Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread postby webolife » Wed Feb 01, 2017 10:35 am

Lloyd wrote:I'm thinking the paper could be submitted in 2 or 3 parts, if necessary.
Here's what I whittled it down to...


One claim.
Back it with several categories of evidence [at least 3].
How do these evidences support your claim?
Why/How are rebutting arguments less adequate than your claim?
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2532
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread postby Lloyd » Thu Feb 02, 2017 6:25 am

BASINS SUPPORT RAPID DEPOSITION
That is something Berthault's experiments apparently showed. When tsunamis deposit strata they separate the strata according to grain size etc. Since they are deposited simultaneously in a megasequence they form curved strata in basins. The curves of the strata nearly follow the curves of each basin surface, except that each stratum is a bit thicker at the bottom than on the sides, like this: http://www.fortunebay.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/michiganbasin-cross-big.jpg. If strata formed in continental shallow seas, they should have formed at river deltas as sloped fans, like this http://www.scielo.cl/fbpe/img/andgeol/v36n1/fig05-10.jpg and http://www.scielo.cl/fbpe/img/andgeol/v36n1/fig05-09.jpg. Or if frequent tremors or tides or something caused the sediments to spread out across the floor of a shallow sea, the sediments should go to the bottom as flat layers, like this http://images.slideplayer.com/5/1507022/slides/slide_12.jpg.

CATACLYSM PAPER/S
webolife wrote:
Lloyd wrote:I'm thinking the paper could be submitted in 2 or 3 parts, if necessary.
Here's what I whittled it down to...

One claim.
Back it with several categories of evidence [at least 3].
How do these evidences support your claim?
Why/How are rebutting arguments less adequate than your claim?

Thanks, Gordon. I still hope to do several papers with one claim each. Several categories of evidence sounds good, but I'll have to think about what a category of evidence is. The first paper is expected to claim that nearly all sedimentary strata or megasequences formed from megatsunamis. I suppose the sorting of tsunami sediments would be a category. Sources of sediments and cementing agents is another. And I guess rapid deposition is one, like in my first paragraph above about basins. Delicate fossils and rapid burial could be another, although I was planning to leave fossils out until the second paper on Dating of the Cataclysm/s. Anyway, are those examples what you mean by categories of evidence? Do you suggest any other categories?

Here's where I'm working on the papers: http://funday.createaforum.com/index.php.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4366
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread postby Lloyd » Fri Feb 03, 2017 7:25 pm

CRITIQUE QUESTIONS
Gordon, have you seen these uniformitarian claims refuted? I'll post more such claims over the next few days, I expect. I hope to get answers for all of them for the paper. After each claim, I put in brackets my questions about possible answers.

- The Cretaceous Carlile shale consists of sands and shales. Fourier analysis of the Niobrara laminations reveals that they vary in thickness according to the periodicities of the earth's long-term orbital cycles (Fischer, 1993, p. 263-295).
__[Which orbital cycles are those? Day? Moon? Year?]

- There is no way to have the whole column be deposited in a single year.
__[How many years then?]

- The Mississippian Madison group largely consists of dead crinoid parts. (Clark and Stearn, 1960, pp. 86-88): The upper Mission Canyon formation or the Livingstone formation (of Alberta) is a massive limestone formation composed of sand-sized particles of calcium carbonate, fragments of crinoid plates, and shells broken by the waves. The Madison sea must have been shallow, and the waves and currents strong, to break the shells and plates of the animals when they died. The sorting of the calcite grains and the cross-bedding are additional evidence of waves and currents at work. The Livingstone limestone may be calculated to represent at least 10,000 cubic miles of broken crinoid plates, enough crinoids to cover the entire earth to a depth of 3 inches, but only a small part of a vast Mississippian crinoid bed that almost does cover the world (Morton, 1984, p. 26-27), U.S., Canada, England, Belgium, European Russia, Egypt, Libya, central Asia, and Australia.
__[Would potential sources of the dead crinoids be sea floors or continental shelves? They're smaller than a penny, so could they have flourished between tsunamis?]

- There are also oncolites, an algal growth on shells after the animals die which took time to grow (Wardlaw and Reinson, 1971, p. 1762). An excellent example of an oncolite is shown in figure 58 of Dean and Fouch (1983, p. 123). It says: "Cross section of an oncolite developed around a gastropod-shell nucleus from Ore Lake, Michigan. Concentric layering is the result of annual couplets of porous and dense laminae.)
__[Were there beds of dead shells long before the tsunamis hit?]

- The Greenhorn limestone is made mostly of coccoliths, small skeletal remains approximately 3-5 micrometers in diameter about 40 ft thick, 16 ledge-forming, burrowed limestone beds separated by thin shales. The coccoliths had to grow in the water, then die and fall to the bottom; then organisms had to burrow into the sediment; then when coccoliths were not as productive, shale was deposited, separating the limestone beds, all requiring still water.
__[Would each of 16 tsunami waves have deposited the coccoliths a couple feet deep and covered with a thin layer of mud?]

- The lower part of the Devonian formations consist of bioclastic limestone, and the upper part interbedded carbonate with anhydrite.
__[Could enough shells be produced between tsunamis to account for all of this limestone? Are interbeds formed all at the same time?]
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4366
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread postby webolife » Fri Feb 03, 2017 7:50 pm

You're on the right track. Those are certainly good categories of data.
Tsunamis deposit laminated beds like other alluvial processes. The question would be, could mega tsunamis operating as a primary [not just occasional] mechanism produce stratigraphic sequences like we see represented by the geologic column?
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2532
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread postby Lloyd » Sat Feb 04, 2017 9:22 pm

Tsunami Deposits
webolife wrote:You're on the right track. Those are certainly good categories of data.
Tsunamis deposit laminated beds like other alluvial processes. The question would be, could mega tsunamis operating as a primary [not just occasional] mechanism produce stratigraphic sequences like we see represented by the geologic column?

John Baumgardner shows pretty good evidence for that in his paper on Noah's Flood ... including some data and simulations.

PS, good article on Young Age Creationism contribution to science: http://creation.com/why-young-age-creationism-is-good-for-science

Igneous Origin of Salt
I just made a good find on salt. See the 20 min. video, PRIMARY IGNEOUS ORIGIN OF SALT FORMATIONS, at http://youtube.com/watch?v=MfN0MIOnRNQ . It's just in time to answer most of the next bunch of claims against the Great Flood. The host of the video also authored a good paper, which I posted on my forum at http://funday.createaforum.com/1-10 . The claims listed below relate mostly to salt etc not having enough time to dry out etc in a short time span. My questions about possible answers again are in brackets. I wrote them previously, so they don't take the above finding into account. For item #4, Gordon, if you think you may understand the claim, please explain it to me.

Critiques
(4)- 1300 feet of Bighorn Dolomite can not be Great Flood deposits because each gram of carbonate gives off about 1207 kilocalories per mole (Whittier et al, 1992, p. 576). To deposit these beds in one year requires that the energy emitted by each meter squared would be 278 times that received by the sun.
__[I don't understand what heat is produced by carbonate.]

(5)- The Opeche shale in the center of the basin, at its deepest part, is 300 feet of salt covering 188,400 square kilometers.
__[How fast could brine dry out between tsunamis? Or could it dry out under a load of salty limestone?]

- The Silurian Interlake formation consists of carbonates, anhydrite, salt, with minor amounts of sand & throughout this deposit are also burrows and mudcracks from drying out of the layers (Lobue, 1983, p. 36,37).
__[If each megatsunami came a few weeks apart, would it be enough time to dry out & form mudcracks, anhydrite, salt etc?]

- Anhydrite is an evaporitic mineral not compatible with a global flood. The next Devonian bed is the Prairie Evaporite. It consists of dolomite, salt, gypsum, anhydrite and potash. These are generally considered evaporitic and thus incompatible with deposition during a worldwide flood (Gerhard, Anderson and Fischer, 1990, p. 515).
__[Were there heat sources during the cataclysm & enough time between tsunamis for significant evaporation?]

- There is also salt cementation with salt deposited in the fractures and crevices in the rock. Halite plugged burrows are also found.
__[Could the source of salt be like the brine lake under the Gulf of Mexico carried by tsunamis?]

- The Triassic Spearfish formation contains the Pine Salt Bed, some gypsum and highly oxidized sands and shales, found in modern arid environments, gypsum being an evaporitic mineral (Wilmarth, 1938, p. 2037). There are conglomerates in which the Mississippian rocks were deposited, hardened, then eroded and fragments deposited in the Spearfish redbeds. (Francis, 1956, p. 18)
__[How long does it take gypsum to dry out in air, or under overburden?]

- The early oceanic sediments are covered by desert deposits of the Prairie Evaporite, Interlake, and Minnelusa formations. Oncolites found in the Interlake prove that these deposits took some time to be deposited. There are 11 separate salt beds scattered through four ages: 2 Jurassic Salt beds, 1 Permian salt bed, 7 Mississippian salt beds, and one thick Devonian salt. Half of these salt beds are up to 200 feet thick. The top Mississippian salt is 96% pure sodium chloride! Since they are sandwiched between other sediments, to explain them on the basis of a global, one-year flood, requires a mechanism by which undersaturated sea water can dump its salt. If the sea were super-saturated during the flood, then no fish would have survived.
__[Would these salt deposits all be from undersea brine lakes?]

- The Minnelusa formation contains three features incompatible with the flood: dolomite with desiccation cracks; two anhydrite layers with a peculiar "chicken-wire" structure (Achauer, 1982, p. 195); cross-bedding identical to modern desert dunes; "chicken-wire" anhydrite only forms above 35 degree C. and near the water table (Hsu, 1972, p. 30). This type of anhydrite is deposited in the Persian Gulf area today.
__[Would a few weeks time between tsunamis be enough time to produce these effects?]

- The erosional layers and the evaporative salt requires much more time than a single year to account for the whole column.
__[Is that true?]
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4366
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread postby Lloyd » Sat Feb 11, 2017 9:45 am

DELUGE
Gordon, in this quote from Mike, a meteorite swarm, associated with the first bombardment population of Moon craters, collapsed Earth's thick vapor canopy ... the sole source of water for the Great Flood. Members of the meteorite swarm falling into the ocean led observers on land to mistakenly call the resulting water jets "fountains of the great deep". Note that these started and ended at the same time as the rain deluge, I'm not sure what he meant by the canopy as sole source of Flood water, but he seems to have made a very similar conclusion as you about the fountains. He seems to add that the meteors caused the heavy rain. But I thought the meteors continued to fall for 5 months altogether. What do you think?

DRAFT
I'm working on the draft at http://funday.createaforum.com/1-10/1-71
Here's the main argument so far.

FLOOD CATASTROPHISM: PART 1. MEGATSUNAMIS DEPOSITED THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN
A major geological observation is that most sedimentary strata are fairly horizontal & conforming, mostly sorted into one or two kinds of sediment in each stratum.(i)

1. Gradual erosion & deposition (GED) cannot form horizontal sedimentary strata, but can only form sloped alluvial & delta fans.(1)
_a. Turbulent floods can sort and deposit horizontal strata, as found at the Mt. St. Helens volcanic site in the 1980s.(1a) <<____
_b. The larger a flood is, the larger is the area over which it deposits strata.
_c. Most sedimentary strata cover very large areas of continents or of a former supercontinent.(1c) <<____
_d. This requires a continent- or supercontinent-wide flood or floods.

2. GED cannot sort sediments into different broad horizontal beds.(2) <<____
_a. There cannot have been thousands of years of gradual erosion depositing only one kind of sediment, such as clay, in a shallow inland sea, then thousands of years depositing only another kind of sediment, such as sand, over the clay, and then more millennia depositing just lime or growing shells etc.

3. GED cannot fill basins with strata that conform with the shape of the basin walls & floor.
_a. It can only form sloped fan and floor strata.(3a) <<____
_b. But most basins have contoured strata.(3b) <<____

4. GED cannot produce sorted, conforming strata that show little to no signs of erosion between strata.(4) <<____
_a. It can only produce sloped strata on lake or sea floors or banks over relatively small areas.(4a) <<____

5. GED cannot bury & preserve delicate or large fossils.
_a. Local turbulent floods can bury large organisms in small areas, but the burial does not keep out bacteria & small organisms that decompose the remains.(5a) <<____
_b. Only great overburden pressure or heat can prevent decomposition and allow fossilization.(5b) <<____
_c. A turbulent flood cannot preserve delicate fossils.
_d. Delicate fossils required gradual burial over minutes to days, followed by increasing overburden.(5d) <<____
_e. Examples of delicate fossils are tracks, burrows, feeding traces, sea lilies & jellyfish.

6. What could cause major flooding of a continent or supercontinent?
_a. Precipitation flooding would be insufficient: if the atmosphere were much larger than now and it held a large percent of water vapor, if something caused most of the water vapor to precipitate, it would likely only raise sea level a few meters.(6a) <<____
_b. Natural dam break flooding is insufficient: the Missoula flood is the largest one known and it only produced a small amount of strata.(6b) <<____
_c. Sea level rise is improbable from glacial melting and would also be insufficient and not turbulent enough.(6c) <<____
_d. Normal tsunamis, caused by earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides, or small impacts, are too small to flood whole continents.(6d) <<____
_e. But megatsunamis could do the job.(6e)

7. What could cause megatsunamis?
_a. Large impacts in the ocean could, or a close approach of an asteroid could also, by tidal effect.
_b. Sedimentary strata are divided into six megasequences with disconformities between them.(7b) <<____
_c. The disconformities were apparently caused by minor erosion on the upper surface of each lower megasequence by rain over short periods of time.
_d. Thus there must have been six major ocean impacts every few weeks or months apart, or there must have been six close approaches of one or more asteroids, weeks or months apart.
_e. It seems more probable that an asteroid on a temporary elliptical orbit around the Earth would cause repeating tsunamis.
_f. Calculations show that dust and gases in space ejected during impacts would cause an elliptical orbit to circularize within decades.(7f) <<____
_g. An asteroid the size of the Moon would raise tides 2.5 km high, if it were ____ km from Earth at its perigee.(7g) <<____

8. Megatsunamis meet all of the requirements for a source of Earth's geologic column.
_a. The tide from an asteroid's close approach to Earth would start to rise gradually, stirring up and raining down light sediment on delicate organisms, traces and ripple marks etc for a few hours.
_b. Due to loss of much atmosphere, CO2 would degas in the oceans, forming lime.(8b) <<____
_c. As the asteroid approached perigee the tides would reach maximum velocity and great amounts of clay, silt and sand from the ocean floor and continental shelf would flow over and deposit on large areas of continents or the supercontinent.(8c) <<____
_d. The sediments would separate largely according to grain size, forming horizontal or contoured beds of strata.(8d) <<____
_e. Many organisms would be buried and the overburden would increase to many meters thick.
_f. As the asteroid moved away and the tide receded, water would drain from the sediments, gradually removing buoyancy of sediments around entombed organisms, thus allowing them to gradually compress.(8f) <<____See Taylor re Ohio sharks<<
_g. Lime from the ocean waters would help cement and lithify the sediments.(8g) <<____
_h. Each return of the asteroid to and past perigee would have formed another megasequence of strata.

9. Exceptions. Sedimentary strata are not horizontal in basins and in mountain ranges.(9) <<____
_a. Some basins seem to have formed as impact craters.(9a) <<____
_b. 25 basins from around the Mediterranean to eastern China and a few in the Americas apparently contain the entire geologic column.(9b) <<____
_c. Basins would have filled in during the 6 megatsunamis, with sediments conforming largely to basin contours.(9c) <<____
_d. If frequent tremors or tides or something caused the sediments to spread out across the floor of a basin, the sediments should have gone to the bottom as flat layers, instead of as conforming layers.(9d) <<____
_e. Some of the sediments on higher ground washed off as megatsunami tides receded, leaving many continental areas missing some or many strata.(9e) <<____
_f. 25% of continent surfaces have no sedimentary strata: i.e. N & E Canada - Greenland - Scandinavia and E South America - Southern Africa - E India - W & N Australia - Antarctica.(9f) <<____

10. Calculations. John Baumgardner calculated how large megatsunamis would have been to deposit the geologic column.(10) <<____
_a. They would have been about 2.5 km high.(10a) <<____
_b. Each one would have deposited about .4 km of sediments to make a megasequence of strata, so six of them would have deposited an average of 1.8 km after sheet-eroding some of it away.(10b) <<____
_c. They could have occurred a few weeks or months apart over a few months' or years' time.(10c) <<____
_d. The flooding would have occurred for a few days during each orbital cycle.(10d) <<____
_e. The rest of the time the floods would have receded before the next cycle repeated
_f. To produce waves 2.5 km high, a body the size of the Moon would have been ____ km from Earth, center to center.(10f) <<____
_g. A smaller body would have come closer; a larger body would have come less close.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4366
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread postby sketch1946 » Sat Feb 11, 2017 9:13 pm

"If the Moon were just a few thousand kilometers away it would generate HUGE tides. The tidal force equation can tell you how strong they would be: F(tidal)=2GMmr/d^3"

Where G = 6.67e-11, M (mass of Earth) = 5.98e24, m (mass of moon) = 7.349E+22, d = the distance that separates them, and r (radius of Earth) = 6371000.

Notice that d gets cubed. So moving distance is a very sensitive variable. That's why the tides generated by the Sun are small compared to tides generated by the Moon, despite the Sun being 30 million times as massive as the Moon. It's 400 times farther away and that greatly neutralizes its ability to pull tides."

"...basically, you look at the total amount of energy stored in the tides, and assume some fraction of it is dissipated every orbital cycle via friction. This gives the energy dissipation rate and also the lock time. This is the origin of the 6th power law, the tidal height is proportional to 1/r^3, and the tidal energy is proportional to the square of the tidal height."

"At a 10th of the distance, the distance I suggested as an example, the tides would be up by a factor of 1,000 (subject to the caveat of rapid locking). The average tidal rise and fall in various North American cities typically ranges from about .3 meters (Cristobal, Panama) to 3.7 meters (Seattle). The maximum tidal variation in the Bay of Fundy, in Nova Scotia is about 13.3 meters. Certainly, a 13 km tide would be pretty freaky."

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/h ... rth.85702/
sketch1946
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:56 pm

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread postby Lloyd » Sun Feb 12, 2017 12:25 pm

Thanks for the info, Sketch. Can you do such calculations yourself? Can you find how close the Moon would need to be to raise a tide 2.5 km high?
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4366
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread postby sketch1946 » Sun Feb 12, 2017 10:05 pm

Hi Lloyd,
Haha, my maths is pretty limited, I'm an artist with midrange computer skills, if some kind person out there can help it would be greatly appreciated :-)

I would like a python script or another language if necessary, then I might have a go at a blender 3D animation of some of this interesting Thunderbolts stuff... somewhere I remember seeing some planetary interactions as diagrams, but in blender now there's a pretty capable dynamics engine... then all I have to do is learn how to plug the script into the python editor in blender.. I'm working on it

For a competent maths person, I think those equations in the previous links have a good discussion by some guys that appear very competent, maybe I could try to do a static model and play with some attributes, apparently from memory the earth itself and the ocean acts like two superimposed 'three axis spheroids'

Which means I'd have to do some googling :-)

Yeah i'd have to do a scale earth, and moon, and why not Mars and Venus too... then tweak the equations in a spreadsheet, and plug the values into the blender model, blender is awesome for this sort of thing... and it's been raining, and I have to get my mower working ***soon
sketch1946
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:56 pm

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread postby webolife » Mon Feb 13, 2017 2:46 pm

Lloyd wrote:in this quote from Mike, a meteorite swarm, associated with the first bombardment population of Moon craters, collapsed Earth's thick vapor canopy ... the sole source of water for the Great Flood. Members of the meteorite swarm falling into the ocean led observers on land to mistakenly call the resulting water jets "fountains of the great deep". Note that these started and ended at the same time as the rain deluge, I'm not sure what he meant by the canopy as sole source of Flood water, but he seems to have made a very similar conclusion as you about the fountains. He seems to add that the meteors caused the heavy rain. But I thought the meteors continued to fall for 5 months altogether. What do you think?

First of all, Lloyd, thank you for asking about what I think, as it is often different from what you interpret...
I agree with the phrase "meteor swarm" here as it seems to imply something more ominous than say a meteor shower. The "matar" were said to fall for a period of about 5 months. I'm favorable to associating the matar with moon bombardment. I disagree with the hypothesis of the canopy, which is unsupported by any physical principle you may wish to apply to it. I do believe that a "layer" of moisture in the vicinity of the tropopause/lower stratosphere did surround the earth, that it was disrupted by the introduction of condensation nuclei originating from large scale volcanic upheaval at the beginning of the deluge period. It was generally the source of the several weeks of unprecedented steady downpour, followed by a few months of ongoing [but more intermittent] rainfall, followed by the full emplacement of the current water cycle to this day; but this amount of rain, while an initial signal of the unfolding cataclysm was not the primary cause of the deluge. Splashing of the meteor swarm into the ocean was definitely not the "fountains of the deep" as I understand them. The fountains of the deep I associate with the mid-ocean rift zones as we find them today. It is important to remember that at the beginning of the deluge, these rifts were in or on the continental landmass, which through the period of spreading became the basins of the Atlantic and parts of the Indian and [lesser parts of the] Pacific oceans. What began as fountains from the "deep" earth, are still fountains from the "deep" earth, coinciding now with the mid-ridges of the "deep" ocean. Let's not be too quick to geographically delimit "deep"... it is an apt descriptive word applying to a variety of situations, but all conforming to a single concept: material erupting out of the earth's crust, whether on land or at sea. In my scenario, the sources of the major portion of the deluge water were:
1. the extant ocean waters of the time, powered by massive seismic/volcanic upheaval of the spreading ocean basins; these forces at probably a much smaller scale are observable in the catastrophic action of tsunamis today;
2. major tidal action of a large [passing] planetoid that was responsible also for the bombardment of the matar; it was likely temporarily caught in a co-orbital dance with the earth for the early part of the deluge period; this bombardment is evidenced by astroblemes found throughout the geologic record from PreCambrian through Cenozoic, and evidenced on the surface today;
3. subterranean water sources that were/are part and parcel of the pressures powering igneous processes in the deep crust or upper mantle; huge volumes of water are seen to surface during volcanic eruptions.
An important part of my scenario is that it's mechanisms are associated with presently observable/researchable evidence. "An extraordinary claim must be backed by extraordinary evidence," and I believe that extraordinary evidence of a catastrophic past is before our eyes.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2532
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Mon Feb 13, 2017 3:15 pm

Webolife,
Quick question so quick answer is fine. Why do you think the water(s) came from the mid-ocean rift zones? My (limited) understanding is that quakes can cause water to issue from the ground.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread postby webolife » Mon Feb 13, 2017 3:31 pm

It is easier to research and answer a claim at a time, and I simply don't have the time here to write an entire paper, which would be necessary in order to address many uniformitarian claims being presented.
But let me present a general rebuttal format against the gradualist detractions to the deluge:
1. Most of the claims found in uniformitarianist detraction articles are unfounded, based only upon the a priori belief that certain types of processes must take a very long time. Ie. if I believe it takes millions of years to form petrified wood, coal and other fossil fuels, anhydrites, halites, etc., and I find these deposits buried in other strata, then the strata must be extremely old. But neither they nor anyone could possibly observe over such a long time that this is how the deposits occurred. Contrarily, modern technology keeps coming up with ways to demonstrate like processes in a lab or in a recent historical context. Hence these long time frames are not "established". Claims regarding such miniscule variations as would be caused by long-period orbital fluctuations, whether clothed in fancy terms like "Fourier analysis" or other pseudoscientific jargon, and other presumptions that have no real evidentiary basis, are simply without merit and only included in these articles as a bluff and bluster tactic.
2. Relative dating of strata [in the millions of years] is almost entirely based on the belief that most/all major sedimentary sequences are the result of orogeny [mountain building] episodes followed by long slow periods of erosion and deposition into basins into horizontal layers of mud [the typical "shallow sea" story is often invoked]. But the top and bottom of most strata are alike [ie. identifiable as a single stratum], and one layer sits generally conformably [or not, it doesn't really matter] on top of another, and another, etc. Each layer can be seen to have been laid as a single event, and no real distinction of time is known for the period between layers, referred to as the "hiatus"; so the story of slow orogeny followed by slow erosion is actually based upon that hiatal zone where no evidence exists. This is where evidence such as mudcracks and evaporites interlayering other strata becomes such an important feature to the gradualist. The belief that very long periods of time are required for features such as these to form is only required by the assumption of uniformitarianism, that average daily observations are the measure by which all of the past geologic history must be judged. The catastrophist's response to this is that observable evidences of catastrophic behavior are the measure by which geologic history is recreated.
3. Absolute dating methods are beset by many unprovable premises, guesswork, and presumptive modelling. I won't go into the details of radiometric dating here, as they have been adequately covered on this and other threads.

In short, if you can't back a claim with reproducible research and evidence, then all you have is a hypothesis, or probably just a philosophy. Thus, debate is in order.
Last edited by webolife on Mon Feb 13, 2017 3:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2532
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread postby webolife » Mon Feb 13, 2017 3:45 pm

Grey Cloud wrote:Webolife,
Quick question so quick answer is fine. Why do you think the water(s) came from the mid-ocean rift zones? My (limited) understanding is that quakes can cause water to issue from the ground.

I think that a good fraction of the deluge water had a subterranean origin. As we see today in steamy volcanic eruptions both on land and at sea, a lot of this deep origin water enters into the water cycle via billowing into the atmosphere and eventually precipitates back to the ground and eventually into the oceans. But also in the rift zones are found the famous "black smokers" discovered by R. Ballard [of Titanic fame] and others, which are billowing out sulfurous concentrations of very hot water from deep below the crust. As to water surfacing during "normal" quakes, and/or near active faults, further detail is needed to know whether this is from ground water or has a deeper origin. Modern research is showing the creation of subterranean water from the mixture of silicates and hydrogen originating deep below the surface. Is this the origin of the original seas on the earth? Perhaps. Standard geology has an oft quoted adage: If the all of the known volcanoes, both inactive and active, produced the amount of water seen in volcanic eruptions, it would be enough to account for all of the world's oceans. There is no reason why this concept cannot apply also [and even more aptly] to catastrophic geology.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2532
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Mon Feb 13, 2017 4:53 pm

Thanks Webolife,
I've been reading a book by a geologist who was looking at historical/archaeological evidence for quakes and he mentioned the water thing.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

Unread postby sketch1946 » Mon Feb 13, 2017 6:07 pm

I read somewhere of the work of Binge about 1950 who had some insights into what was then termed 'juvenile water', and how it had to come from the magma itself, also there is the book by Rankama and Sahama 'Geochemistry'

This paper has the earth creation-by-accretion assumption, but is still interesting:

...a reservoir completely isolated from surface processes is required to define Earth’s original D/H signature. Here we present data for Baffin Island and Icelandic lavas, which suggest that the deep mantle has a low D/H ratio (δD more negative than –218 per mil). Such strongly negative values indicate the existence of a component within Earth’s interior that inherited its D/H ratio directly from the protosolar nebula.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/350/6262/795
sketch1946
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:56 pm

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron