because they dispersed "along the strike."

By sampling rocks from one time interval for nearly the entire length of an orogen, and by covering a range of lithotectonic units, we minimize time as a significant source of variance in detrital age spectra, and thus obtain direct assessment of the spatial variability in sediment provenance.


This means that the strike is considered to be "one time intervul." READ the first sentence. And the research went along "nearly the ENTIRE LENGTH of the an orogen" (mountain range). The research took samples along the planar level for 2000 km--app. 1250 miles. Therefore statements to the contrary on this thread are in direct opposition to the apparent reading of the abstract.

By the statement "we minimize time as a significant source of variance in detrital age spectra...." I'm assuming they radiometrically dated some of the zircons and received different dates (an age spectra). They are saying they "minimize" or can almost rule out time as a reason for the different dates on the same level. This is why they say the zircons are detrital and are all from different rocks formed in different times.

(This is a side note. You see they always have a ready reason, but that reason is based on assumptions that the principles underlying the radiometric dating are beyond doubt--quite foolhardy in my opinion. And the RATE team has done well in exposing many of these assumptions. Even scientific journal papers are not exempt from assumptions.)

This approach was applied to the Tethyan margin of the Himalaya, which during the Cambrian occupied a central depositional position between two major mountain belts that formed during the amalgamation of Gondwana, the internal East African orogen and the external Ross-Delamerian orogen of East Gondwana. Detrital age spectra from our Lesser and Tethyan Himalayan samples show that well-mixed sediment was dispersed across at least 2000 km of the northern Indian margin. The detrital zircon age spectra for our samples are consistent with sources for most grains from areas outside the Indian craton that record Pan-African events, such as the Ross-Delamerian orogen; East African orogen, including the juvenile Arabian-Nubian Shield; and Kuunga-Pinjarra orogen.


In other words, the zircon samples were part of "well mixed sediment" for a span that is equivalent to the distance between New York to Kansas City. One can not rule out the signs of catastrophe here. Zircon crystals along a 1250 mile strike of well mixed sediment. Mass dispersal and mixing of sediments would best be described as sediment transport in a short period of time. If we take off the geologic timescale assumptions, this can easily be evidence for massive water transport of sediment during the flood.

Note this is not the only case for mass continental transport of sediments. Many of the sediements of the southwest U.S. are considered to have once been in the Appalachian area.

Also note that "Cambrian-Ordovician" strata are in reality defined by index fossils, and not the sediments they contain. Most of these fossils would be marine in nature, because that's what Cambrian fossils are. So again, even geotime period labels on strata are an assumption because certain animals and /or plants were buried in them. Cambrian layers will be one of the first "fossil-bearing" layers and will contain marine fossils. This can easily be explained by the fact that these marine creatures were on the ocean bottom during the flood and quickly buried in sediment. Subsequent uplift of the wet sediment explains both folds, synclines, anticlines in thick portions of land-based, unfaulted strata, and the marine fossils they contain.

#20 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 12 October 2010 - 03:26 AM

No, that would be you. The thread topic is ''Continent Wide Dispersion Of Sediment And Boulders'', yet in your post a few above you started attacking the Bible and claiming a lack of eye-witness testimony to the flood (like an atheist).

I then simply asked your worldview since you were bringing up atheist arguments.

Here you asked the question of were there eyewitnesses to the flood. Now why would a Christian or Bible believer ask this? More importantly what does this have to do with the geology basis of the thread: ''Continent Wide Dispersion Of Sediment And Boulders''.

You attack others faiths (YEC) and then complain when i bring this up. Perhaps you should read the forum rules.

View Post


No, I did not attack the Bible. You misread my rhetorical question as making a statement about witnesses that I did not make. There is no claim in my post that I was denying eye-witnesses to the flood.

Your questions about my worldview appear to me to have been an attempt to de-rail the thread. But I guess it is possible that you simply did not follow the discussion very well. I would suggest that you look up a definition of "rhetorical" as it appears that you may not know what it means. You at first ignored my obvious rhetorical question and continue to ignore what it is even after I have pointed it out. If you really knew the definition I don't think you could honestly make the claim that I was questioning that there were eye-witnesses to the flood.

Until you posted the false claim that I was denying eye-witnesses to the flood my posts were completely on the subject in the OP. I only have been diverted in order to make a response to your posts which have in been off-subject.

I have disagreed with some YEC positions, but I have not attacked people with other faiths. Perhaps you take any disagreement with a position you accept or support as an attack on the person's personal beliefs? I don't think you can honestly say the same about some of your recent posts which do appear to cross the line and attack the beliefs of others. Perhaps you should read the forum rules as it appears that you have directly violated two or three of them in this thread. In general your de-railing the thread is breaking a rule as is your ad hominem approach to me in every post you have made in the thread so far.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users