475 replies to this topic

[Harte]

Harsh86_Patel, on 27 September 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:

What you state about the moon's orbit is in relatively recent terms when we talk of heavenly bodies.Tidal marks can have multiple interpretations.Maybe the outside force did not directly act on the Earth rather on the moon hence changing its gravitational interactions with Earth. Also the gravitational feild of hugh heavenly body passing by but not directly colliding can also cause the Earth to flip by overcoming it's angular momentum.You are narrowing external event to a direct impact with Earth.

You are not thinking clearly here.

Any perturbation of the Moon's orbit that occurred in the last 100,000 years or so (or even much much longer ago) would still be visible in this day.  There would, for example, be no tidal lock with the Moon.  The Moon's orbit would still exhibit a high degree of eccentricity, etc.

This would also be true if any outside gravitational force ever cause the Earth to flip.  This, along with the complete (or almost complete) melting of the Earth's crust.
Can you see now why I only consider an impact causing this?

Large bodies passing nearby leave obvious and lasting "trails" in the form of orbital perturbations.

Harte

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Harsh86_Patel, on 27 September 2012 - 11:42 AM, said:

It would.The effects would be large scale catclysmic events that could upturn everything.Humans could survive depending on circumstances.

I can hear the shuffling of goalposts again Harsh, sorry.
There is very little beyond geological activity that can affect laid down sedimentary strata, and even then you can see the strata in relation to other levels and if you so wanted, you could follow it around until you found other things in that strata.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Oniomancer, on 27 September 2012 - 03:04 PM, said:

Turbidation leaves recognizable traces in the redeposited sediments. A global flood would produce a global layer of turbidity that would stand out like the iridium layer in the K-T boundery.  At most you might get a geological discontinuity in places, like the one I'm sitting on right now. The less resistant rocks like mudstones  have been scoured down to the more resistant one, in my case ordivician limestone. Two miles to the east of me though it's straight down to the precambrian basement rock. However, anywhere there's more resistant rock, the original geological column is going to remain making the discontinuity stand out like a sore thumb, as with the capping layer of sandstone protecting the mudstone plateau a mile west of me.  This though was done over thousands of years by successive glaciation events.  The amount of water it would take to strip the entire world in a single event would wipe out virtually all land-based life as surely as a planetary collision.

In any case you'd end up with a new sequence of new layers of sediment, not a rearrangement of old ones, and the likelihood of those new layers magically settling in such a way as for all the fossils therein to line up and form a noticeable sequence of their own is infinitesimal.

Turbidation of an extreme nature can be the cause of rapid laying of sedimentary layers as show cased by many young earth geologist.

Virtually all the geological features of the earth's surface can be better explained by the one-flood global model involving progradation, liquifaction and turbidation than by modern geology with its millions of years. Two prime pieces of evidence for a global flood with similtaneous deposition of the strata are: A) The Persistence of Facies. Cretaceous chalk is identified by the index fossil micraster and nodules of flint stone. There is no argument that it is a sedimentary rock and has thus been deposited as a sediment in water. This stratum persists as a continuous layer from Northern Ireland, is seen as the White Cliffs of Dover, then continues through Europe, Russia, India, Malaysia and finishes in Australia. It is also found from Pittsburgh to Alaska. This means that this entire area – more than half the globe -- was under water at the same time. Interbedding. This is the slight overlapping or blending of one stratum with the next. Textbooks are always reluctant to mention this and show examples of strata with nice clean lines of demarkation. However, it is common to find neatly stratified layers occasionally blending meaning that the lower stratum did not rise from the flood waters, dry out and turn to rock before sinking to receive sediments for the second stratum. Quite clearly, these strata were deposited at the same time.

http://www.creationm...t/genesis-flood

P.S.-I believe that there is ample circumstantial evidence of a global flood not only in all major religions of the Earth but also a geological support for the same.And global events can re-arrange the geological columns everywhere around the Earth.The only point where i differ is that there has not been only one such flood but a quite a few list of such events alternating floods and volcanic events over different periods of time.The geological column that we presently observe can be the direct result of a cataclysmic event in the history of the Earth which not necessarily has to be as old as we think it to be.There is a posiibility that a new geological column forms with a new arrangement after each such cataclysmic global event.The Earth can be way older then we think it is.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Wearer of Hats, on 27 September 2012 - 10:31 PM, said:

I can hear the shuffling of goalposts again Harsh, sorry.
There is very little beyond geological activity that can affect laid down sedimentary strata, and even then you can see the strata in relation to other levels and if you so wanted, you could follow it around until you found other things in that strata.

How about Hapgod's model of rapid continental drift.And i am not a geologist nor a expert in geology so i am just putting up my thoughts regarding the same.All you smart people can evaluate and explain whether what i suggest is possible or not.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Harte, on 27 September 2012 - 03:49 PM, said:

You are not thinking clearly here.

Any perturbation of the Moon's orbit that occurred in the last 100,000 years or so (or even much much longer ago) would still be visible in this day.  There would, for example, be no tidal lock with the Moon.  The Moon's orbit would still exhibit a high degree of eccentricity, etc.

This would also be true if any outside gravitational force ever cause the Earth to flip.  This, along with the complete (or almost complete) melting of the Earth's crust.
Can you see now why I only consider an impact causing this?

Large bodies passing nearby leave obvious and lasting "trails" in the form of orbital perturbations.

Harte

Like i said Hapgood's model gives a good explaination how the Earth's core wouldn't need to melt and the balance can be brought back again by rapid continental drift of the upper two layers.Also like i said maybe the orbit of the moon has been modified before but we can't tell.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Oniomancer, on 27 September 2012 - 03:09 PM, said:

So now you're formulating you're own version of geological pole shift to accommodate your beliefs? Pole shift "theory" as it stands has the entire crust of the planet slipping in place as a single unit, not breaking up and piling all over itself willy-nilly.

Like i said i was talking of a rapid event not a slow gradual one.And not my thoughts it's just something i read but found the idea thought provoking.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Harsh86_Patel, on 28 September 2012 - 05:30 AM, said:

How about Hapgod's model of rapid continental drift.And i am not a geologist nor a expert in geology so i am just putting up my thoughts regarding the same.All you smart people can evaluate and explain whether what i suggest is possible or not.

Again, what's happening there is pre-existing rock being moved around. Think of it like shuffling a pack of cards, no matter how shuffled it is, you're not going to get a third joker in the deck, you'll only move around stuff that's already there. And a five of hearts in my shuffled deck is the same as in your shuffled deck, even if mine is on the bottom and yours is on the top.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Wearer of Hats, on 28 September 2012 - 07:54 AM, said:

Again, what's happening there is pre-existing rock being moved around. Think of it like shuffling a pack of cards, no matter how shuffled it is, you're not going to get a third joker in the deck, you'll only move around stuff that's already there. And a five of hearts in my shuffled deck is the same as in your shuffled deck, even if mine is on the bottom and yours is on the top.

But they way we percieve and date the layers may change dramatically.Along with the shuffling of the entire fossil data.Along with the content we use to caliberate radiometric dating techniques.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Harsh86_Patel, on 28 September 2012 - 08:04 AM, said:

But they way we percieve and date the layers may change dramatically.Along with the shuffling of the entire fossil data.Along with the content we use to caliberate radiometric dating techniques.

Not really, all those things (fossils and radiometric data) are already on the cards (if you allow me to run my metaphor to breaking point), it's just that in Australia (for example) there are places where the Jokers are on the top of the deck along with Tyrannosaurus Rexes, but where you are, the Jokers and the T-Rexes are in the middle. They're still in the same cards, but the age of the card and what's in them are the same.

You see, radiation decay here on the surface and in the bowls of the planet are basically the same (with a little variation that can be calibrated for) so we can tell that coal here, and coal in England from the same strata (no matter how close to or far from the surface it is) are the same age based on the radioactive decay.

[Harsh86_Patel]

According to McDougall and Harrison (1999, p. 11) the following assumptions must be true for computed dates to be accepted as representing the true age of the rock^[4]

• The parent nuclide,

  40

  K, decays at a rate independent of its physical state and is not affected by differences in pressure or temperature. This is a well founded major assumption, common to all dating methods based on radioactive decay. Although changes in the electron capture partial decay constant for

  40

  K possibly may occur at high pressures, theoretical calculations indicate that for pressures experienced within a body of the size of the Earth the effects are negligibly small.^[1]

• The

  40

  K/

  39

  K ratio in nature is constant so the

  40

  K is rarely measured directly, but is assumed to be 0.0117% of the total potassium. Unless some other process is active at the time of cooling, this is a very good assumption for terrestrial samples.^[5]

• The radiogenic argon measured in a sample was produced by in situ decay of

  40

  K in the interval since the rock crystallized or was recrystallized. Violations of this assumption are not uncommon. Well-known examples of incorporation of extraneous

  40

  Ar include chilled glassy deep-sea basalts that have not completely outgassed preexisting

  40

  Ar*,^[6] and the physical contamination of a magma by inclusion of older xenolitic material. The Ar–Ar dating method was developed to measure the presence of extraneous argon.

• Great care is needed to avoid contamination of samples by absorption of nonradiogenic

  40

  Ar from the atmosphere. The equation may be corrected by subtracting from the

  40

  Ar_measured value the amount present in the air where

  40

  Ar is 295.5 times more plentiful than

  36

  Ar.

  40

  Ar_decayed =

  40

  Ar_measured − 295.5 ×

  36

  Ar_measured.

• The sample must have remained a closed system since the event being dated. Thus, there should have been no loss or gain of

  40

  K or

  40

  Ar*, other than by radioactive decay of

  40

  K. Departures from this assumption are quite common, particularly in areas of complex geological history, but such departures can provide useful information that is of value in elucidating thermal histories. A deficiency of

  40

  Ar in a sample of a known age can indicate a full or partial melt in the thermal history of the area. Reliability in the dating of a geological feature is increased by sampling disparate areas which have been subjected to slightly different thermal histories.^[7]

Both flame photometry and mass spectrometry are destructive tests, so particular care is needed to ensure that the aliquots used are truly representative of the sample. Ar–Ar dating is a similar technique which compares isotopic ratios from the same portion of the sample to avoid this problem.

Whats your take on temporary suspendance of Earths magnetic field causing a lot of influx of solar radiation,how do you think it would impact radio decay rates.Would it impact decay rates?
http://www.forbes.co...tant-after-all/
Also a series of other factors that can cause contaminations in layers of a different actual date.If you are going to jumble and mix all the layers then you will get cross contaminated layers(can be over huge geographical expanses).Also by what you state such a phenomenon of the old being on the top and the young on the inside is observed in many parts of the world.

[Oniomancer]

Harsh86_Patel, on 28 September 2012 - 05:25 AM, said:

Turbidation of an extreme nature can be the cause of rapid laying of sedimentary layers as show cased by many young earth geologist.

But the strata would still be visibly turbidised. They forget they these are ongoing processes and we have real-world examples with which to make comparisons. Again too there's that matter of fossils. If the existing sedimentary layers are being chewed up and spit out, how then are we finding often complete skeletons in homogeneous rock layers, and organized stratigraphically by type to boot? To paraphrase Kevin Costner, that is one magic tsunami.

Quote

Virtually all the geological features of the earth's surface can be better explained by the one-flood global model involving progradation, liquifaction and turbidation than by modern geology with its millions of years. Two prime pieces of evidence for a global flood with similtaneous deposition of the strata are: A) The Persistence of Facies. Cretaceous chalk is identified by the index fossil micraster and nodules of flint stone. There is no argument that it is a sedimentary rock and has thus been deposited as a sediment in water. This stratum persists as a continuous layer from Northern Ireland, is seen as the White Cliffs of Dover, then continues through Europe, Russia, India, Malaysia and finishes in Australia. It is also found from Pittsburgh to Alaska. This means that this entire area – more than half the globe -- was under water at the same time.

Yes, sea water. As in a sea. They've managed to completely side-step the fact that chalk "sediment" is composed entirely of plankton.

Liquifaction BTW does not occur readily in all sediment types.

I

Quote

Interbedding. This is the slight overlapping or blending of one stratum with the next. Textbooks are always reluctant to mention this and show examples of strata with nice clean lines of demarkation.

What textbooks are these I wonder because I've seen plenty of examples in living color on the geology sites I visit so somebody must be teaching it.

Quote

However, it is common to find neatly stratified layers occasionally blending meaning that the lower stratum did not rise from the flood waters, dry out and turn to rock before sinking to receive sediments for the second stratum. Quite clearly, these strata were deposited at the same time.

http://www.creationm...t/genesis-flood

...Which ignores the time difference between deposition and lithification. Look at any deep soil column. You'll have a layer of turf or humus on top followed by the primary soil type and often ending in a layer of clay. Each individual stratum was laid down at a different time with plenty of opportunity for admixture at the boundaries during transition events without the need for everything to happen all at once.

Edited by Oniomancer, 28 September 2012 - 02:27 PM.

[Oniomancer]

Harsh86_Patel, on 28 September 2012 - 05:35 AM, said:

Like i said i was talking of a rapid event not a slow gradual one.And not my thoughts it's just something i read but found the idea thought provoking.

If you're going to quote other people's ideas, it's helpful if you know what those ideas actually are.

[Harte]

Harsh86_Patel, on 28 September 2012 - 05:32 AM, said:

Like i said Hapgood's model gives a good explaination how the Earth's core wouldn't need to melt and the balance can be brought back again by rapid continental drift of the upper two layers.Also like i said maybe the orbit of the moon has been modified before but we can't tell.

And Aristotle's theory of spontaneous generation gives a good explanation of the "sudden appearance" of insects.  Unfortunately, even though it's a good explanation, it is completely wrong.

One Aristotle beats 50 Hapgoods.  If Aristotle can be in error, Hapgood can be a drooling idiot.

In fairness, though, the idea of the crust slipping and sliding wasn't that uncommon,  just like the idea of spontaneous generation was common - even before Aristotle, until plate tectonics was finally accepted, and eventually proven.

Harte

[Harsh86_Patel]

http://www.nature.co...r-cells-1.11637

Soft tissue on Dino bones confirmed.Another kick in the nuts for evolutionists.
Look at their delusion,in the article they couldn't still resist calling the bones 67 million years old,and highlighted that the antibodies for bird osteocytes were used to determine the authenticity of Dino osteocytes atleast four time (just to imply an evolutionary link as suggested by most evolutionist nutjobs) but in the end they accepted that the antibodies are not specific to only bird osteocytes but would react to osteocytes from other animals also.

This article not only serves the purpose of clearly establishing that Dinos were not extinct since last 65 million years but also is a good specimen of how mainstream empirical biology has to carefully edit their findings to avoid displeasing the evolutionist world view regime.

[Clobhair-cean]

This does nothing to disprove evolution. The bones and the Hell Creek formation where they were found were both dated to be 68 million years old. The fact that a researcher found some traces of soft tissue inside fossilised bone after said fossils were stripped of their mineral contents by being submerged in acid that ate away everything but the stone itself is surprising, but not impossible. We may have to reconsider what we know about the process of fossilisation, that's all. This is not a fossilised rabbit from the Cambrian.

Consider this (you won't):

Quote

The age of the Schweitzer rex isn’t based upon just one radiometric test, but many independent radiometric tests using various methods as well as paleontologists climbing all over the Hell Creek Formation for a century; if there was some big controversy about how old the formation was (or if it really was 10,000 years old or less) why has no one but the creationists mentioned it? I find it hard to believe that so many scientists over so long a time would all be “in” on a cross-disciplinary conspiracy to keep evolution firmly established in society, and if we are to dismiss the work of hundreds (if not thousands) of chemists, physicists, geologists, paleontologists, and biologists who know the Hell Creek Formation well, why not throw science as a whole out the window as well? No, creationists know such a move would be suicide, so they will continue to try and be backseat drivers to the rest of the scientific community, but I doubt anyone is going to stop and listen to their directions.

http://laelaps.wordp...ale-of-a-t-rex/

Edited by Clobhair-cean, 07 November 2012 - 09:55 AM.