Stratigraphy

  • 27 Replies
  • 4186 Views
Stratigraphy
« on: July 22, 2016, 10:20:49 AM »
I hate to start a evolution/creation debate here

I don't blame you. If you don't want one, don't start one. Simple.

I couldn't resist at least correcting someone's statement about creationists.

Hmmm...

Quote
so if you want to continue then I made a thread "macro evolution. Where's the evidence?"

OK... I looked at that thread after you provided the link. That's an interesting, tangentially-related, discussion, but if you want to shift this conversation to another thread, respond in that thread and put a link to the post as your response here. If you give your response here I'll reply here.

Quote
Quote
In fact you'd be hard press to find a fossil that had any children that lived.
It's quite common, actually.
Quote
You can show one type of fossil is similar to another but that doesn't prove that they are related or one sired the other.

Prove? Of course not. Did you read the link I provided regarding scientific proof?

Quote
Salamanders look a lot like lizards but they aren't related nor did one sired the other.

Strawman argument. "Look a lot like" is uselessly vague; they're obviously distinctive when examined and you imply that fossils that have similar but not identical form can't be distinguished from one another. If they are only subtly different, it's likely that one was an ancestor of the other or both had a not-too-distant (genealogically) common ancestor.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Not only that but the whole transitional fossil thing is circular reasoning. How do you know it's the descendant and not the contemporary? Because of the layer it is found. How do you know the age of the layer?
Younger layers are deposited on top of older layers. Can you propose a plausible mechanism that would insert younger sediments under older, already existing ones?

You're assuming they are indeed younger.
Already addressed.

Not really.

Yes, really:

Younger layers are deposited on top of older layers. Can you propose a plausible mechanism that would insert younger sediments under older, already existing ones?

What's the mechanism that would make something other than this happen? Superposition is observed to be happening today (superposition as applies to geology: in any undisturbed sequence of rocks deposited in layers, the youngest layer is on top and the oldest on bottom, each layer being younger than the one beneath it and older than the one above it).

Quote
Quote
Quote
A violent flood would make layers quickly.
Would a "violent flood" lay down consistent layers over wide areas?
If its big enough then yes.

That would be "widespread". "Violent" means something different. The question still stands.

Quote
Quote
You can't tell how quickly consistent sediment layers were deposited just by looking at them, that needs other techniques, but consistency over a wide area suggests "not violent". Storm deposits, for example, are chaotic.

Mass grave yards stretching over multiple states would disagree with you.

Example? What evidence is there that the deposition was both violent and widespread?

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Younger fossils are deposited above older ones. It's quite simple, really. It's not a mystery at all.

How do you know which one is younger?

Younger sediments (sometimes containing fossils) are deposited on top of the layer below, which already existed, so the layer that already existed is, by definition, older. Stratigraphy in a nutshell.

But how do you know that's what takes place?

Superposition is observed to be happening today. It makes sense that what we see happening today also happened in the past; there is no physical evidence giving reason to suspect otherwise. The principle is supported by other, independent, techniques [see the link for Geochronology, below] and gives consistent results worldwide. Ergo, it's the accepted model by geologists. Whether you like it or believe it or not is irrelevant unless and until you can provide observational or physical evidence for something that works better.

Quote
How do you know a flood or rapid water laid down those sediments in a short time? You yourself said you can't tell how fast a layer was deposited.

No. I said stratigraphy provides relative ages (these fossils are younger because they're above other fossils in undisturbed layers) and other techniques were needed for absolute ages. See Geochronology for a description of some of the techniques used.

[Edit] This post was moved from the ongoing discussion in the Concave Earth thread by a moderator or administrator, I'm changing the subject line in an effort to give the thread a more meaningful title.

[Edit] It worked! Awesome!!
« Last Edit: July 22, 2016, 04:59:32 PM by Alpha2Omega »
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Concave Earth
« Reply #1 on: July 22, 2016, 10:21:59 AM »
Um... did you mean to start a new thread?
I wonder how obnoxious I can make my signature?
Please give me ideas.

Re: Stratigraphy
« Reply #2 on: July 22, 2016, 05:01:37 PM »
Um... did you mean to start a new thread?

No. Apparently this got peeled off without comment by a moderator or admin. I'm cool with it if that's what they want. I just changed the thread title to reflect the current issue (it was Re: Concave Earth).

I'll put a marker in the original conversation so Luke can find this in case he would like to respond to it.

[Edit] Change title of this post to reflect the new thread title.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2016, 05:07:43 PM by Alpha2Omega »
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Stratigraphy
« Reply #3 on: July 22, 2016, 05:12:06 PM »
This is not going to end well.
I wonder how obnoxious I can make my signature?
Please give me ideas.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Stratigraphy
« Reply #4 on: July 22, 2016, 07:23:16 PM »
I'll respond to it later. Thanks for the heads up OP.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Stratigraphy
« Reply #5 on: July 24, 2016, 05:50:39 PM »
I hate to start a evolution/creation debate here

I don't blame you. If you don't want one, don't start one. Simple.

I couldn't resist at least correcting someone's statement about creationists.

Hmmm...

What?

Quote
Quote
so if you want to continue then I made a thread "macro evolution. Where's the evidence?"

OK... I looked at that thread after you provided the link. That's an interesting, tangentially-related, discussion, but if you want to shift this conversation to another thread, respond in that thread and put a link to the post as your response here. If you give your response here I'll reply here.

I'll make it easier on both of us and respond here. Upon a second glance I realized that this may be a little off topic to the thread I linked to anyway.

Quote
Quote
Quote
In fact you'd be hard press to find a fossil that had any children that lived.
It's quite common, actually.
Quote
You can show one type of fossil is similar to another but that doesn't prove that they are related or one sired the other.

Prove? Of course not. Did you read the link I provided regarding scientific proof?

I meant give substantial evidence. For convinence I may slip back to "prove" but I mean "give substantial evidence".

Quote
Quote
Salamanders look a lot like lizards but they aren't related nor did one sired the other.

Strawman argument. "Look a lot like" is uselessly vague; they're obviously distinctive when examined and you imply that fossils that have similar but not identical form can't be distinguished from one another. If they are only subtly different, it's likely that one was an ancestor of the other or both had a not-too-distant (genealogically) common ancestor.

Salamanders and lizards (especially the smoother ones) have similar features. Both have tails, four legs, the general shape, etc. if we only found their fossils then we might conclude that they're in the same family and probably one sired the other.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Not only that but the whole transitional fossil thing is circular reasoning. How do you know it's the descendant and not the contemporary? Because of the layer it is found. How do you know the age of the layer?
Younger layers are deposited on top of older layers. Can you propose a plausible mechanism that would insert younger sediments under older, already existing ones?

You're assuming they are indeed younger.
Already addressed.

Not really.

Yes, really:

Younger layers are deposited on top of older layers. Can you propose a plausible mechanism that would insert younger sediments under older, already existing ones?

What's the mechanism that would make something other than this happen? Superposition is observed to be happening today (superposition as applies to geology: in any undisturbed sequence of rocks deposited in layers, the youngest layer is on top and the oldest on bottom, each layer being younger than the one beneath it and older than the one above it).

Quote
Quote
Quote
A violent flood would make layers quickly.
Would a "violent flood" lay down consistent layers over wide areas?
If its big enough then yes.

That would be "widespread". "Violent" means something different. The question still stands.

Ok, then does this answer your question?

http://www.livescience.com/8340-world-largest-dinosaur-graveyard-linked-mass-death.html


Quote
Quote
Quote
You can't tell how quickly consistent sediment layers were deposited just by looking at them, that needs other techniques, but consistency over a wide area suggests "not violent". Storm deposits, for example, are chaotic.

Mass grave yards stretching over multiple states would disagree with you.

Example? What evidence is there that the deposition was both violent and widespread?

Link given above.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Younger fossils are deposited above older ones. It's quite simple, really. It's not a mystery at all.

How do you know which one is younger?

Younger sediments (sometimes containing fossils) are deposited on top of the layer below, which already existed, so the layer that already existed is, by definition, older. Stratigraphy in a nutshell.

But how do you know that's what takes place?

Superposition is observed to be happening today. It makes sense that what we see happening today also happened in the past; there is no physical evidence giving reason to suspect otherwise. The principle is supported by other, independent, techniques [see the link for Geochronology, below] and gives consistent results worldwide. Ergo, it's the accepted model by geologists. Whether you like it or believe it or not is irrelevant unless and until you can provide observational or physical evidence for something that works better.

When Mt. St. Helens blew up it made a mini Grand Canyon complete with layers.

Quote
Quote
How do you know a flood or rapid water laid down those sediments in a short time? You yourself said you can't tell how fast a layer was deposited.

No. I said stratigraphy provides relative ages (these fossils are younger because they're above other fossils in undisturbed layers) and other techniques were needed for absolute ages. See Geochronology for a description of some of the techniques used.

[Edit] This post was moved from the ongoing discussion in the Concave Earth thread by a moderator or administrator, I'm changing the subject line in an effort to give the thread a more meaningful title.

[Edit] It worked! Awesome!!

Which is really still circular reasoning. Each dating method is dependant on another method on being correct. There's no sure way to know if they're accurate unless there were humans (or some other intelligent life) there to witness and record.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

Re: Stratigraphy
« Reply #6 on: July 24, 2016, 08:21:31 PM »
I hate to start a evolution/creation debate here

I don't blame you. If you don't want one, don't start one. Simple.

I couldn't resist at least correcting someone's statement about creationists.

Hmmm...

What?

"Correcting someone's statement" starts a debate. If you say don't want to start a debate, don't start one.

Quote

Quote
Quote
so if you want to continue then I made a thread "macro evolution. Where's the evidence?"

OK... I looked at that thread after you provided the link. That's an interesting, tangentially-related, discussion, but if you want to shift this conversation to another thread, respond in that thread and put a link to the post as your response here. If you give your response here I'll reply here.

I'll make it easier on both of us and respond here. Upon a second glance I realized that this may be a little off topic to the thread I linked to anyway.

It's what the mods seem to want, so who are we to object? I don't usually visit this part of the forums, But I guess I'll have to check here until this discussion runs its course.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
In fact you'd be hard press to find a fossil that had any children that lived.
It's quite common, actually.
Quote
You can show one type of fossil is similar to another but that doesn't prove that they are related or one sired the other.

Prove? Of course not. Did you read the link I provided regarding scientific proof?

I meant give substantial evidence. For convinence I may slip back to "prove" but I mean "give substantial evidence".

There are tons of very substantial evidence that ancient life forms gave rise to progressively younger and evolving life forms. The study of this is called Paleontology. Like any good scientific subject, it seeks to coherently explain what is known and is validated by making predictions that can be tested. Some confirmations were a long time coming, like the Paleozoic and early Mesozoic fossils common to western Africa and eastern South America but nowhere else that could be best explained by those continents being attached, but, until the understanding of plate tectonics became well substantiated in the latter part of the 20th century, the postulated mechanisms for this distribution were difficult to support, although the commonality of the fossil record seemed obvious.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Salamanders look a lot like lizards but they aren't related nor did one sired the other.

Strawman argument. "Look a lot like" is uselessly vague; they're obviously distinctive when examined and you imply that fossils that have similar but not identical form can't be distinguished from one another. If they are only subtly different, it's likely that one was an ancestor of the other or both had a not-too-distant (genealogically) common ancestor.

Salamanders and lizards (especially the smoother ones) have similar features. Both have tails, four legs, the general shape, etc. if we only found their fossils then we might conclude that they're in the same family and probably one sired the other.

Again, they may "look similar" on casual examination, but biologists familiar with either can immediately recognize them, just as most any veterinarian will be able to tell a dog skeleton from a similarly-sized cat's even though they both have tails, four legs and the same general shape.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Not only that but the whole transitional fossil thing is circular reasoning. How do you know it's the descendant and not the contemporary? Because of the layer it is found. How do you know the age of the layer?
Younger layers are deposited on top of older layers. Can you propose a plausible mechanism that would insert younger sediments under older, already existing ones?

You're assuming they are indeed younger.
Already addressed.

Not really.

Yes, really:

Younger layers are deposited on top of older layers. Can you propose a plausible mechanism that would insert younger sediments under older, already existing ones?

What's the mechanism that would make something other than this happen? Superposition is observed to be happening today (superposition as applies to geology: in any undisturbed sequence of rocks deposited in layers, the youngest layer is on top and the oldest on bottom, each layer being younger than the one beneath it and older than the one above it).

Quote
Quote
Quote
A violent flood would make layers quickly.
Would a "violent flood" lay down consistent layers over wide areas?
If its big enough then yes.

That would be "widespread". "Violent" means something different. The question still stands.

Ok, then does this answer your question?

http://www.livescience.com/8340-world-largest-dinosaur-graveyard-linked-mass-death.html

From that source:
Quote
The roughly 76-million-year-old fossil beds apparently hold thousands of bones over an area of at least 568 acres (2.3 square km), skeletons that belonged to a roughly cow-sized, plant-eating horned dinosaur known as Centrosaurus.

One square mile is 640 acres. 570 acres is local. "Widespread" in geologic terms refers to areas the size of, for instance, a good fraction of North America.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
You can't tell how quickly consistent sediment layers were deposited just by looking at them, that needs other techniques, but consistency over a wide area suggests "not violent". Storm deposits, for example, are chaotic.

Mass grave yards stretching over multiple states would disagree with you.

Example? What evidence is there that the deposition was both violent and widespread?

Link given above.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Younger fossils are deposited above older ones. It's quite simple, really. It's not a mystery at all.

How do you know which one is younger?

Younger sediments (sometimes containing fossils) are deposited on top of the layer below, which already existed, so the layer that already existed is, by definition, older. Stratigraphy in a nutshell.

But how do you know that's what takes place?

Superposition is observed to be happening today. It makes sense that what we see happening today also happened in the past; there is no physical evidence giving reason to suspect otherwise. The principle is supported by other, independent, techniques [see the link for Geochronology, below] and gives consistent results worldwide. Ergo, it's the accepted model by geologists. Whether you like it or believe it or not is irrelevant unless and until you can provide observational or physical evidence for something that works better.

When Mt. St. Helens blew up it made a mini Grand Canyon complete with layers.

"Mini" is noted.

At any rate, do you have any doubt that younger deposits from that event formed layers on top of older layers?  Later disturbances (erosion and mudslides, for instance) can disturb this sequence, but are usually localized and recognizable.

Quote
Quote
Quote
How do you know a flood or rapid water laid down those sediments in a short time? You yourself said you can't tell how fast a layer was deposited.

No. I said stratigraphy provides relative ages (these fossils are younger because they're above other fossils in undisturbed layers) and other techniques were needed for absolute ages. See Geochronology for a description of some of the techniques used.

Which is really still circular reasoning. Each dating method is dependant on another method on being correct. There's no sure way to know if they're accurate unless there were humans (or some other intelligent life) there to witness and record.

Not necessarily. Dendrochronology provides a reliable time scale, with resolution to about a single year, for millennia before recorded human history. This time scale validates others which extend farther back. It's not circular, because the methods are independent of each other and can be checked against each other.

The notion that things can be known only if humans directly observe them first hand and record them in a way intelligible to modern humans is nothing more than hubris.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Stratigraphy
« Reply #7 on: July 25, 2016, 03:45:39 PM »
I hate to start a evolution/creation debate here

I don't blame you. If you don't want one, don't start one. Simple.

I couldn't resist at least correcting someone's statement about creationists.

Hmmm...

What?

"Correcting someone's statement" starts a debate. If you say don't want to start a debate, don't start one.

You're right.

Quote
Quote

Quote
Quote
so if you want to continue then I made a thread "macro evolution. Where's the evidence?"

OK... I looked at that thread after you provided the link. That's an interesting, tangentially-related, discussion, but if you want to shift this conversation to another thread, respond in that thread and put a link to the post as your response here. If you give your response here I'll reply here.

I'll make it easier on both of us and respond here. Upon a second glance I realized that this may be a little off topic to the thread I linked to anyway.

It's what the mods seem to want, so who are we to object? I don't usually visit this part of the forums, But I guess I'll have to check here until this discussion runs its course.

Ok. Do you have this thread subscribed? It'll give you an email whenever someone posts something. For me it does it automatically whenever I post something.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
In fact you'd be hard press to find a fossil that had any children that lived.
It's quite common, actually.
Quote
You can show one type of fossil is similar to another but that doesn't prove that they are related or one sired the other.

Prove? Of course not. Did you read the link I provided regarding scientific proof?

I meant give substantial evidence. For convinence I may slip back to "prove" but I mean "give substantial evidence".

There are tons of very substantial evidence that ancient life forms gave rise to progressively younger and evolving life forms. The study of this is called Paleontology. Like any good scientific subject, it seeks to coherently explain what is known and is validated by making predictions that can be tested. Some confirmations were a long time coming, like the Paleozoic and early Mesozoic fossils common to western Africa and eastern South America but nowhere else that could be best explained by those continents being attached, but, until the understanding of plate tectonics became well substantiated in the latter part of the 20th century, the postulated mechanisms for this distribution were difficult to support, although the commonality of the fossil record seemed obvious.

Or it could be evidence for a world wide flood depositing floating bodies to that region. Take a map of Pangea and you'll see that they shrank Africa by 40%.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Salamanders look a lot like lizards but they aren't related nor did one sired the other.

Strawman argument. "Look a lot like" is uselessly vague; they're obviously distinctive when examined and you imply that fossils that have similar but not identical form can't be distinguished from one another. If they are only subtly different, it's likely that one was an ancestor of the other or both had a not-too-distant (genealogically) common ancestor.

Salamanders and lizards (especially the smoother ones) have similar features. Both have tails, four legs, the general shape, etc. if we only found their fossils then we might conclude that they're in the same family and probably one sired the other.

Again, they may "look similar" on casual examination, but biologists familiar with either can immediately recognize them, just as most any veterinarian will be able to tell a dog skeleton from a similarly-sized cat's even though they both have tails, four legs and the same general shape.

Can you link to the skeletonal difference between a salamander and a lizard?

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Not only that but the whole transitional fossil thing is circular reasoning. How do you know it's the descendant and not the contemporary? Because of the layer it is found. How do you know the age of the layer?
Younger layers are deposited on top of older layers. Can you propose a plausible mechanism that would insert younger sediments under older, already existing ones?

You're assuming they are indeed younger.
Already addressed.

Not really.

Yes, really:

Younger layers are deposited on top of older layers. Can you propose a plausible mechanism that would insert younger sediments under older, already existing ones?

What's the mechanism that would make something other than this happen? Superposition is observed to be happening today (superposition as applies to geology: in any undisturbed sequence of rocks deposited in layers, the youngest layer is on top and the oldest on bottom, each layer being younger than the one beneath it and older than the one above it).

Quote
Quote
Quote
A violent flood would make layers quickly.
Would a "violent flood" lay down consistent layers over wide areas?
If its big enough then yes.

That would be "widespread". "Violent" means something different. The question still stands.

Ok, then does this answer your question?

http://www.livescience.com/8340-world-largest-dinosaur-graveyard-linked-mass-death.html

From that source:
Quote
The roughly 76-million-year-old fossil beds apparently hold thousands of bones over an area of at least 568 acres (2.3 square km), skeletons that belonged to a roughly cow-sized, plant-eating horned dinosaur known as Centrosaurus.

One square mile is 640 acres. 570 acres is local. "Widespread" in geologic terms refers to areas the size of, for instance, a good fraction of North America.

I couldn't find the "fossil graveyard that spans several states". I heard it somewhere though. Maybe I misheard it or something. However I would like to point out that's the biggest dinosaur fossil graveyard not the biggest fossil graveyard period. And here's a link explaining the graveyards.

https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fossil-record/the-worlds-a-graveyard/

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
You can't tell how quickly consistent sediment layers were deposited just by looking at them, that needs other techniques, but consistency over a wide area suggests "not violent". Storm deposits, for example, are chaotic.

Mass grave yards stretching over multiple states would disagree with you.

Example? What evidence is there that the deposition was both violent and widespread?

Link given above.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Younger fossils are deposited above older ones. It's quite simple, really. It's not a mystery at all.

How do you know which one is younger?

Younger sediments (sometimes containing fossils) are deposited on top of the layer below, which already existed, so the layer that already existed is, by definition, older. Stratigraphy in a nutshell.

But how do you know that's what takes place?

Superposition is observed to be happening today. It makes sense that what we see happening today also happened in the past; there is no physical evidence giving reason to suspect otherwise. The principle is supported by other, independent, techniques [see the link for Geochronology, below] and gives consistent results worldwide. Ergo, it's the accepted model by geologists. Whether you like it or believe it or not is irrelevant unless and until you can provide observational or physical evidence for something that works better.

When Mt. St. Helens blew up it made a mini Grand Canyon complete with layers.

"Mini" is noted.

What works small scale can work full scale. The top of Grand Canyon is higher than where the river enters the canyon by a mile. There's no delta from the canyon and it has barbed rivers on the north face indicating that it was a giant dam to to giant lakes as there's a similar structure on the east side I think.

Quote
Quote
At any rate, do you have any doubt that younger deposits from that event formed layers on top of older layers? 

When the mini canyon (1/40th the size of Grand Canyon) was made the layers all formed within a short period of time.

Quote
Later disturbances (erosion and mudslides, for instance) can disturb this sequence, but are usually localized and recognizable.

Ok.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
How do you know a flood or rapid water laid down those sediments in a short time? You yourself said you can't tell how fast a layer was deposited.

No. I said stratigraphy provides relative ages (these fossils are younger because they're above other fossils in undisturbed layers) and other techniques were needed for absolute ages. See Geochronology for a description of some of the techniques used.

Which is really still circular reasoning. Each dating method is dependant on another method on being correct. There's no sure way to know if they're accurate unless there were humans (or some other intelligent life) there to witness and record.

Not necessarily. Dendrochronology provides a reliable time scale, with resolution to about a single year, for millennia before recorded human history. This time scale validates others which extend farther back. It's not circular, because the methods are independent of each other and can be checked against each other.

The notion that things can be known only if humans directly observe them first hand and record them in a way intelligible to modern humans is nothing more than hubris.

This link explains that tree ring dating is flawed as well.

http://creation.mobi/tree-ring-dating-dendrochronology
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Stratigraphy
« Reply #8 on: July 25, 2016, 08:21:29 PM »
That source "debunking" dendrochronology is hilarious.  The second paragraph:

Quote from: http://creation.mobi/tree-ring-dating-dendrochronology
However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it’s the interpretation of the data that is at fault.

Anyway, it is good to announce your biases up front I suppose, although I am not sure this author would see it as such.
The author claims that, "[cross-dating] depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood using carbon-14 (14C) dating, assuming straight-line extrapolation backwards of the carbon dating."  But this is simply not true.  Carbon-14 dating is only used in cross-dating when there are gaps in the tree ring record, through a method titled "wiggling", but generally, carbon-14 dating is not used to cross-date; standard comparative dendrochronological methods are. (Sesler, Geology of the Sierra Nevada, 2009)[/i]

The author in your source also claims that tree ring rates are variable and that extra rings may be indistinguishable, even under a microscope!  This begs the question, how do they know about the extra rings then?  But it also makes it seem like ring growth rates are something that dendrochronologist would never consider when dating.  It is very easy to discover that in fact they do consider this factor when dating (what a surprise), in fact, knowing the growth rate is a requirement in dendrochronological dating. From Growth Rings, Growth Ring Formation and Age Determination in the Mangrove Rhizophora mucronata (Verheyden, Kairo, Beeckman, Koedam, 2004)
Quote
However, dendrochronological techniques require the presence of annual growth rings, which are commonly said to be absent in mangrove trees, as in many tropical tree species

I have not investigated the last two claims regarding Yamaguchi and the primacy given to the Belfast chronology, and considering his lack of sources on his claims and how his previous claims fared, I am not sure I have to.  There are most assuredly good reasons why results can be revised and they need not cast aspersions on the entire field. 

EDIT: I should say the other problem with this source is that Carbon-14 works in the appropriate circumstances. Dating trees would be one of them.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2016, 04:42:21 AM by Rama Set »
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

Re: Stratigraphy
« Reply #9 on: July 26, 2016, 06:04:52 PM »
This link explains that tree ring dating is flawed as well.

http://creation.mobi/tree-ring-dating-dendrochronology

I noted the same statement that Rama Set cited in his post above. I almost stopped reading after seeing that, but continued on. The author is true to his word - he interprets whatever data he's willing to accept in the way he wants, and dismisses whatever doesn't fit.

We can see this approach in other citations, below.

Do you have this thread subscribed? It'll give you an email whenever someone posts something. For me it does it automatically whenever I post something.

No. The email associated with my account here is the one I use when it might attract spam. That account does receive a fair amount of junk, so it's not checked regularly. To be fair to the management here, none appears to originate from this website.

Thanks for the suggestion, though. I'll just look periodically.

There are tons of very substantial evidence that ancient life forms gave rise to progressively younger and evolving life forms. The study of this is called Paleontology. Like any good scientific subject, it seeks to coherently explain what is known and is validated by making predictions that can be tested. Some confirmations were a long time coming, like the Paleozoic and early Mesozoic fossils common to western Africa and eastern South America but nowhere else that could be best explained by those continents being attached, but, until the understanding of plate tectonics became well substantiated in the latter part of the 20th century, the postulated mechanisms for this distribution were difficult to support, although the commonality of the fossil record seemed obvious.
Or it could be evidence for a world wide flood depositing floating bodies to that region.

Floating across the Atlantic and washing up and deposited where the coastlines match and inland? That seems less likely than the land bridges that were postulated (but, obviously, never found) to explain the same species in two different continents before a plausible way to move the continents was found.

Quote
Take a map of Pangea and you'll see that they shrank Africa by 40%.

Which map, and what projection did they use? It's well-established that parts of continents that are now dry were at times submerged, so I'm not sure of your point.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Salamanders look a lot like lizards but they aren't related nor did one sired the other.

Strawman argument. "Look a lot like" is uselessly vague; they're obviously distinctive when examined and you imply that fossils that have similar but not identical form can't be distinguished from one another. If they are only subtly different, it's likely that one was an ancestor of the other or both had a not-too-distant (genealogically) common ancestor.

Salamanders and lizards (especially the smoother ones) have similar features. Both have tails, four legs, the general shape, etc. if we only found their fossils then we might conclude that they're in the same family and probably one sired the other.

Again, they may "look similar" on casual examination, but biologists familiar with either can immediately recognize them, just as most any veterinarian will be able to tell a dog skeleton from a similarly-sized cat's even though they both have tails, four legs and the same general shape.
Can you link to the skeletonal difference between a salamander and a lizard?

Sure... no problem.

Salamander:


Lizard (Skink):


Similar; they're both vertebrates with long tails, but they're distinctly different

Quote
I couldn't find the "fossil graveyard that spans several states". I heard it somewhere though. Maybe I misheard it or something. However I would like to point out that's the biggest dinosaur fossil graveyard not the biggest fossil graveyard period. And here's a link explaining the graveyards.

https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fossil-record/the-worlds-a-graveyard/

If you can find the reference you were looking for, please share.

Most fossils are from the remains of the harder parts of organisms. Occasionally, when conditions are right, softer tissues will become fossilized, but these are comparatively rare. For instance, thick sections loaded with crinoid stems are common in the Mississippian (Paleozoic) limestones that exist across much of North America (the Redwall limestone bearing nautiloids referred to in the link is Mississippian). While crinoid stems are extremely common, finding a fossilized calyx, the soft part of a crinoid, is quite rare. Most of the pictures at that web page are fossil shells and bones.

Quote
For example, billions of straight-shelled, chambered nautiloids (figure 2) are found fossilized with other marine creatures in a 7 foot (2 m) thick layer within the Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon (figure 1).[nb]Steven Austin, “Nautiloid Mass Kill and Burial Event, Redwall Limestone (Lower Mississippian), Grand Canyon Region, Arizona and Nevada,” in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, ed. R. L. Ivey (Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship, 2003), pp. 55–99.[/nb] This fossil graveyard stretches for 180 miles (290 km) across northern Arizona and into southern Nevada, covering an area of at least 10,500 square miles (30,000 km2). These squid-like fossils are all different sizes, from small, young nautiloids to their bigger, older relatives.

To form such a vast fossil graveyard required 24 cubic miles (100 km3) of lime sand and silt, flowing in a thick, soup-like slurry at more than 16 feet (5 m) per second (more than 11 mph [18 km/h]) to catastrophically overwhelm and bury this huge, living population of nautiloids.

The author is describing a section of the Redwall containing nautiloid fossils that appear to be oriented in a preferred direction, suggesting that they were indeed deposited in flowing water. Note that the footnote refers to another creationist publication, which is also probably the source for the flow volume postulated. Remember that these interpretations are constrained to not contradict a particular type of literal reading of Genesis.

Note, also, that the Redwall is 500 to 800 feet thick; the other 99% shows no preferred orientation.

Also,

Quote
Some fish were buried alive and fossilized so quickly in the geologic record that they were “caught in the act” of eating their last meal (figure 12). Then there is the classic example of a female marine reptile, an ichthyosaur, about 6 feet (2 m) long, found fossilized at the moment of giving birth to her baby (figure 13)! One minute this huge creature was giving birth, then seconds later, without time to escape, mother and baby were buried and “snap frozen” in a catastrophic “avalanche” of lime mud.

That's a rather fanciful way to view these fossils, but in keeping with the idea that interpretations must literally agree with Genesis. The "fish eating a fish" in figure 12 obviously bit more than he could swallow and most likely suffocated when he couldn't expel the smaller fish from his mouth, sank to the lake bed, and became buried in sediment before completely decaying. Similarly, the ichthyosaur likely died while giving birth and similarly sank to the bottom and was covered relatively quickly (or slowly, but in an environment - perhaps anoxic - where decay proceeds slowly). No need for a catastrophe to explain why these died when they did or "snap freezing" the carcasses.

Quote
Quote
Quote
When Mt. St. Helens blew up it made a mini Grand Canyon complete with layers.

"Mini" is noted.
What works small scale can work full scale.

You gave an example of a catastrophic event (the explosion of Mt. St. Helens) that resulted in rapid deposition of layers over a limited area, nothing like the areas approaching continent size covered in ancient sediments that accumulated slowly over vastly longer time spans.

Quote
The top of Grand Canyon is higher than where the river enters the canyon by a mile.

Meaning that the Colorado Plateau was being uplifted no faster than the river was eroding the canyon. With tens or hundreds of millions of years to work with, this is plausible. This is evidence against the canyon forming quickly.

Quote
There's no delta from the canyon and it has barbed rivers on the north face indicating that it was a giant dam to to giant lakes as there's a similar structure on the east side I think.

Deltas form when a river reaches a base level and flow drastically slows. Most of the Colorado river's course had enough gradient that its current was maintained until it reached sea level before the river was dammed above and below the Grand Canyon; now there is undoubtedly a delta forming from sediments removed from the Grand Canyon in the upstream end of Lake Mead. The natural Colorado River Delta is the north end of the Sea of Cortez (Gulf of California).

I'm not sure what the "barbed river" and "giant dam" references mean.

[Edit] Add omitted phrase.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2016, 06:20:33 PM by Alpha2Omega »
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Stratigraphy
« Reply #10 on: July 27, 2016, 10:59:44 AM »
This link explains that tree ring dating is flawed as well.

http://creation.mobi/tree-ring-dating-dendrochronology

I noted the same statement that Rama Set cited in his post above. I almost stopped reading after seeing that, but continued on. The author is true to his word - he interprets whatever data he's willing to accept in the way he wants, and dismisses whatever doesn't fit.

We can see this approach in other citations, below.

Then perhaps this would explain it better.

https://www.icr.org/article/8050

Also if carbon dating is only used to fill in the gaps then its not cross referencing tree ring dating. It's two separate methods giving their own dates. And carbon dating has the assumption that the decay rate was always the same and more carbon wasn't added to the mix.

Quote
Do you have this thread subscribed? It'll give you an email whenever someone posts something. For me it does it automatically whenever I post something.

No. The email associated with my account here is the one I use when it might attract spam. That account does receive a fair amount of junk, so it's not checked regularly. To be fair to the management here, none appears to originate from this website.

Thanks for the suggestion, though. I'll just look periodically.

Ok. I kinda like a slower paste on these subjects anyway.

Quote
There are tons of very substantial evidence that ancient life forms gave rise to progressively younger and evolving life forms. The study of this is called Paleontology. Like any good scientific subject, it seeks to coherently explain what is known and is validated by making predictions that can be tested. Some confirmations were a long time coming, like the Paleozoic and early Mesozoic fossils common to western Africa and eastern South America but nowhere else that could be best explained by those continents being attached, but, until the understanding of plate tectonics became well substantiated in the latter part of the 20th century, the postulated mechanisms for this distribution were difficult to support, although the commonality of the fossil record seemed obvious.
Or it could be evidence for a world wide flood depositing floating bodies to that region.

Floating across the Atlantic and washing up and deposited where the coastlines match and inland? That seems less likely than the land bridges that were postulated (but, obviously, never found) to explain the same species in two different continents before a plausible way to move the continents was found.

If it was a global flood (flat earthers hate that term) then there would be no continents to break up the tidal waters thus creating changes in tides 200 feet. Also with storms (which according to the global flood model would've been HUGE) they could scatter it better across the world. Not only that we have a modern example with plane wreckage. Pieces of metal washing up on beaches thousands of miles from the crash site.

Quote
Quote
Take a map of Pangea and you'll see that they shrank Africa by 40%.

Which map, and what projection did they use? It's well-established that parts of continents that are now dry were at times submerged, so I'm not sure of your point.

You can do two things:

1. Get a modern map and a Pangea map from the same source at the same scale and see the difference.

2. Scale down modern Africa down to the Africa in Pangea and see the difference.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Salamanders look a lot like lizards but they aren't related nor did one sired the other.

Strawman argument. "Look a lot like" is uselessly vague; they're obviously distinctive when examined and you imply that fossils that have similar but not identical form can't be distinguished from one another. If they are only subtly different, it's likely that one was an ancestor of the other or both had a not-too-distant (genealogically) common ancestor.

Salamanders and lizards (especially the smoother ones) have similar features. Both have tails, four legs, the general shape, etc. if we only found their fossils then we might conclude that they're in the same family and probably one sired the other.

Again, they may "look similar" on casual examination, but biologists familiar with either can immediately recognize them, just as most any veterinarian will be able to tell a dog skeleton from a similarly-sized cat's even though they both have tails, four legs and the same general shape.
Can you link to the skeletonal difference between a salamander and a lizard?

Sure... no problem.

Salamander:


Lizard (Skink):


Similar; they're both vertebrates with long tails, but they're distinctly different

Thanks. While one may not class them in the same family if all we found were fossils, one could say that the salamander evolved into the lizard.

Quote
Quote
I couldn't find the "fossil graveyard that spans several states". I heard it somewhere though. Maybe I misheard it or something. However I would like to point out that's the biggest dinosaur fossil graveyard not the biggest fossil graveyard period. And here's a link explaining the graveyards.

https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fossil-record/the-worlds-a-graveyard/

If you can find the reference you were looking for, please share.

Most fossils are from the remains of the harder parts of organisms. Occasionally, when conditions are right, softer tissues will become fossilized, but these are comparatively rare. For instance, thick sections loaded with crinoid stems are common in the Mississippian (Paleozoic) limestones that exist across much of North America (the Redwall limestone bearing nautiloids referred to in the link is Mississippian). While crinoid stems are extremely common, finding a fossilized calyx, the soft part of a crinoid, is quite rare. Most of the pictures at that web page are fossil shells and bones.

Quote
For example, billions of straight-shelled, chambered nautiloids (figure 2) are found fossilized with other marine creatures in a 7 foot (2 m) thick layer within the Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon (figure 1).[nb]Steven Austin, “Nautiloid Mass Kill and Burial Event, Redwall Limestone (Lower Mississippian), Grand Canyon Region, Arizona and Nevada,” in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, ed. R. L. Ivey (Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship, 2003), pp. 55–99.[/nb] This fossil graveyard stretches for 180 miles (290 km) across northern Arizona and into southern Nevada, covering an area of at least 10,500 square miles (30,000 km2). These squid-like fossils are all different sizes, from small, young nautiloids to their bigger, older relatives.

To form such a vast fossil graveyard required 24 cubic miles (100 km3) of lime sand and silt, flowing in a thick, soup-like slurry at more than 16 feet (5 m) per second (more than 11 mph [18 km/h]) to catastrophically overwhelm and bury this huge, living population of nautiloids.

The author is describing a section of the Redwall containing nautiloid fossils that appear to be oriented in a preferred direction, suggesting that they were indeed deposited in flowing water. Note that the footnote refers to another creationist publication, which is also probably the source for the flow volume postulated. Remember that these interpretations are constrained to not contradict a particular type of literal reading of Genesis.

Note, also, that the Redwall is 500 to 800 feet thick; the other 99% shows no preferred orientation.

Can you give a link to your last paragraph?

Quote
Also,

Quote
Some fish were buried alive and fossilized so quickly in the geologic record that they were “caught in the act” of eating their last meal (figure 12). Then there is the classic example of a female marine reptile, an ichthyosaur, about 6 feet (2 m) long, found fossilized at the moment of giving birth to her baby (figure 13)! One minute this huge creature was giving birth, then seconds later, without time to escape, mother and baby were buried and “snap frozen” in a catastrophic “avalanche” of lime mud.

That's a rather fanciful way to view these fossils, but in keeping with the idea that interpretations must literally agree with Genesis. The "fish eating a fish" in figure 12 obviously bit more than he could swallow and most likely suffocated when he couldn't expel the smaller fish from his mouth, sank to the lake bed, and became buried in sediment before completely decaying.

What buried them so fast?

Quote
Similarly, the ichthyosaur likely died while giving birth and similarly sank to the bottom and was covered relatively quickly (or slowly, but in an environment - perhaps anoxic - where decay proceeds slowly). No need for a catastrophe to explain why these died when they did or "snap freezing" the carcasses.

What buried them? Also if they were in an anoxic environment there would still be a time limit before they start to decay. Also why would an ichthyosaur be swimming in an anoxic environment to begin with?

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
When Mt. St. Helens blew up it made a mini Grand Canyon complete with layers.

"Mini" is noted.
What works small scale can work full scale.

You gave an example of a catastrophic event (the explosion of Mt. St. Helens) that resulted in rapid deposition of layers over a limited area, nothing like the areas approaching continent size covered in ancient sediments that accumulated slowly over vastly longer time spans.

Quote
The top of Grand Canyon is higher than where the river enters the canyon by a mile.

Meaning that the Colorado Plateau was being uplifted no faster than the river was eroding the canyon. With tens or hundreds of millions of years to work with, this is plausible. This is evidence against the canyon forming quickly.

To my understanding the layers don't bend with the uplift. If that's the case then it didn't lift up.

Quote
Quote
There's no delta from the canyon and it has barbed rivers on the north face indicating that it was a giant dam to to giant lakes as there's a similar structure on the east side I think.

Deltas form when a river reaches a base level and flow drastically slows. Most of the Colorado river's course had enough gradient that its current was maintained until it reached sea level before the river was dammed above and below the Grand Canyon; now there is undoubtedly a delta forming from sediments removed from the Grand Canyon in the upstream end of Lake Mead. The natural Colorado River Delta is the north end of the Sea of Cortez (Gulf of California).

I'm not sure what the "barbed river" and "giant dam" references mean.

[Edit] Add omitted phrase.

Here's some links explaining those.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/GrandCanyon5.html

http://creation.mobi/grand-canyon-origin-flood
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Stratigraphy
« Reply #11 on: July 27, 2016, 02:32:46 PM »

Then perhaps this would explain it better.

https://www.icr.org/article/8050

Why don't you deal with the flaws in your source rather than pivoting to another one?  Spamming links is not a way to deal with the flaws in your previous citation.

Quote
Also if carbon dating is only used to fill in the gaps then its not cross referencing tree ring dating. It's two separate methods giving their own dates.

Carbon dating is made more accurate by dendrochronology in almost every case.  In the case where there is a gap in the tree ring record, carbon dating is used to give a reasonable estimate for how big that gap is.  Did you read the sources I cited?

Quote
And carbon dating has the assumption that the decay rate was always the same and more carbon wasn't added to the mix.

Carbon-14 dating has been used to date objects of a previously known age and found to be accurate.  If you can refute this, then we can talk. To learn more watch this primer:



Yes I know he has a bias, but if you look up his sources, then you will find the facts his position is supported by.

Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Stratigraphy
« Reply #12 on: July 28, 2016, 11:46:58 AM »

Then perhaps this would explain it better.

https://www.icr.org/article/8050

Why don't you deal with the flaws in your source rather than pivoting to another one?  Spamming links is not a way to deal with the flaws in your previous citation.

I believe I did in my response to alpha.

Quote
Quote
Also if carbon dating is only used to fill in the gaps then its not cross referencing tree ring dating. It's two separate methods giving their own dates.

Carbon dating is made more accurate by dendrochronology in almost every case.  In the case where there is a gap in the tree ring record, carbon dating is used to give a reasonable estimate for how big that gap is.  Did you read the sources I cited?

So how do you know tree ring dating is correct?

Quote
Quote
And carbon dating has the assumption that the decay rate was always the same and more carbon wasn't added to the mix.

Carbon-14 dating has been used to date objects of a previously known age and found to be accurate.  If you can refute this, then we can talk. To learn more watch this primer:



Yes I know he has a bias, but if you look up his sources, then you will find the facts his position is supported by.

Living penguins have dated to be 8,000 years old using carbon dating. Maybe space cowgirl is right about them.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Stratigraphy
« Reply #13 on: July 28, 2016, 02:22:43 PM »

Then perhaps this would explain it better.

https://www.icr.org/article/8050

Why don't you deal with the flaws in your source rather than pivoting to another one?  Spamming links is not a way to deal with the flaws in your previous citation.

I believe I did in my response to alpha.

Not really you just pivoted to another source.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Also if carbon dating is only used to fill in the gaps then its not cross referencing tree ring dating. It's two separate methods giving their own dates.

Carbon dating is made more accurate by dendrochronology in almost every case.  In the case where there is a gap in the tree ring record, carbon dating is used to give a reasonable estimate for how big that gap is.  Did you read the sources I cited?

So how do you know tree ring dating is correct?

Take a core sample from a group of trees all of the same species, but in different climates each year and see if the ring development is consistent. If it is, then you have a consistent measure.

Quote
Quote
Quote
And carbon dating has the assumption that the decay rate was always the same and more carbon wasn't added to the mix.

Carbon-14 dating has been used to date objects of a previously known age and found to be accurate.  If you can refute this, then we can talk. To learn more watch this primer:



Yes I know he has a bias, but if you look up his sources, then you will find the facts his position is supported by.

Living penguins have dated to be 8,000 years old using carbon dating. Maybe space cowgirl is right about them.

That's known as the reservoir effect. It is well known (and dealt with in the video I posted), and is the reason why carbon dating is not reliable with marine life. Seriously, watch the video, it is extremely informative.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 44184
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Stratigraphy
« Reply #14 on: July 28, 2016, 02:48:38 PM »
Maybe space cowgirl is right about them.

I AM DEFINITELY RIGHT ABOUT THE PENGUIN MENACE  >:(
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

Re: Stratigraphy
« Reply #15 on: July 28, 2016, 08:19:02 PM »
This link explains that tree ring dating is flawed as well.

http://creation.mobi/tree-ring-dating-dendrochronology

I noted the same statement that Rama Set cited in his post above. I almost stopped reading after seeing that, but continued on. The author is true to his word - he interprets whatever data he's willing to accept in the way he wants, and dismisses whatever doesn't fit.

We can see this approach in other citations, below.

Then perhaps this would explain it better.

https://www.icr.org/article/8050

Also if carbon dating is only used to fill in the gaps then its not cross referencing tree ring dating. It's two separate methods giving their own dates. And carbon dating has the assumption that the decay rate was always the same and more carbon wasn't added to the mix.

Rama already covered this pretty well. Just to be clear, your dendrochronology source plainly said that a biased interpretation was preferable to one based on the data if the data doesn't lead to a particular preconceived notion. That's the difference between faith and science. Believe what you want, but don't try to pawn your belief off as science when it's clearly not.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
There are tons of very substantial evidence that ancient life forms gave rise to progressively younger and evolving life forms. The study of this is called Paleontology. Like any good scientific subject, it seeks to coherently explain what is known and is validated by making predictions that can be tested. Some confirmations were a long time coming, like the Paleozoic and early Mesozoic fossils common to western Africa and eastern South America but nowhere else that could be best explained by those continents being attached, but, until the understanding of plate tectonics became well substantiated in the latter part of the 20th century, the postulated mechanisms for this distribution were difficult to support, although the commonality of the fossil record seemed obvious.
Or it could be evidence for a world wide flood depositing floating bodies to that region.
Floating across the Atlantic and washing up and deposited where the coastlines match and inland? That seems less likely than the land bridges that were postulated (but, obviously, never found) to explain the same species in two different continents before a plausible way to move the continents was found.
If it was a global flood (flat earthers hate that term) then there would be no continents to break up the tidal waters thus creating changes in tides 200 feet.

Citation needed for those 200-foot tides. Believe it or not, coastlines can concentrate tides. The largest recorded tides are about 50 feet in amplitude. Let's see the calculations that predict tides four times that amplitude on an ocean-covered earth.

Quote
Also with storms (which according to the global flood model would've been HUGE) they could scatter it better across the world.

These fossils aren't scattered widely across the world. They're in limited areas that jigsaw-puzzle fit nicely when matching the shapes of Africa and South America.

Quote
Not only that we have a modern example with plane wreckage. Pieces of metal washing up on beaches thousands of miles from the crash site.

Specifics? Debris attributed to ML 370 has been found in Australia and in the vicinity of Madagascar. That's pretty wide spread

Quote
Quote
Quote
Take a map of Pangea and you'll see that they shrank Africa by 40%.

Which map, and what projection did they use? It's well-established that parts of continents that are now dry were at times submerged, so I'm not sure of your point.

You can do two things:

1. Get a modern map and a Pangea map from the same source at the same scale and see the difference.

2. Scale down modern Africa down to the Africa in Pangea and see the difference.

Can you show some actual maps, please?

Quote
Quote
Quote
...
Can you link to the skeletonal difference between a salamander and a lizard?

Sure... no problem.

Salamander:
http://animaldiversity.org/collections/contributors/Grzimek_herps/structure_function/salamander_skeleton/medium.jpg

Lizard (Skink):
http://www.savalli.us/BIO370/Anatomy/AnatomyImages/SkinkSkeletonLabel.jpg

Similar; they're both vertebrates with long tails, but they're distinctly different

Thanks. While one may not class them in the same family if all we found were fossils, one could say that the salamander evolved into the lizard.

One could say pretty much anything.

One would have a hard time defending conclusions like "this kinda sorta looks like this; it has four legs and a massive tail compared to body size, so one must have descended from the other" in a real Paleontological publication.
Quote
Quote
Quote
I couldn't find the "fossil graveyard that spans several states". I heard it somewhere though. Maybe I misheard it or something. However I would like to point out that's the biggest dinosaur fossil graveyard not the biggest fossil graveyard period. And here's a link explaining the graveyards.

https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fossil-record/the-worlds-a-graveyard/

If you can find the reference you were looking for, please share.

Most fossils are from the remains of the harder parts of organisms. Occasionally, when conditions are right, softer tissues will become fossilized, but these are comparatively rare. For instance, thick sections loaded with crinoid stems are common in the Mississippian (Paleozoic) limestones that exist across much of North America (the Redwall limestone bearing nautiloids referred to in the link is Mississippian). While crinoid stems are extremely common, finding a fossilized calyx, the soft part of a crinoid, is quite rare. Most of the pictures at that web page are fossil shells and bones.

Quote
For example, billions of straight-shelled, chambered nautiloids (figure 2) are found fossilized with other marine creatures in a 7 foot (2 m) thick layer within the Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon (figure 1).[nb]Steven Austin, “Nautiloid Mass Kill and Burial Event, Redwall Limestone (Lower Mississippian), Grand Canyon Region, Arizona and Nevada,” in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, ed. R. L. Ivey (Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship, 2003), pp. 55–99.[/nb] This fossil graveyard stretches for 180 miles (290 km) across northern Arizona and into southern Nevada, covering an area of at least 10,500 square miles (30,000 km2). These squid-like fossils are all different sizes, from small, young nautiloids to their bigger, older relatives.

To form such a vast fossil graveyard required 24 cubic miles (100 km3) of lime sand and silt, flowing in a thick, soup-like slurry at more than 16 feet (5 m) per second (more than 11 mph [18 km/h]) to catastrophically overwhelm and bury this huge, living population of nautiloids.

The author is describing a section of the Redwall containing nautiloid fossils that appear to be oriented in a preferred direction, suggesting that they were indeed deposited in flowing water. Note that the footnote refers to another creationist publication, which is also probably the source for the flow volume postulated. Remember that these interpretations are constrained to not contradict a particular type of literal reading of Genesis.

Note, also, that the Redwall is 500 to 800 feet thick; the other 99% shows no preferred orientation.

Can you give a link to your last paragraph?

Hill, Carol A., et al., The Grand Canyon: Monument to an Ancient Earth: Can Noah's Flood Explain the Grand Canyon? p. 142.

ISBN: 9780825444210

This is a newly-published book - May, 2016; I don't think its text is available online. A nice hardback volume can be had for less than US$20 (possibly with shipping and taxes added). It was written and published by practicing and competent geologists who are devout Christians appalled by the fringe "young-earth Christian" movement's unsubstantiated but mostly poorly-reasoned but not well-answered nonsense. My wife and I know one of the authors and contributed toward the book's publication so we got a complimentary copy of the book. It's accessible to non-geologists - even Evangelical Christians - addresses the usual points clearly, and should be easily understood by anyone who can understand basic logic and thought processes.

I presume it is allowable to cite specific portions of it verbatim under "fair use" doctrine if you can't afford (or refuse) to buy a copy.

For the thickness of the Redwall:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redwall_Limestone

For a thorough explanation for any notion about the Grand Canyon and "flood geology", I highly recommend you obtain and read that book. If you can successfully refute the answers there, it will strengthen your argument; if you understand the author's argument, you've learned something. Either outcome, it would be worth reading. And, no... I get no financial benefit from any purchase of that book;our donation to defer publication expenses was nothing more than a donation to what we thought was a useful publication.

Quote
Quote
Also,

Quote
Some fish were buried alive and fossilized so quickly in the geologic record that they were “caught in the act” of eating their last meal (figure 12). Then there is the classic example of a female marine reptile, an ichthyosaur, about 6 feet (2 m) long, found fossilized at the moment of giving birth to her baby (figure 13)! One minute this huge creature was giving birth, then seconds later, without time to escape, mother and baby were buried and “snap frozen” in a catastrophic “avalanche” of lime mud.

That's a rather fanciful way to view these fossils, but in keeping with the idea that interpretations must literally agree with Genesis. The "fish eating a fish" in figure 12 obviously bit more than he could swallow and most likely suffocated when he couldn't expel the smaller fish from his mouth, sank to the lake bed, and became buried in sediment before completely decaying.

What buried them

Sediments.

Quote
so fast?

How fast is necessary?

Quote
Quote
Similarly, the ichthyosaur likely died while giving birth and similarly sank to the bottom and was covered relatively quickly (or slowly, but in an environment - perhaps anoxic - where decay proceeds slowly). No need for a catastrophe to explain why these died when they did or "snap freezing" the carcasses.

What buried them?

Sediments. They happen all the time. They happen now, if you care to investigate.

Quote
Also if they were in an anoxic environment there would still be a time limit before they start to decay.

Maybe. What do you think the time limit is? Why?

Quote
Also why would an ichthyosaur be swimming in an anoxic environment to begin with?

No one said it was. Did you misunderstand that "sank to the bottom" meant after it died?

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
When Mt. St. Helens blew up it made a mini Grand Canyon complete with layers.

"Mini" is noted.
What works small scale can work full scale.

You gave an example of a catastrophic event (the explosion of Mt. St. Helens) that resulted in rapid deposition of layers over a limited area, nothing like the areas approaching continent size covered in ancient sediments that accumulated slowly over vastly longer time spans.

Quote
The top of Grand Canyon is higher than where the river enters the canyon by a mile.

Meaning that the Colorado Plateau was being uplifted no faster than the river was eroding the canyon. With tens or hundreds of millions of years to work with, this is plausible. This is evidence against the canyon forming quickly.

To my understanding the layers don't bend with the uplift. If that's the case then it didn't lift up.

Your understanding is wrong. If you're going to argue about geology, you would be wise to understand at least the basics of geology.

Quote
Quote
Quote
There's no delta from the canyon and it has barbed rivers on the north face indicating that it was a giant dam to to giant lakes as there's a similar structure on the east side I think.

Deltas form when a river reaches a base level and flow drastically slows. Most of the Colorado river's course had enough gradient that its current was maintained until it reached sea level before the river was dammed above and below the Grand Canyon; now there is undoubtedly a delta forming from sediments removed from the Grand Canyon in the upstream end of Lake Mead. The natural Colorado River Delta is the north end of the Sea of Cortez (Gulf of California).

I'm not sure what the "barbed river" and "giant dam" references mean.

Here's some links explaining those.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/GrandCanyon5.html

http://creation.mobi/grand-canyon-origin-flood

In the interest of getting this posted, I'll look at those l8tr. "creationscience.com" and "creation.mobi". If they're more of ...

Quote from: http://creation.mobi/tree-ring-dating-dendrochronology
However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it’s the interpretation of the data that is at fault.

... which seems likely, they can be dismissed an irrelevant, since they're faith-based, interpreting the data with a bias to reach a specific conclusion, and, thus, not scientific.

[Edit] Complete fumble-finger early post.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2016, 08:42:57 PM by Alpha2Omega »
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Stratigraphy
« Reply #16 on: July 29, 2016, 09:15:49 AM »

Then perhaps this would explain it better.

https://www.icr.org/article/8050

Why don't you deal with the flaws in your source rather than pivoting to another one?  Spamming links is not a way to deal with the flaws in your previous citation.

I believe I did in my response to alpha.

Not really you just pivoted to another source.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Also if carbon dating is only used to fill in the gaps then its not cross referencing tree ring dating. It's two separate methods giving their own dates.

Carbon dating is made more accurate by dendrochronology in almost every case.  In the case where there is a gap in the tree ring record, carbon dating is used to give a reasonable estimate for how big that gap is.  Did you read the sources I cited?

So how do you know tree ring dating is correct?

Take a core sample from a group of trees all of the same species, but in different climates each year and see if the ring development is consistent. If it is, then you have a consistent measure.

But as my links show tree can and often do create multiple rings per year so how do you distinguish them.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
And carbon dating has the assumption that the decay rate was always the same and more carbon wasn't added to the mix.

Carbon-14 dating has been used to date objects of a previously known age and found to be accurate.  If you can refute this, then we can talk. To learn more watch this primer:



Yes I know he has a bias, but if you look up his sources, then you will find the facts his position is supported by.

Living penguins have dated to be 8,000 years old using carbon dating. Maybe space cowgirl is right about them.

That's known as the reservoir effect. It is well known (and dealt with in the video I posted), and is the reason why carbon dating is not reliable with marine life. Seriously, watch the video, it is extremely informative.

Ok. But in the mean time here's the flaws in carbon dating.

https://www.icr.org/article/8829
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Stratigraphy
« Reply #17 on: July 29, 2016, 09:30:13 AM »

But as my links show tree can and often do create multiple rings per year so how do you distinguish them.

If you aren't going to bother paying attention to what I post, there is not much sense in this.  Once more for you...


The author in your source also claims that tree ring rates are variable and that extra rings may be indistinguishable, even under a microscope!  This begs the question, how do they know about the extra rings then?  But it also makes it seem like ring growth rates are something that dendrochronologist would never consider when dating.  It is very easy to discover that in fact they do consider this factor when dating (what a surprise), in fact, knowing the growth rate is a requirement in dendrochronological dating. From Growth Rings, Growth Ring Formation and Age Determination in the Mangrove Rhizophora mucronata (Verheyden, Kairo, Beeckman, Koedam, 2004)
Quote
However, dendrochronological techniques require the presence of annual growth rings, which are commonly said to be absent in mangrove trees, as in many tropical tree species

If a tree species does not have a consistent rate of ring creation, then it is not used in dendrochronology.


Quote
https://www.icr.org/article/8829

Radio-carbon dating is only used out to approximately 50,000 years old, it is not used on fossils.  I am sorry that your creationists don't know that when they criticize the method.  You should cure yourself of this ignorance you are laboring under.  These creationists are lying to you, plain and simple.

EDIT: Fixed quotes
« Last Edit: July 29, 2016, 12:27:41 PM by Rama Set »
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Stratigraphy
« Reply #18 on: July 29, 2016, 10:29:43 AM »
This link explains that tree ring dating is flawed as well.

http://creation.mobi/tree-ring-dating-dendrochronology

I noted the same statement that Rama Set cited in his post above. I almost stopped reading after seeing that, but continued on. The author is true to his word - he interprets whatever data he's willing to accept in the way he wants, and dismisses whatever doesn't fit.

We can see this approach in other citations, below.

Then perhaps this would explain it better.

https://www.icr.org/article/8050

Also if carbon dating is only used to fill in the gaps then its not cross referencing tree ring dating. It's two separate methods giving their own dates. And carbon dating has the assumption that the decay rate was always the same and more carbon wasn't added to the mix.

Rama already covered this pretty well. Just to be clear, your dendrochronology source plainly said that a biased interpretation was preferable to one based on the data if the data doesn't lead to a particular preconceived notion. That's the difference between faith and science. Believe what you want, but don't try to pawn your belief off as science when it's clearly not.

Ok then I apologizes.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
There are tons of very substantial evidence that ancient life forms gave rise to progressively younger and evolving life forms. The study of this is called Paleontology. Like any good scientific subject, it seeks to coherently explain what is known and is validated by making predictions that can be tested. Some confirmations were a long time coming, like the Paleozoic and early Mesozoic fossils common to western Africa and eastern South America but nowhere else that could be best explained by those continents being attached, but, until the understanding of plate tectonics became well substantiated in the latter part of the 20th century, the postulated mechanisms for this distribution were difficult to support, although the commonality of the fossil record seemed obvious.
Or it could be evidence for a world wide flood depositing floating bodies to that region.
Floating across the Atlantic and washing up and deposited where the coastlines match and inland? That seems less likely than the land bridges that were postulated (but, obviously, never found) to explain the same species in two different continents before a plausible way to move the continents was found.
If it was a global flood (flat earthers hate that term) then there would be no continents to break up the tidal waters thus creating changes in tides 200 feet.

Citation needed for those 200-foot tides. Believe it or not, coastlines can concentrate tides. The largest recorded tides are about 50 feet in amplitude. Let's see the calculations that predict tides four times that amplitude on an ocean-covered earth.

This is assuming that there's no continents to run into.

https://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Catastrophic-Plate-Tectonics-A-Global-Flood-Model.pdf

http://creationwiki.org/Flood_geology

Quote
Quote
Also with storms (which according to the global flood model would've been HUGE) they could scatter it better across the world.

These fossils aren't scattered widely across the world. They're in limited areas that jigsaw-puzzle fit nicely when matching the shapes of Africa and South America.

What I meant "across the world" was across certain regions. Plus how do you know there aren't fossils under the ocean floor? What if the fossils found in South America are connected to South Africa?

Quote
Quote
Not only that we have a modern example with plane wreckage. Pieces of metal washing up on beaches thousands of miles from the crash site.

Specifics? Debris attributed to ML 370 has been found in Australia and in the vicinity of Madagascar. That's pretty wide spread

Proving my point. And the distance between South America and South Africa is roughly the same.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Take a map of Pangea and you'll see that they shrank Africa by 40%.

Which map, and what projection did they use? It's well-established that parts of continents that are now dry were at times submerged, so I'm not sure of your point.

You can do two things:

1. Get a modern map and a Pangea map from the same source at the same scale and see the difference.

2. Scale down modern Africa down to the Africa in Pangea and see the difference.

Can you show some actual maps, please?

I don't know how to do pictures and I couldn't find a link explaining it.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
...
Can you link to the skeletonal difference between a salamander and a lizard?

Sure... no problem.

Salamander:
http://animaldiversity.org/collections/contributors/Grzimek_herps/structure_function/salamander_skeleton/medium.jpg

Lizard (Skink):
http://www.savalli.us/BIO370/Anatomy/AnatomyImages/SkinkSkeletonLabel.jpg

Similar; they're both vertebrates with long tails, but they're distinctly different

Thanks. While one may not class them in the same family if all we found were fossils, one could say that the salamander evolved into the lizard.

One could say pretty much anything.

One would have a hard time defending conclusions like "this kinda sorta looks like this; it has four legs and a massive tail compared to body size, so one must have descended from the other" in a real Paleontological publication.

But that's what they're doing. They're already claiming that amphibians evolved into reptiles.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
I couldn't find the "fossil graveyard that spans several states". I heard it somewhere though. Maybe I misheard it or something. However I would like to point out that's the biggest dinosaur fossil graveyard not the biggest fossil graveyard period. And here's a link explaining the graveyards.

https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fossil-record/the-worlds-a-graveyard/

If you can find the reference you were looking for, please share.

Most fossils are from the remains of the harder parts of organisms. Occasionally, when conditions are right, softer tissues will become fossilized, but these are comparatively rare. For instance, thick sections loaded with crinoid stems are common in the Mississippian (Paleozoic) limestones that exist across much of North America (the Redwall limestone bearing nautiloids referred to in the link is Mississippian). While crinoid stems are extremely common, finding a fossilized calyx, the soft part of a crinoid, is quite rare. Most of the pictures at that web page are fossil shells and bones.

Quote
For example, billions of straight-shelled, chambered nautiloids (figure 2) are found fossilized with other marine creatures in a 7 foot (2 m) thick layer within the Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon (figure 1).[nb]Steven Austin, “Nautiloid Mass Kill and Burial Event, Redwall Limestone (Lower Mississippian), Grand Canyon Region, Arizona and Nevada,” in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, ed. R. L. Ivey (Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship, 2003), pp. 55–99.[/nb] This fossil graveyard stretches for 180 miles (290 km) across northern Arizona and into southern Nevada, covering an area of at least 10,500 square miles (30,000 km2). These squid-like fossils are all different sizes, from small, young nautiloids to their bigger, older relatives.

To form such a vast fossil graveyard required 24 cubic miles (100 km3) of lime sand and silt, flowing in a thick, soup-like slurry at more than 16 feet (5 m) per second (more than 11 mph [18 km/h]) to catastrophically overwhelm and bury this huge, living population of nautiloids.

The author is describing a section of the Redwall containing nautiloid fossils that appear to be oriented in a preferred direction, suggesting that they were indeed deposited in flowing water. Note that the footnote refers to another creationist publication, which is also probably the source for the flow volume postulated. Remember that these interpretations are constrained to not contradict a particular type of literal reading of Genesis.

Note, also, that the Redwall is 500 to 800 feet thick; the other 99% shows no preferred orientation.

Can you give a link to your last paragraph?

Hill, Carol A., et al., The Grand Canyon: Monument to an Ancient Earth: Can Noah's Flood Explain the Grand Canyon? p. 142.

ISBN: 9780825444210

This is a newly-published book - May, 2016; I don't think its text is available online. A nice hardback volume can be had for less than US$20 (possibly with shipping and taxes added). It was written and published by practicing and competent geologists who are devout Christians appalled by the fringe "young-earth Christian" movement's unsubstantiated but mostly poorly-reasoned but not well-answered nonsense. My wife and I know one of the authors and contributed toward the book's publication so we got a complimentary copy of the book. It's accessible to non-geologists - even Evangelical Christians - addresses the usual points clearly, and should be easily understood by anyone who can understand basic logic and thought processes.

I presume it is allowable to cite specific portions of it verbatim under "fair use" doctrine if you can't afford (or refuse) to buy a copy.

For the thickness of the Redwall:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redwall_Limestone

For a thorough explanation for any notion about the Grand Canyon and "flood geology", I highly recommend you obtain and read that book. If you can successfully refute the answers there, it will strengthen your argument; if you understand the author's argument, you've learned something. Either outcome, it would be worth reading. And, no... I get no financial benefit from any purchase of that book;our donation to defer publication expenses was nothing more than a donation to what we thought was a useful publication.

Thanks. Although it doesn't help neither of us at the moment since I don't have the book and it wouldn't be fair to ask you to give it to me since at the moment I'm strap for cash. Besides, I don't trust people online to give personal info like my mailing address. You have those shifty beady eyes my mom always warned me about. And you have a scar on your face. ;D

Quote
Quote
Quote
Also,

Quote
Some fish were buried alive and fossilized so quickly in the geologic record that they were “caught in the act” of eating their last meal (figure 12). Then there is the classic example of a female marine reptile, an ichthyosaur, about 6 feet (2 m) long, found fossilized at the moment of giving birth to her baby (figure 13)! One minute this huge creature was giving birth, then seconds later, without time to escape, mother and baby were buried and “snap frozen” in a catastrophic “avalanche” of lime mud.

That's a rather fanciful way to view these fossils, but in keeping with the idea that interpretations must literally agree with Genesis. The "fish eating a fish" in figure 12 obviously bit more than he could swallow and most likely suffocated when he couldn't expel the smaller fish from his mouth, sank to the lake bed, and became buried in sediment before completely decaying.

What buried them

Sediments.

Quote
so fast?

How fast is necessary?

Fast enough to prevent decay and to seal off oxygen.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Similarly, the ichthyosaur likely died while giving birth and similarly sank to the bottom and was covered relatively quickly (or slowly, but in an environment - perhaps anoxic - where decay proceeds slowly). No need for a catastrophe to explain why these died when they did or "snap freezing" the carcasses.

What buried them?

Sediments. They happen all the time. They happen now, if you care to investigate.

What usually happens is the body decays or gets eaten by scavengers.

Quote
Quote
Also if they were in an anoxic environment there would still be a time limit before they start to decay.

Maybe. What do you think the time limit is? Why?

Quote
Also why would an ichthyosaur be swimming in an anoxic environment to begin with?

No one said it was. Did you misunderstand that "sank to the bottom" meant after it died?

Even the bottom of the ocean has oxygen and scavengers. Whale bones to my recollection only last ten years.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
When Mt. St. Helens blew up it made a mini Grand Canyon complete with layers.

"Mini" is noted.
What works small scale can work full scale.

You gave an example of a catastrophic event (the explosion of Mt. St. Helens) that resulted in rapid deposition of layers over a limited area, nothing like the areas approaching continent size covered in ancient sediments that accumulated slowly over vastly longer time spans.

Quote
The top of Grand Canyon is higher than where the river enters the canyon by a mile.

Meaning that the Colorado Plateau was being uplifted no faster than the river was eroding the canyon. With tens or hundreds of millions of years to work with, this is plausible. This is evidence against the canyon forming quickly.

To my understanding the layers don't bend with the uplift. If that's the case then it didn't lift up.

Your understanding is wrong. If you're going to argue about geology, you would be wise to understand at least the basics of geology.

What I'm misunderstanding?

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
There's no delta from the canyon and it has barbed rivers on the north face indicating that it was a giant dam to to giant lakes as there's a similar structure on the east side I think.

Deltas form when a river reaches a base level and flow drastically slows. Most of the Colorado river's course had enough gradient that its current was maintained until it reached sea level before the river was dammed above and below the Grand Canyon; now there is undoubtedly a delta forming from sediments removed from the Grand Canyon in the upstream end of Lake Mead. The natural Colorado River Delta is the north end of the Sea of Cortez (Gulf of California).

I'm not sure what the "barbed river" and "giant dam" references mean.

Here's some links explaining those.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/GrandCanyon5.html

http://creation.mobi/grand-canyon-origin-flood

In the interest of getting this posted, I'll look at those l8tr. "creationscience.com" and "creation.mobi". If they're more of ...

Quote from: http://creation.mobi/tree-ring-dating-dendrochronology
However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it’s the interpretation of the data that is at fault.

... which seems likely, they can be dismissed an irrelevant, since they're faith-based, interpreting the data with a bias to reach a specific conclusion, and, thus, not scientific.

[Edit] Complete fumble-finger early post.

Ok.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

Re: Stratigraphy
« Reply #19 on: July 31, 2016, 09:34:08 AM »
If it was a global flood (flat earthers hate that term) then there would be no continents to break up the tidal waters thus creating changes in tides 200 feet.

Citation needed for those 200-foot tides. Believe it or not, coastlines can concentrate tides. The largest recorded tides are about 50 feet in amplitude. Let's see the calculations that predict tides four times that amplitude on an ocean-covered earth.

This is assuming that there's no continents to run into.

Yes. Isn't that what you meant by "If it was a global flood then there would be no continents to break up the tidal waters"?

Quote
https://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Catastrophic-Plate-Tectonics-A-Global-Flood-Model.pdf

That document speculates on p.6 that "it is possible that some amount of tidal resonance may have been achieved (Clark & Voss, 1985, 1990, 1992)". Those references are all for "creation science" conference papers. Do any of them provide calculations about how large the postulated tides would be?

At any rate, this paper is a superb example of the handwaving and sketchy logic necessary for interpretations that must satisfy a pre-decided outcome as explained here:

However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it’s the interpretation of the data that is at fault.

Quote
http://creationwiki.org/Flood_geology

[Some flood geologists] argue that in a global flood scenario, the tides would be unhindered by continents, creating enormous waves circling the globe.

That statement is unreferenced and "enormous" is vague, so I'd still like to see the calculations showing how the size of the asserted 200-foot tides was reached.

Further, in the same paragraph it says:

Quote
Some flood geologists have argued that during a global flood, liquefaction would have occurred on a massive scale.

But two paragraphs later in the same section it says:

Quote
In contrast, recent plume experiments by creationist geologists at Creation Evidence Museum at Glen Rose, Texas, have shown that moving water always creates sedimentary layering and liquefaction always destroys layering. Given the vast amount of sedimentary layers around the world, liquefaction is argued to have played a very minor part in the geologic record.

So, which is it? Massive scale or minor part?

Quote
Quote
Quote
Also with storms (which according to the global flood model would've been HUGE) they could scatter it better across the world.

These fossils aren't scattered widely across the world. They're in limited areas that jigsaw-puzzle fit nicely when matching the shapes of Africa and South America.

What I meant "across the world" was across certain regions.

"Across the world" doesn't mean across the world, it means something else?

Quote
Plus how do you know there aren't fossils under the ocean floor? What if the fossils found in South America are connected to South Africa?

There are fossils under the ocean floor. To my knowledge there are no fossils of land animals under deep ocean sediments between Africa and South America. If you can find evidence that there are, please provide it.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Not only that we have a modern example with plane wreckage. Pieces of metal washing up on beaches thousands of miles from the crash site.

Specifics? Debris attributed to ML 370 has been found in Australia and in the vicinity of Madagascar. That's pretty wide spread

Proving my point. And the distance between South America and South Africa is roughly the same.

For context, the 'example' you refer to is:

... with storms (which according to the global flood model would've been HUGE) they could scatter it better across the world.

No one doubts that currents can transport floating objects over long distances. Australia and Madagascar are in quite different directions from the area where ML 370 is presumed to have gone down; which supports the generally-understood meaning of "scatter". If by "scatter" you mean from a limited area on one side of the Atlantic to a limited area on the other side with coastlines that just happen to match jigsaw-puzzle fashion, then that's different.
 
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Take a map of Pangea and you'll see that they shrank Africa by 40%.

Which map, and what projection did they use? It's well-established that parts of continents that are now dry were at times submerged, so I'm not sure of your point.

You can do two things:

1. Get a modern map and a Pangea map from the same source at the same scale and see the difference.

2. Scale down modern Africa down to the Africa in Pangea and see the difference.

Can you show some actual maps, please?

I don't know how to do pictures and I couldn't find a link explaining it.

1) You'll need an account at an image-hosting service. I use photobucket.com (PB). PB is free and easy to use, but there are many others.
2) Upload your image to your hosting service. The website should explain how; it's often a choice of drag and drop or an open-file dialog, or both. PB provides both.
3) Once it's uploaded, copy the URL for the image. In PB, select the image and copy the location form the "Direct" box. I have a pop-up and ad blocker, and plug-in inhibitors that seem to get confused by these convenience address boxes, but clicking a couple of times on PB's "Direct" box copies the URL; there are other ways to get the URL, as well, if that doesn't work.
4) Paste the URL into your post between image tags (use the "Insert Image" button on the left above the emojis above the post-composition box to insert image tags in the text at the cursor location or around selected text).

Until there's something to look at, there's nothing to discuss.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
...
Can you link to the skeletonal difference between a salamander and a lizard?

Sure... no problem.

Salamander:
http://animaldiversity.org/collections/contributors/Grzimek_herps/structure_function/salamander_skeleton/medium.jpg

Lizard (Skink):
http://www.savalli.us/BIO370/Anatomy/AnatomyImages/SkinkSkeletonLabel.jpg

Similar; they're both vertebrates with long tails, but they're distinctly different

Thanks. While one may not class them in the same family if all we found were fossils, one could say that the salamander evolved into the lizard.

One could say pretty much anything.

One would have a hard time defending conclusions like "this kinda sorta looks like this; it has four legs and a massive tail compared to body size, so one must have descended from the other" in a real Paleontological publication.

But that's what they're doing. They're already claiming that amphibians evolved into reptiles.

Do paleontologists provide details why they make this interpretation, or do they just say "it is so"? If the latter, please provide a reference in a genuine peer-reviewed scientific publication that specializes in vertebrate paleontology, preferably published within the last half century or so, that makes such a claim. Since you'd be asserting that current paleontologists are saying this in publications that can be cited in other scientific publications, references that purport to say, secondhand or later, what paleontologists say are not sufficient; most (all?) creationist literature falls into this category.

Quote
Quote
For a thorough explanation for any notion about the Grand Canyon and "flood geology", I highly recommend you obtain and read that book [ISBN: 9780825444210]. If you can successfully refute the answers there, it will strengthen your argument; if you understand the author's argument, you've learned something. Either outcome, it would be worth reading. And, no... I get no financial benefit from any purchase of that book;our donation to defer publication expenses was nothing more than a donation to what we thought was a useful publication.

Thanks. Although it doesn't help neither of us at the moment since I don't have the book and it wouldn't be fair to ask you to give it to me since at the moment I'm strap for cash. Besides, I don't trust people online to give personal info like my mailing address. You have those shifty beady eyes my mom always warned me about. And you have a scar on your face. ;D

I understand. References that aren't available online can be a problem in discussions like this.

If you're interested, perhaps your local library will obtain a copy - it's unlikely they already have one - or can get one on inter-library loan. Both of these will take time, however. I'm not about to mail our copy to "some guy on the Internet" for the same reasons you give. ;)

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Also,

Quote
Some fish were buried alive and fossilized so quickly in the geologic record that they were “caught in the act” of eating their last meal (figure 12). Then there is the classic example of a female marine reptile, an ichthyosaur, about 6 feet (2 m) long, found fossilized at the moment of giving birth to her baby (figure 13)! One minute this huge creature was giving birth, then seconds later, without time to escape, mother and baby were buried and “snap frozen” in a catastrophic “avalanche” of lime mud.

That's a rather fanciful way to view these fossils, but in keeping with the idea that interpretations must literally agree with Genesis. The "fish eating a fish" in figure 12 obviously bit more than he could swallow and most likely suffocated when he couldn't expel the smaller fish from his mouth, sank to the lake bed, and became buried in sediment before completely decaying.

What buried them

Sediments.

Quote
so fast?

How fast is necessary?

Fast enough to prevent decay and to seal off oxygen.

Sometimes the water itself contains little or no oxygen.

Quote
...

What usually happens is the body decays or gets eaten by scavengers.

Agreed. That's what usually happens, and why bone and shell fossils are much more common than soft tissue. "Usually" is not the same as "always", though, and occasionally fossils of more-easily decayed parts are found.

Quote
...

Even the bottom of the ocean has oxygen and scavengers.

Most places, yes, but not everywhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_waters#Causes_and_effects, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_waters#Anoxic_basins

Quote
Whale bones to my recollection only last ten years.

Without further citation, that's anecdotal.

Quote
Quote
Quote
...

To my understanding the layers don't bend with the uplift. If that's the case then it didn't lift up.

Your understanding is wrong. If you're going to argue about geology, you would be wise to understand at least the basics of geology.

What I'm misunderstanding?

Pretty much all of geology.

The East Kaibab Monocline, for example, is a large well-studied flexure in the region of the eastern part of the Grand Canyon. http://gsabulletin.gsapubs.org/content/56/2/107

I've been busy and still haven't had a chance to review the rest. I'll try to get to it.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Stratigraphy
« Reply #20 on: August 01, 2016, 02:03:04 PM »


This is a test of the photo uploading system. If this was a real emergency I will be screaming like a little girl and running around like a chicken with its head cut off. Once again this is a test.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Stratigraphy
« Reply #21 on: August 01, 2016, 02:12:38 PM »
Looks like the test was a success. Anyway here's a picture wikepedia uses to illustrate Pangea.



As you can see Africa is smaller than it should be.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Stratigraphy
« Reply #22 on: August 01, 2016, 02:54:24 PM »
If it was a global flood (flat earthers hate that term) then there would be no continents to break up the tidal waters thus creating changes in tides 200 feet.

Citation needed for those 200-foot tides. Believe it or not, coastlines can concentrate tides. The largest recorded tides are about 50 feet in amplitude. Let's see the calculations that predict tides four times that amplitude on an ocean-covered earth.

This is assuming that there's no continents to run into.

Yes. Isn't that what you meant by "If it was a global flood then there would be no continents to break up the tidal waters"?

Quote
https://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Catastrophic-Plate-Tectonics-A-Global-Flood-Model.pdf

That document speculates on p.6 that "it is possible that some amount of tidal resonance may have been achieved (Clark & Voss, 1985, 1990, 1992)". Those references are all for "creation science" conference papers. Do any of them provide calculations about how large the postulated tides would be?

I couldn't find one but I did found out how to calculate tides.

http://www.linz.govt.nz/sites/default/files/docs/hydro/tidal-info/tide-tables/mfth-of-hlw.pdf

http://keyassets.timeincuk.net/inspirewp/live/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/filebank/tidal_heights.pdf

The calculations are over my head to do. Another thing to consider is the gravitational pull of the moon and somehow add that to the tides.

Quote
At any rate, this paper is a superb example of the handwaving and sketchy logic necessary for interpretations that must satisfy a pre-decided outcome as explained here:

However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it’s the interpretation of the data that is at fault.

Quote
http://creationwiki.org/Flood_geology

[Some flood geologists] argue that in a global flood scenario, the tides would be unhindered by continents, creating enormous waves circling the globe.

That statement is unreferenced and "enormous" is vague, so I'd still like to see the calculations showing how the size of the asserted 200-foot tides was reached.

I think I gave some above.

Quote
Further, in the same paragraph it says:

Quote
Some flood geologists have argued that during a global flood, liquefaction would have occurred on a massive scale.

But two paragraphs later in the same section it says:

Quote
In contrast, recent plume experiments by creationist geologists at Creation Evidence Museum at Glen Rose, Texas, have shown that moving water always creates sedimentary layering and liquefaction always destroys layering. Given the vast amount of sedimentary layers around the world, liquefaction is argued to have played a very minor part in the geologic record.

So, which is it? Massive scale or minor part?

What it looks like to me is they're saying that some believe A while what really happened was B.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Also with storms (which according to the global flood model would've been HUGE) they could scatter it better across the world.

These fossils aren't scattered widely across the world. They're in limited areas that jigsaw-puzzle fit nicely when matching the shapes of Africa and South America.

What I meant "across the world" was across certain regions.

"Across the world" doesn't mean across the world, it means something else?

Quote
Plus how do you know there aren't fossils under the ocean floor? What if the fossils found in South America are connected to South Africa?

There are fossils under the ocean floor. To my knowledge there are no fossils of land animals under deep ocean sediments between Africa and South America. If you can find evidence that there are, please provide it.

Ok. If I find a link I'll post it.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Not only that we have a modern example with plane wreckage. Pieces of metal washing up on beaches thousands of miles from the crash site.

Specifics? Debris attributed to ML 370 has been found in Australia and in the vicinity of Madagascar. That's pretty wide spread

Proving my point. And the distance between South America and South Africa is roughly the same.

For context, the 'example' you refer to is:

... with storms (which according to the global flood model would've been HUGE) they could scatter it better across the world.

No one doubts that currents can transport floating objects over long distances. Australia and Madagascar are in quite different directions from the area where ML 370 is presumed to have gone down; which supports the generally-understood meaning of "scatter". If by "scatter" you mean from a limited area on one side of the Atlantic to a limited area on the other side with coastlines that just happen to match jigsaw-puzzle fashion, then that's different.

The debri from the crash stayed within the Indian Ocean.
 
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Take a map of Pangea and you'll see that they shrank Africa by 40%.

Which map, and what projection did they use? It's well-established that parts of continents that are now dry were at times submerged, so I'm not sure of your point.

You can do two things:

1. Get a modern map and a Pangea map from the same source at the same scale and see the difference.

2. Scale down modern Africa down to the Africa in Pangea and see the difference.

Can you show some actual maps, please?

I don't know how to do pictures and I couldn't find a link explaining it.

1) You'll need an account at an image-hosting service. I use photobucket.com (PB). PB is free and easy to use, but there are many others.
2) Upload your image to your hosting service. The website should explain how; it's often a choice of drag and drop or an open-file dialog, or both. PB provides both.
3) Once it's uploaded, copy the URL for the image. In PB, select the image and copy the location form the "Direct" box. I have a pop-up and ad blocker, and plug-in inhibitors that seem to get confused by these convenience address boxes, but clicking a couple of times on PB's "Direct" box copies the URL; there are other ways to get the URL, as well, if that doesn't work.
4) Paste the URL into your post between image tags (use the "Insert Image" button on the left above the emojis above the post-composition box to insert image tags in the text at the cursor location or around selected text).

Until there's something to look at, there's nothing to discuss.

I found an easier route. Just go to bing or google and find a picture you want and click on it. Copy the URL and paste it here and put around it. Thanks anyway.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
...
Can you link to the skeletonal difference between a salamander and a lizard?

Sure... no problem.

Salamander:
http://animaldiversity.org/collections/contributors/Grzimek_herps/structure_function/salamander_skeleton/medium.jpg

Lizard (Skink):
http://www.savalli.us/BIO370/Anatomy/AnatomyImages/SkinkSkeletonLabel.jpg

Similar; they're both vertebrates with long tails, but they're distinctly different

Thanks. While one may not class them in the same family if all we found were fossils, one could say that the salamander evolved into the lizard.

One could say pretty much anything.

One would have a hard time defending conclusions like "this kinda sorta looks like this; it has four legs and a massive tail compared to body size, so one must have descended from the other" in a real Paleontological publication.

But that's what they're doing. They're already claiming that amphibians evolved into reptiles.

Do paleontologists provide details why they make this interpretation, or do they just say "it is so"? If the latter, please provide a reference in a genuine peer-reviewed scientific publication that specializes in vertebrate paleontology, preferably published within the last half century or so, that makes such a claim. Since you'd be asserting that current paleontologists are saying this in publications that can be cited in other scientific publications, references that purport to say, secondhand or later, what paleontologists say are not sufficient; most (all?) creationist literature falls into this category.

It's the former. They say an amphibian like animal slowly evolved into the reptile.

Quote
Quote
Quote
For a thorough explanation for any notion about the Grand Canyon and "flood geology", I highly recommend you obtain and read that book [ISBN: 9780825444210]. If you can successfully refute the answers there, it will strengthen your argument; if you understand the author's argument, you've learned something. Either outcome, it would be worth reading. And, no... I get no financial benefit from any purchase of that book;our donation to defer publication expenses was nothing more than a donation to what we thought was a useful publication.

Thanks. Although it doesn't help neither of us at the moment since I don't have the book and it wouldn't be fair to ask you to give it to me since at the moment I'm strap for cash. Besides, I don't trust people online to give personal info like my mailing address. You have those shifty beady eyes my mom always warned me about. And you have a scar on your face. ;D

I understand. References that aren't available online can be a problem in discussions like this.

If you're interested, perhaps your local library will obtain a copy - it's unlikely they already have one - or can get one on inter-library loan. Both of these will take time, however. I'm not about to mail our copy to "some guy on the Internet" for the same reasons you give. ;)

I actually do have a scar on my face, well, on my forehead. I was seven and went under a metal slide thinking I had clearance. I didn't.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Also,

Quote
Some fish were buried alive and fossilized so quickly in the geologic record that they were “caught in the act” of eating their last meal (figure 12). Then there is the classic example of a female marine reptile, an ichthyosaur, about 6 feet (2 m) long, found fossilized at the moment of giving birth to her baby (figure 13)! One minute this huge creature was giving birth, then seconds later, without time to escape, mother and baby were buried and “snap frozen” in a catastrophic “avalanche” of lime mud.

That's a rather fanciful way to view these fossils, but in keeping with the idea that interpretations must literally agree with Genesis. The "fish eating a fish" in figure 12 obviously bit more than he could swallow and most likely suffocated when he couldn't expel the smaller fish from his mouth, sank to the lake bed, and became buried in sediment before completely decaying.

What buried them

Sediments.

Quote
so fast?

How fast is necessary?

Fast enough to prevent decay and to seal off oxygen.

Sometimes the water itself contains little or no oxygen.

Where in the oceans?

Quote
Quote
...

What usually happens is the body decays or gets eaten by scavengers.

Agreed. That's what usually happens, and why bone and shell fossils are much more common than soft tissue. "Usually" is not the same as "always", though, and occasionally fossils of more-easily decayed parts are found.

Quote
...

Even the bottom of the ocean has oxygen and scavengers.

Most places, yes, but not everywhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_waters#Causes_and_effects, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_waters#Anoxic_basins

I'll take a look at those.

Quote
Quote
Whale bones to my recollection only last ten years.

Without further citation, that's anecdotal.

Here's something.

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/technology/whale-bones-in-ocean-devoured-by-tiny-mouthless-worms-1.1306823

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
...

To my understanding the layers don't bend with the uplift. If that's the case then it didn't lift up.

Your understanding is wrong. If you're going to argue about geology, you would be wise to understand at least the basics of geology.

What I'm misunderstanding?

Pretty much all of geology.

The East Kaibab Monocline, for example, is a large well-studied flexure in the region of the eastern part of the Grand Canyon. http://gsabulletin.gsapubs.org/content/56/2/107

I've been busy and still haven't had a chance to review the rest. I'll try to get to it.

Ok.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

Re: Stratigraphy
« Reply #23 on: August 01, 2016, 04:43:08 PM »


Puppies!!



Very good. The width=<pixels> modifier inside the opening image tag can tame those large images, too. I changed img to img width=600  inside the square brackets to both of yours in this reply.
Quote
As you can see Africa is smaller than it should be.

Kind of hard to tell since that's a schematic sketch showing the general arrangement, and you don't know anything about the projection used, anyway. In general, it looks approximately right to me; you're trying to read too much detail into a sketch where little exists. It's a projection of a sphere to a flat plane. Distortion is a given.

Here's a comparison of a couple of the modern continent outlines, and another map of Pangaea from Penn State U's Geosciences Department. http://eqseis.geosc.psu.edu/~cammon/HTML/Classes/IntroQuakes/Notes/plate_tect01.html





Anyway... 'grats on successfully embedding the images!  :)
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Stratigraphy
« Reply #24 on: August 02, 2016, 03:45:53 PM »


Puppies!!

Who can resist puppies?

Quote


Very good. The width=<pixels> modifier inside the opening image tag can tame those large images, too. I changed img to img width=600  inside the square brackets to both of yours in this reply.

Thanks even though I hardly understood a word you said.

Quote
Quote
As you can see Africa is smaller than it should be.

Kind of hard to tell since that's a schematic sketch showing the general arrangement, and you don't know anything about the projection used, anyway. In general, it looks approximately right to me; you're trying to read too much detail into a sketch where little exists. It's a projection of a sphere to a flat plane. Distortion is a given.

Here's a comparison of a couple of the modern continent outlines, and another map of Pangaea from Penn State U's Geosciences Department. http://eqseis.geosc.psu.edu/~cammon/HTML/Classes/IntroQuakes/Notes/plate_tect01.html




The only source I found was a video by Kent Hovind and the only way how to get the evidence is to watch a 2 hour movie. But I did found a 1 minute video though it didn't gave much evidence.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=kent+hovind+pangea&view=detail&mid=8244B29E1FDBE5D3C75C8244B29E1FDBE5D3C75C&FORM=VRRTAP&PC=APPM

Quote
Anyway... 'grats on successfully embedding the images!  :)

Thanks.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

Re: Stratigraphy
« Reply #25 on: August 02, 2016, 07:40:29 PM »
https://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Catastrophic-Plate-Tectonics-A-Global-Flood-Model.pdf

That document speculates on p.6 that "it is possible that some amount of tidal resonance may have been achieved (Clark & Voss, 1985, 1990, 1992)". Those references are all for "creation science" conference papers. Do any of them provide calculations about how large the postulated tides would be?

I couldn't find one but I did found out how to calculate tides.

http://www.linz.govt.nz/sites/default/files/docs/hydro/tidal-info/tide-tables/mfth-of-hlw.pdf

http://keyassets.timeincuk.net/inspirewp/live/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/filebank/tidal_heights.pdf

The calculations are over my head to do. Another thing to consider is the gravitational pull of the moon and somehow add that to the tides.

Those are more about interpreting existing tide tables (which give heights and times, based on predictions based on measurements) than calculating a theoretical tide in an unbounded liquid-covered planet. For a simplified approach, if we assume that the surface of a water-covered planet is an equipotential surface, then knowing how much the Moon's gravity reduces the net acceleration due to the Earth's gravity, we would know how much the elevation of the surface of the water has to increase to give the same potential energy. A given mass in a weaker net gravity field has to be further from the center of gravity than the same mass in a stronger field to have the same potential energy.

Let's assume, at the surface of the Earth, the Earth's gravity produces a acceleration of 10 m/s2 (it's really closer to 9.8 m/s2, but this makes the math easier and doesn't change the fundamentals).

If the Moon has a mass of 7.346 X 1022 kg[nb]http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html[/nb] (call it 7.5 X 1022 kg)
a mean distance from the center of the Earth of 384,400 km[nb]Based on mean distance from Earth (equator, km) 378,000 and equatorial radius 6400 km [from the same source above].[/nb] (call it 3.8 X 108 m),
and the radius of the Earth is 6378.1 km[nb]ibid.[/nb] (6,378,100 m = 6.4 X 106 m)

Remember F = GMm/R2,
where F is the gravitational force exerted between a mass m and M,
G is 6.67408 × 10-11 m3 / (kg s2); let's use 6.7 × 10-11 m3 / (kg s2),
and R is the distance between m and M.

Also, since f = ma, then a = f/m, so

a = F/m = GM/R2

The solid earth is accelerated toward the Moon by the Moon's gravity. The distance between the Moon and the Center of Earth (M-CoE) is R in this case:

aM-CoE = (6.7 × 10-11 m3 / (kg s2)) X 7.5 X 1022 kg / (3.8 X 108 m)2
 = 6.7 m × 10-11 m3 / (kg s2)) X 7.5 X 1022 kg / (3.8 X 108 m)2
 = 5.0 X 1012 m/s2 / 1.444 X 1017
aM-CoE = 3.480 X10-5 m/s2

The Surface of the Earth (SoE) nearest the Moon is 6400 km (6,400,000 m = 6.4 X 106 m) closer than the center of the Earth, so R is slightly less, at 3.8 X 108 m - 6.4 X 106 m = 3.74 X 108 m.

Acceleration at this point is a little higher

aM-SoE = (6.7 × 10-11 m3 / (kg s2)) X 7.5 X 1022 kg / (3.76 X 108 m)2
 = 5.0 X 1012 m/s2 / 1.414 X 1017
aM-SoE = 3.554 X 10-5 m/s2

So, at the surface of the Earth nearest the Moon, acceleration toward the Moon is 3.554 X 10-5 m/s2 - 3.480 X 10-5 m/s2, a difference of  0.074 X 10-5 m/s2, or 7.4 X 10-7 m/s2 greater than for the Earth as a whole,.

Assuming the average acceleration of gravity at the surface is 10 m/s2 (see above), directly under the Moon, it would be 7.4 X 10-7 m/s2, or 0.000000074 (7.4 X 10-7 m/s2/10 m/s2) less (less because the Moon's gravity is accelerating in the opposite direction there). This means that a water molecule directly under the Moon would need to be 0.0000074% farther from the center of the Earth to have the same potential energy as a water molecule not being influenced at all by the Moon's gravity. 0.0000074% of 6,400,000 meters is 0.47 m, roughly half a meter.

There is a similar effect on the opposite side of the Earth which would have a similar amplitude. Feel free to calculate that yourself as an exercise by adding REarth to the lunar distance instead of subtracting it. The difference should be quite similar but is still away from the center of the earth - can you think of why?

This is my attempt to calculate how large the tides would be under ideal conditions assuming there were no continents, etc. It's obviously very simplified, but at least gives an idea based on physical conditions, what to expect. If you think the real case would result in "200-foot tides", let's see your calculations.

I'll answer the rest in another post. These get rather long and I don't have big blocks of time for stuff like this right now.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Stratigraphy
« Reply #26 on: August 02, 2016, 08:21:34 PM »
https://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Catastrophic-Plate-Tectonics-A-Global-Flood-Model.pdf

That document speculates on p.6 that "it is possible that some amount of tidal resonance may have been achieved (Clark & Voss, 1985, 1990, 1992)". Those references are all for "creation science" conference papers. Do any of them provide calculations about how large the postulated tides would be?

I couldn't find one but I did found out how to calculate tides.

http://www.linz.govt.nz/sites/default/files/docs/hydro/tidal-info/tide-tables/mfth-of-hlw.pdf

http://keyassets.timeincuk.net/inspirewp/live/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/filebank/tidal_heights.pdf

The calculations are over my head to do. Another thing to consider is the gravitational pull of the moon and somehow add that to the tides.

Those are more about interpreting existing tide tables (which give heights and times, based on predictions based on measurements) than calculating a theoretical tide in an unbounded liquid-covered planet. For a simplified approach, if we assume that the surface of a water-covered planet is an equipotential surface, then knowing how much the Moon's gravity reduces the net acceleration due to the Earth's gravity, we would know how much the elevation of the surface of the water has to increase to give the same potential energy. A given mass in a weaker net gravity field has to be further from the center of gravity than the same mass in a stronger field to have the same potential energy.

Let's assume, at the surface of the Earth, the Earth's gravity produces a acceleration of 10 m/s2 (it's really closer to 9.8 m/s2, but this makes the math easier and doesn't change the fundamentals).

If the Moon has a mass of 7.346 X 1022 kg[nb]http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html[/nb] (call it 7.5 X 1022 kg)
a mean distance from the center of the Earth of 384,400 km[nb]Based on mean distance from Earth (equator, km) 378,000 and equatorial radius 6400 km [from the same source above].[/nb] (call it 3.8 X 108 m),
and the radius of the Earth is 6378.1 km[nb]ibid.[/nb] (6,378,100 m = 6.4 X 106 m)

Remember F = GMm/R2,
where F is the gravitational force exerted between a mass m and M,
G is 6.67408 × 10-11 m3 / (kg s2); let's use 6.7 × 10-11 m3 / (kg s2),
and R is the distance between m and M.

Also, since f = ma, then a = f/m, so

a = F/m = GM/R2

The solid earth is accelerated toward the Moon by the Moon's gravity. The distance between the Moon and the Center of Earth (M-CoE) is R in this case:

aM-CoE = (6.7 × 10-11 m3 / (kg s2)) X 7.5 X 1022 kg / (3.8 X 108 m)2
 = 6.7 m × 10-11 m3 / (kg s2)) X 7.5 X 1022 kg / (3.8 X 108 m)2
 = 5.0 X 1012 m/s2 / 1.444 X 1017
aM-CoE = 3.480 X10-5 m/s2

The Surface of the Earth (SoE) nearest the Moon is 6400 km (6,400,000 m = 6.4 X 106 m) closer than the center of the Earth, so R is slightly less, at 3.8 X 108 m - 6.4 X 106 m = 3.74 X 108 m.

Acceleration at this point is a little higher

aM-SoE = (6.7 × 10-11 m3 / (kg s2)) X 7.5 X 1022 kg / (3.76 X 108 m)2
 = 5.0 X 1012 m/s2 / 1.414 X 1017
aM-SoE = 3.554 X 10-5 m/s2

So, at the surface of the Earth nearest the Moon, acceleration toward the Moon is 3.554 X 10-5 m/s2 - 3.480 X 10-5 m/s2, a difference of  0.074 X 10-5 m/s2, or 7.4 X 10-7 m/s2 greater than for the Earth as a whole,.

Assuming the average acceleration of gravity at the surface is 10 m/s2 (see above), directly under the Moon, it would be 7.4 X 10-7 m/s2, or 0.000000074 (7.4 X 10-7 m/s2/10 m/s2) less (less because the Moon's gravity is accelerating in the opposite direction there). This means that a water molecule directly under the Moon would need to be 0.0000074% farther from the center of the Earth to have the same potential energy as a water molecule not being influenced at all by the Moon's gravity. 0.0000074% of 6,400,000 meters is 0.47 m, roughly half a meter.

There is a similar effect on the opposite side of the Earth which would have a similar amplitude. Feel free to calculate that yourself as an exercise by adding REarth to the lunar distance instead of subtracting it. The difference should be quite similar but is still away from the center of the earth - can you think of why?

This is my attempt to calculate how large the tides would be under ideal conditions assuming there were no continents, etc. It's obviously very simplified, but at least gives an idea based on physical conditions, what to expect. If you think the real case would result in "200-foot tides", let's see your calculations.

"Obviously very simplified"? Man! I'd hate to see what it'll looked like if you complicate things. I hated math.

Quote
I'll answer the rest in another post. These get rather long and I don't have big blocks of time for stuff like this right now.

Ok.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

Re: Stratigraphy
« Reply #27 on: August 04, 2016, 08:27:49 PM »
This is my attempt to calculate how large the tides would be under ideal conditions assuming there were no continents, etc. It's obviously very simplified, but at least gives an idea based on physical conditions, what to expect. If you think the real case would result in "200-foot tides", let's see your calculations.

"Obviously very simplified"? Man! I'd hate to see what it'll looked like if you complicate things. I hated math.

It is simplified, though. Taking into account how the shape of a shoreline and changes in water depth would work to change the height of the tides would cause the calculations get very complicated very quickly.

The upshot of all that is that the effect of lunar gravity alone would be expected to raise the water level directly below it by about a half meter. It's hard to visualize a realistic situation where you could expect 200-foot (about 60 meters) tides to develop if there were no coastlines, even if the water depth does change. It sounds like you very happily accept the assertion that 200-foot tides should be expected in the absence of land to break them up, without any information backing the claim up whatsoever.

Quote
Quote
I'll answer the rest in another post. These get rather long and I don't have big blocks of time for stuff like this right now.

Ok.

Thanks for the patience. I haven't forgotten, but have little time to spend here for the time being.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan