otseng wrote:micatala wrote:
I would say the prediction would not follow solely from the model as given, unless you add some assumptions or data on the timelines needed to create the features under discussion. In particular, I do not agree that the "dominant pattern" should be evidence of multiple different kinds of events appearing at the same geographical/geological locations all through the earth.
Now, part of my problem might be what you mean by "dominant pattern." What do you expect to see more of that we do not see in the geological record?
I guess the key is really this one sentence:
In SG, we should see roughly a uniform distribution of folding/faulting/erosion in the stratas.
What exactly do you mean by "uniform distribution of folding/faulting/erosion in the stratas?"
If we can at least come to a common understanding on this, then we can get to my issue of how the timelines the SG postulates would effect what we should see. To do this, we ideally would look at some given geographical locations and consider how long it took for the features we see as we go down to form.
Here is an illustration to show my point.
Figure A has layers formed. Over time, erosion occurs and forms B. New layers are deposited and forms C. Over time, we should see D as commonplace.
http://origins.swau.edu/papers/geologic ... fault.html
I would expect that erosion would constantly be occuring through wind and water.
It would not be normal that terrain would escape any erosion for any significant period of time. The time spans involved in rock stratas are on the order of millions of years in SG. So erosion should be evident in these stratas.
I am going back to see if we can at least come to a common understanding on this point, as we have made some progress here, I think.
First, I would agree that we should see what the illustration shows in some places. Grumpy has pointed out he does see this in the Appalachians, where he lives.
I disagree that we should always see erosion constantly occurring through wind and water. I think we should see some places where erosion does not really occur. Such places I would expect not to see erosion would be.
1) Shallow flat seas or lakes where there is no current.
2) Land areas that are flat and covered by ice which has no pressure on it to move.
3) Flat areas which are covered with vegetation but have a dry climate. Vegetation, if it remains in place, I would think could prevent wind erosion.
Also, it seems to me that in flat areas that did experience wind erosion, the erosion would be fairly uniform, wearing down the layers evenly. Thus, you wouldn't see crevices, gullies, etc.
Now, not to nitpick, but the other part of my point earlier is what you mean by "uniformly throughout the layers." Do you mean, for example, that at every location on earth, you should see roughly the same patterns as you drill down through the layers?
The problem I have with your prediction is that it is way too vague. Again, we have not considered how long it might take some formations to form, how long it might take between faulting episodes in a particular spot or even how often faulting occurs on average, if and why faulting occurs at some spots often and almost never at others (I think it is fair to say, some regions on earth might have NEVER seen faulting) etc.
THus, I guess I am disagreeing with the following.
Faults would occur with less frequency than erosion, but one would expect a random distribution of these in the rock record.
SG says faults should occur more often at the boundaries of plates. I fail to see why SG would predict a "random distribution"
Examples such as the below should be much more numerous than faults that extend all the way to the surface.
The same argument holds for folds and deformations.
I am not sure how your claim follows. It depends on how often faulting occurs at a particular spot. In addition, if a particular place has conditions which foster faulting, you might have faults, more layers, another fault, maybe no depostion for a while, yet another fault, etc.
In fact, I am not sure it is fair to say we DON'T see what you think we should see as often as we should.
In my next post, I am going back to some of my challenges. Again, I appreciate otseng is arguing with several of us, and I accept he is approaching things in a non-biblical manner. I will take issue with one of his comments along these lines.
But, I think you touch on the heart of why people automatically discount the FM. It is simply because it smacks of the Bible. That is why at the very beginning I mentioned about Snowball Earth. If I would've said the entire world was covered by ice, nobody would bat an eyelash. But, since I believe the entire world was covered by water, it is automatically rejected.
My rejection of the FM is not based in any way on a desire to discount or deny the Bible. It is based entirely on the evidence I have cited in this thread which to me indicates the FM does not square with the data we have. Again, this data includes:
1) The fossil record (I know otseng has asked for a 3-day representation of the fossil record and this has not been produced, but I still maintain what we do know and have cited is sufficient to show the fossil record could not possibly have been produced by a single flood event)
2) They layering we see. I have asked how a single flood could have produced the iridium layer, for example, and do not recall anything close to a satisfactory answer. There are many other layering phenomenon that do not seem at all consistent with a global flood.
3) No salt in ice core layers going back many tens of thousands of years. This at least discounts a global flood within that time span.
4) The volume of coal, oil, etc., not to mention the number of fossils and quantity of organic material in the crust. We did address this some, but I do not believe what is in the crust could have been produced by life which was all alive at roughly the same time.
Now, not to overwhelm the thread again, I would say let's further clarify otseng's illustration, find examples, and clarify how often and where we might find his given illustration as well as places where we probably would not.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn
