Noah's Flood

[Spud]

Did you read the information about Mt St Helens? Fascinating don't you think.

Yes, it claims to be evidence for the biblical flood, right?

[Maeght]

Yes, it claims to be evidence for the biblical flood, right?

You're not taking this seriously are you?

[Spud]

Is this where I say yes and you come back with saying they are found all over the planet?

I wasn't going to say that. The sediments at Joggins are restricted to a 15km section of coastline.

[Spud]

You're not taking this seriously are you?

Why not take it seriously?

[Maeght]

I wasn't going to say that. The sediments at Joggins are restricted to a 15km section of coastline.

That's good to hear.

[Spud]

http://sedimentlog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/drama-in-rocks.html?m=1

How most of the world's sedimentary rocks were formed.

[Maeght]

Can't open the link on my computer - but just going from what you say there, the mechanism for most sedimebntary rocks is not the only mechanism possible.

[~TW~]

Can't open the link on my computer - but just going from what you say there, the mechanism for most sedimebntary rocks is not the only mechanism possible.

Try the BBC.
                           ~TW~

[Maeght]

Try the BBC.
                           ~TW~

I know how most sedimentary rocks are formed. But the key is most, not all.

[Spud]

Can't open the link on my computer - but just going from what you say there, the mechanism for most sedimebntary rocks is not the only mechanism possible.

If you google "Drama in the rocks" you should find a four part video on sedimentation and stratification.

[Maeght]

If you google "Drama in the rocks" you should find a four part video on sedimentation and stratification.

Sure - but is it just talking about the way most sedimentary rocks are normally formed i.e. by build-up of layers over a long period of time? If so I know that. Since I'm busy I would appreciate a summary.

[Khatru]

Yes- Eg in Grand Canyon, where the remains of other sediments a mile or so deep, which would have covered the sediments that are still present, are seen some distance from the canyon.

Hope I'm not getting you wrong here but are you saying that the Grand Canyon could only have been formed by a cataclysmic event like a worldwide flood?

[Spud]

Hope I'm not getting you wrong here but are you saying that the Grand Canyon could only have been formed by a cataclysmic event like a worldwide flood?

I was referring to the missing upper strata of Grand Canyon (only remnants of them are present), which could conceivably have been slowly eroded over millions of years. But we don't see sediments being laid down today on the scale they have been there.

[jeremyp]

But we don't see sediments being laid down today on the scale they have been there.

We would if we could sit and watch for millions of years.

[Maeght]

I was referring to the missing upper strata of Grand Canyon (only remnants of them are present), which could conceivably have been slowly eroded over millions of years. But we don't see sediments being laid down today on the scale they have been there.

Sedimentation occurs under the see mainly of course and if effected by a number of factors. This process takes place over a very long time span, so what data re you using to make your suggestion?

[Khatru]

I was referring to the missing upper strata of Grand Canyon (only remnants of them are present), which could conceivably have been slowly eroded over millions of years. But we don't see sediments being laid down today on the scale they have been there.

OK - this is what geologists are saying?

[Spud]

Sedimentation occurs under the see mainly of course and if effected by a number of factors. This process takes place over a very long time span, so what data re you using to make your suggestion?

The video demonstrates sediment deposition in a lateral direction by fast flowing water, and the authors suggest that the Grand Canyon sediments were laid down in that way.

[Maeght]

The video demonstrates sediment deposition in a lateral direction by fast flowing water, and the authors suggest that the Grand Canyon sediments were laid down in that way.

That doesn't answer my question as to why you say 'But we don't see sediments being laid down today on the scale they have been there'

Regarding Walther’s Law this is nothing new of course and as far as I can see is taught and understood within standard geology. The videos seem to think that geologists aren't aware of this phenomena, but this isn't correct it seems to me. If it doesn't cause any issues to the vast majority of those working in the field - only to those who wish to challenge evolution - why should we see it as a problem?

I have to say - the credibility of the speaker was certainly questioned early on when he suggested that the theory of evolution is 'crumbling' when this is not the case at all.

[Maeght]

This clip is a good description of Walther's law and other clips by the same women are worth looking at. They demonstrate that this phenomena is well recognised and understand in standard geology.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSsULiPouTo

[Spud]

That doesn't answer my question as to why you say 'But we don't see sediments being laid down today on the scale they have been there

Thanks for watching the video, and sorry for the delay in replying. I don't fully understand the way they were applying Walther's law to deep sea sediments, so will read a bit more about it. And I didn't think the logic was very sound when they suggest that 'layers' traverse numerous 'banks'. The flume tank experiments suggested that for every three or four strata there are lots of layers deposited at an angle in a lateral direction, when you pour a mixture of coarse and fine sand grains into fast flowing water.
Still, it showed that if there were continuous transgressions and regressions of the sea over the land during a worldwide flood, caused by tidal movement of the water, then the different sediments could be brought to the same basin in succession and laid down in strata by currents.
What I mean about not seeing the processes in operation today that laid down the sediments of the Colorado plateau, through which the grand canyon was cut,  is that the quantity of sediment is too great to have been transported by the usual methods (rivers, wind etc). The Coconino Sandstone, for example, is estimated at 10,000 cubic miles of sand. If that had been laid down over millions of years, why were no other types of sediment laid down among the sandstone strata, and how was it transported?

[Maeght]

Thanks for watching the video, and sorry for the delay in replying. I don't fully understand the way they were applying Walther's law to deep sea sediments, so will read a bit more about it. And I didn't think the logic was very sound when they suggest that 'layers' traverse numerous 'banks'. The flume tank experiments suggested that for every three or four strata there are lots of layers deposited at an angle in a lateral direction, when you pour a mixture of coarse and fine sand grains into fast flowing water.

Morning Spud,

As i understand it transverse sedimentation only occurs at the waters edge not in deep sea situations and this type of sedimentation can be recognised by geologists and the conditions that were present at that time can therefore be determined.

Still, it showed that if there were continuous transgressions and regressions of the sea over the land during a worldwide flood, caused by tidal movement of the water, then the different sediments could be brought to the same basin in succession and laid down in strata by currents.
What I mean about not seeing the processes in operation today that laid down the sediments of the Colorado plateau, through which the grand canyon was cut,  is that the quantity of sediment is too great to have been transported by the usual methods (rivers, wind etc). The Coconino Sandstone, for example, is estimated at 10,000 cubic miles of sand. If that had been laid down over millions of years, why were no other types of sediment laid down among the sandstone strata, and how was it transported?

I am not a geologist  but understand it is true to say that the process by which the grand Canyon formed is not well understood and is a subject of debate within standard geology and there are questions still to be answered - but there are certainly questions to be answered with the alternative flood proposal. I do understand that if one has a strong faith that the tendency is to look at sites which present evidence which supports that faith and to get the impression that standard science is crumbling, that somehow it is involved in some big misunderstanding or even a cover up and that the creation scientists are the ones who see the truth and will be shown to be correct. My point to you throughout is when venturing into looking at science to support your beliefs that you need to look at the standard scientific information directly rather than through the eyes of creationist websites who often misrepresent that information and to recognise that these creationist websites usually say that there purpose is to present information which supports the biblical view and hence are not independent. It is good that people present alternative ideas of course but these need to stand up to scientific standards if they are to have any scientific credibility, so it is important to understand the position of those presenting the views and to understand the science more fully rather than to just accept what they say. There are unanswered questions within standard science of course but this doesn't mean standard science is crumbling - trying to address those questions is all part of the scientific method of course.

[Khatru]

Thanks for watching the video, and sorry for the delay in replying. I don't fully understand the way they were applying Walther's law to deep sea sediments, so will read a bit more about it. And I didn't think the logic was very sound when they suggest that 'layers' traverse numerous 'banks'. The flume tank experiments suggested that for every three or four strata there are lots of layers deposited at an angle in a lateral direction, when you pour a mixture of coarse and fine sand grains into fast flowing water.
Still, it showed that if there were continuous transgressions and regressions of the sea over the land during a worldwide flood, caused by tidal movement of the water, then the different sediments could be brought to the same basin in succession and laid down in strata by currents.
What I mean about not seeing the processes in operation today that laid down the sediments of the Colorado plateau, through which the grand canyon was cut,  is that the quantity of sediment is too great to have been transported by the usual methods (rivers, wind etc). The Coconino Sandstone, for example, is estimated at 10,000 cubic miles of sand. If that had been laid down over millions of years, why were no other types of sediment laid down among the sandstone strata, and how was it transported?

Sorry if you said it earlier and I missed you but what are you getting at here?

Are you saying that one of the reasons we should consider for the formation of the Grand Canyon is a flood sent to destroy humanity because the "sons of god" had injected evil DNA into human women which resulted in corrupt and evil babies being born?

[Ricky Spanish]

http://www.icr.org/article/9142 explains why dinosaurs were part of the cargo.

[Spud]

Sorry if you said it earlier and I missed you but what are you getting at here?

Are you saying that one of the reasons we should consider for the formation of the Grand Canyon is a flood sent to destroy humanity because the "sons of god" had injected evil DNA into human women which resulted in corrupt and evil babies being born?

Regarding evil DNA, I don't think that's quite what happened. I think it just means that after creation, people began to multiply and have daughters, and the men saw how attractive they were and 'married whoever they wanted', whatever that means. The language is similar to when Eve saw that the forbidden fruit looked good to eat. Looks like they married women for their looks rather than other qualities, so that their children grew up without the fear of the Lord. We are told that the Nephilim were also on the earth at the time when God sent Israel into Canaan to expel the people from it. The people of Canaan practiced the kind of immorality described in Leviticus 18, which caused 'the land to vomit out its inhabitants' because it was defiled (v.25, 28). You could say that the flood was a different mechanism for achieving the same end, on a universal scale.
2 Peter says that the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire. Whether this is the literal burning up of the earth or a symbol for eternal separation from God, it shows that the Flood was a picture of a universal judgment still to come, from which one can be saved by faith in JC.

[floo]

Regarding evil DNA, I don't think that's quite what happened. I think it just means that after creation, people began to multiply and have daughters, and the men saw how attractive they were and 'married whoever they wanted', whatever that means. The language is similar to when Eve saw that the forbidden fruit looked good to eat. Looks like they married women for their looks rather than other qualities, so that their children grew up without the fear of the Lord. We are told that the Nephilim were also on the earth at the time when God sent Israel into Canaan to expel the people from it. The people of Canaan practiced the kind of immorality described in Leviticus 18, which caused 'the land to vomit out its inhabitants' because it was defiled (v.25, 28). You could say that the flood was a different mechanism for achieving the same end, on a universal scale.
2 Peter says that the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire. Whether this is the literal burning up of the earth or a symbol for spiritual separation from God, it shows that the Flood was a picture of a universal judgment still to come, from which one can be saved by faith in JC.

That is fairy tale nonsense!