A Deluge of Evidence for the Flood?

[LittlePig]

And I can't think of any reason you would make the comment you made if you weren't suggesting that the find favored your view of a worldwide flood.

Umm, because simply it's a better explanation? And the fact that it's more consistent with the Flood Model doesn't hurt either.

Except, of course, it isn't consistent with a 'Flood Model', since it isn't mixed in with any animals that we know are modern.

Before the rabbits multiply beyond control, I'll just leave my proposal as a rapid burial. Nothing more than that. For this thread, it can just be a giant mud slide.

Since it's still spring time, let's let the rabbits multiply.

Questions for Debate:

1) Does a Global Flood Model provide the best explanation for our current fossil record, geologic formations, and biodiversity?

2) What real science is used in Global Flood Models?

3) What predictions does a Global Flood Model make?

4) Have Global Flood Models ever been subjected to a formal peer review process?

[Goat]

But such things are area specific, there are different weather conditions causing erosion, and different tectonic forces creating folds, and fault lines in different areas of the world.

The mechanism of how erosion, folds, and faults form is not important to the prediction. The only relevant fact is that they occured in the past.

Folds occur AFTER the layers have been deposited and, commonly, after they have become rock.

Yes, exactly.

I illustrated it with my thought experiment earlier.

Suppose 200 Mya strata A formed. 150 Mya strata B was deposited on strata A. 100 Mya stratas A and B were folded. 50 Mya strata C was deposited on A and B. Stratas A and B would be curved, but C would be straight.

So, when we look at the ABC sequence now, we know that folding occured sometime between when B and C were formed.

The same would be for faults and erosions.

Faults, by their nature, usually affect all the layers, whether new or ancient.

Yes. But, they would only affect all the layers that have been deposited up until the time of the event. It should not be seen after the event occurs.

Why would it be flat? We do not see that happening in modern environments now,
so why would it happen back then? Why do a thought experiment when we can do an actual observations, using either models, or just go down in the ocean and observe things?

[otseng]

Why would it be flat? We do not see that happening in modern environments now

Actually, I agree that we do not see it happening now (except mostly in catastrophic events). But for SG, that's how it would explain parallel layers. If the stratas were not deposited flat, how would parallel layers form?

[Goat]

Why would it be flat? We do not see that happening in modern environments now

Actually, I agree that we do not see it happening now (except mostly in catastrophic events). But for SG, that's how it would explain parallel layers. If the stratas were not deposited flat, how would parallel layers form?

There are two answers.. one.. when the paralle layers formed it WAS flat, and the techonic plate movement bent the rock over time. This seems the typical way things
are distorted

The next way is that a thin layer sticks to the sides of hills and dales. It depends on how big the slopes are. IF they are reasonable shallow, then the cohesion of the layer overcomes the potential of gravity.

[otseng]

There are two answers.. one.. when the paralle layers formed it WAS flat, and the techonic plate movement bent the rock over time. This seems the typical way things are distorted

Tectonic forces should have constantly been acting during the formation of all stratas. So, shouldn't we see evidence of the bending of stratas at one mid-sequence layer and below? Instead of just the bending of the entire strata sequence?

The next way is that a thin layer sticks to the sides of hills and dales. It depends on how big the slopes are. IF they are reasonable shallow, then the cohesion of the layer overcomes the potential of gravity.

I question that this would be able to form parallel statas. Especially those of any significant size in area or height.

[Goat]

There are two answers.. one.. when the paralle layers formed it WAS flat, and the techonic plate movement bent the rock over time. This seems the typical way things are distorted

Tectonic forces should have constantly been acting during the formation of all stratas. So, shouldn't we see evidence of the bending of stratas at one mid-sequence layer and below? Instead of just the bending of the entire strata sequence?

The next way is that a thin layer sticks to the sides of hills and dales. It depends on how big the slopes are. IF they are reasonable shallow, then the cohesion of the layer overcomes the potential of gravity.

I question that this would be able to form parallel statas. Especially those of any significant size in area or height.

That depends.. such as 'when was the pressure starting to be applied'. Some areas are relatively stable, and other parts of the world have more stress. The middle of the plates tend to be under less stress than the areas that the plates are bumping together. Look at where the earthquake zones are. They are where there are plates grinding together.

[Grumpy]

otseng

shouldn't we see evidence of the bending of stratas at one mid-sequence layer and below? Instead of just the bending of the entire strata sequence?

We see both large areas with multiple flat strata(Grand Canyon) and other areas with jumbled strata indicating several different eras of both deposits and bending(the Appalachian Mountains). Each area must be studied to be understood. What we do not see is any evidence of a single flooding event occurring worldwide, especially not in the last few thousand years. We do see evidence of single events like the Iridium layer at the KT boundary some 65 million years ago or the evidence for a volcanic event that affected the whole Earth some 250 million years ago, it's not as if scientists would miss such evidence, it just isn't there. A World Wide flood is not evidenced in the geology, it is only evidenced in mythology. If it has a basis in fact it can only be the exageration of a local event which grew larger with each telling.

Grumpy

[otseng]

That depends.. such as 'when was the pressure starting to be applied'. Some areas are relatively stable, and other parts of the world have more stress. The middle of the plates tend to be under less stress than the areas that the plates are bumping together. Look at where the earthquake zones are. They are where there are plates grinding together.

These still do not address the predictions.

Each area must be studied to be understood.

Let's go back to the fundamentals, from the models, what can be predicted? If you believe the entire strata sequence as a whole should exhibit folding, faults, erosion, and not a subset of the stratas, please explain how SG would predict this.

[micatala]

There are two answers.. one.. when the paralle layers formed it WAS flat, and the techonic plate movement bent the rock over time. This seems the typical way things are distorted

Tectonic forces should have constantly been acting during the formation of all stratas. So, shouldn't we see evidence of the bending of stratas at one mid-sequence layer and below? Instead of just the bending of the entire strata sequence?

I realize I am very late getting into this thread, so my apologies if I am bringing up old issues.

What do you mean by "constantly acting"? It seems to me that tectonic forces can be local in both space and time, or at least the effects of these forces can be local. We see subsidization along faults but not in the middle of plates. We might have volcanic activity along in an area due to tectonic forces at one time in a particular location but not others.

For example, Yellowstone Park has experienced massive lava flows in the past, but is not experiencing any eruptions now.

Also (I just learned this during a recent visit) there are two areas of the park that are now experiencing uplift, but the area of these uplifts is certainly under 20% of the whole park.

So, it seems to me that while tectonic forces are always in operation and could be considered "constant" from that viewpoint, there effects are far from constant in the sense that only certain areas at certain times showing discernible effects.

The next way is that a thin layer sticks to the sides of hills and dales. It depends on how big the slopes are. IF they are reasonable shallow, then the cohesion of the layer overcomes the potential of gravity.

I question that this would be able to form parallel statas. Especially those of any significant size in area or height.

I have know knowledge of how non-horizontal layers might form.

However, again on a recent trip, I observed many instances of layers that are not now horizontal, some at nearly 45 degrees. These areas had many many layers that were visible, sometimes well over 100 feet in thickness. It seems to me that the layers could have (and probably did) form over long periods and then were subsequently tilted due to tectonic forces.

In some areas, there was quite a bit of color and texture variability in the layers. I have a hard time understanding how a single flood event could so carefully sort colors into layers so that we have a sequence of redish layers, then a sequence of tan layers, then a sequence of gray, and then more red layers, etc.

How can a single flood account for, say, two similar red layers with intervening layers of other colors? Why wouldn't the red be mixed in throughout the whole deposit, or, if it is say heavier rock, be all at the bottom?

[otseng]

What do you mean by "constantly acting"? It seems to me that tectonic forces can be local in both space and time, or at least the effects of these forces can be local.

What I mean is that generally the tectonic plates are constantly moving. Here is one animation of the hypothesized historical plate movements:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/geology/anim1.html

Here is how the plates are currently moving:
http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html

there effects are far from constant in the sense that only certain areas at certain times showing discernible effects.

But, shouldn't some of the effects be captured in the rock record? Like folds, faults, erosion, etc?

I have know knowledge of how non-horizontal layers might form.

However, again on a recent trip, I observed many instances of layers that are not now horizontal, some at nearly 45 degrees. These areas had many many layers that were visible, sometimes well over 100 feet in thickness. It seems to me that the layers could have (and probably did) form over long periods and then were subsequently tilted due to tectonic forces.

Yes, I agree that non-horizontal layers formed by it first being deposited horizontally. And then they were tilted.

I have a hard time understanding how a single flood event could so carefully sort colors into layers so that we have a sequence of redish layers, then a sequence of tan layers, then a sequence of gray, and then more red layers, etc.

I do not think the flood was a simple event with a homogenous mixture at all times. Sorting would also not be a simple event as just letting things settle in a glass. Other forces such as tidal forces would affect the sorting of layers. I don't claim to know the complete answer to this, but we can explore it later.

But, I'd like to first see if we can all come on a consensus to my predictions that I gave at the onset.

[Goat]

What do you mean by "constantly acting"? It seems to me that tectonic forces can be local in both space and time, or at least the effects of these forces can be local.

What I mean is that generally the tectonic plates are constantly moving. Here is one animation of the hypothesized historical plate movements:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/geology/anim1.html

Here is how the plates are currently moving:
http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html

there effects are far from constant in the sense that only certain areas at certain times showing discernible effects.

But, shouldn't some of the effects be captured in the rock record? Like folds, faults, erosion, etc?

And, indeed it is. However, not all areas are under the same stresses. As I pointed out earlier, the places in the middle of a plate are under different stresses than a subduction zone.


As for your predictions, can you show , via an experiment, that you're predictions
have are in fact predictions, or rather are you trying to retrofit your predictions into observations we already have made?

How does your model predict the features we find in the grand canyon?