Did man and dinosaur co-exist?

[questionmark]

A Geographical Pole Shift; also known as a Geophysical Pole Shift. This is the process wherein the North Pole changes positions somewhere between 0 degrees to 180 degrees with the South Pole. In a total positional change, the globe literally flips over, such that the two poles change positions. There is much evidence this has occured numerous times in the past. This would be a Slate Wiper! Continents would sweep over continents. Some continents would fall to the sea floor. Mountains would be hurled into the oceans; and, in some cases, be hurled into other mountains. The geography would change quickly. Ocean basins would sweep over continents wiping out all living things. There would be felt an instant tingling and then burning of the skin as humans would undergo flash freezing. At the same time cold areas would become tropic areas and vice versa.

Winds would reach 300 or more miles per hour, knocking down anything in their way. Giant tsunamis 3 and 4 miles high would sweep across most of the world, bringing enormous energy and pressure against whatever they strike. This would erase small countries and islands forever, leaving no trace of what was there for later history. But still, life has always survived to generate great civilizations.

OK, what part of the pole don't you get? The pole is either the arbitrary location where we think the coordinate system starts or it is the location where the magnetic field originates. The first can shift as many times as you want to create a new coordinate system without affecting any sedimentary layers and the second is constantly shifting without affecting any sedimentary layers.

And even if earth flipped upside down instead of turning to the west the sedimentary layers would have been unaffected as gravity would only cease to exist if earth stopped. And it is very unlikely that the earth ever turns more than a few degrees North or South because there is the gravity of the moon stabilizing it.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

Not to be confused with a magnetic pole shift.But we do not know much about effects of magnetic pole shifts either to conclusively say that they would not effect the sedimentary layers or their relative positions.

Except that evidence points to a magnetic pole shift around 788000 years ago in which we can study the sedimentary layers and have found no anomalies. Not much else to say really.

[Harsh86_Patel]

OK, what part of the pole don't you get? The pole is either the arbitrary location where we think the coordinate system starts or it is the location where the magnetic field originates. The first can shift as many times as you want to create a new coordinate system without affecting any sedimentary layers and the second is constantly shifting without affecting any sedimentary layers.

And even if earth flipped upside down instead of turning to the west the sedimentary layers would have been unaffected as gravity would only cease to exist if earth stopped. And it is very unlikely that the earth ever turns more than a few degrees North or South because there is the gravity of the moon stabilizing it.

Gravity would not cease to exist if the Earth stopped.

I am talking about a rapid event obviously and not a gradual one.

[questionmark]

Gravity would not cease to exist if the Earth stopped.

I am talking about a rapid event obviously and not a gradual one.

Ok, so let me rephrase that: gravitation would decrease to levels of Mars if the earth stopped. Meaning that you could not find anything on it anymore, much like on Mars.

And a sudden shift would mean that the moon gets moved out of its orbit and most likely, by the centrifugal powers created, thrown somewhere into outer space. Last I looked it was still there stabilizing the Earth's axis so it cannot turn but a few degrees north or south.

Of all you imaginative alternative this is the most risible one so far.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Ok, so let me rephrase that: gravitation would decrease to levels of Mars if the earth stopped. Meaning that you could not find anything on it anymore, much like on Mars.

And a sudden shift would mean that the moon gets moved out of its orbit and most likely, by the centrifugal powers created, thrown somewhere into outer space. Last I looked it was still there stabilizing the Earth's axis so it cannot turn but a few degrees north or south.

Of all you imaginative alternative this is the most risible one so far.

There would be no effect on the gravity of the Earth if it stopped.

Since you mentioned the moon,it's orbit and size has often astounded astronomers.

[questionmark]

There would be no effect on the gravity of the Earth if it stopped.

Since you mentioned the moon,it's orbit and size has often astounded astronomers.

Hey, would you quit throwing smoke screens? Or are you just interested in preaching?

[Harsh86_Patel]

Hey, would you quit throwing smoke screens? Or are you just interested in preaching?

Okay let me be more specific,we do not know that the moon and it's orbit as you observe it today have always been stagnant and there is no way to tell.And if a geographical pole shift has happened on Earth it would definitely have an effect on the moon and it's revolution arount the Earth,maybe the orbit of the moon has been altered or can be altered by a major event.No point in taking the moon as a reference in this speculation.Your concept of centrifugal 'power' is very interesting.The Earth doesn't need to stop for a geographical pole shift to have happened and even if the Earth stopped it's rotation the gravitational force of the Earth wouldn't be impacted so the moon wouldn't go flying off.Gravity is independant of Earth's rotation,and that is the answer to your query hence i was streesing on it,was not trying to preach or put any smoke screens.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

but even that wouldn't affect already laid down sediment, it juat means there'd be no humans aroun to aak questions.

[Harsh86_Patel]

but even that wouldn't affect already laid down sediment, it juat means there'd be no humans aroun to aak questions.

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

[Harte]

Okay let me be more specific,we do not know that the moon and it's orbit as you observe it today have always been stagnant and there is no way to tell.

In fact, not only is there a way to tell, they've already figured it out.

Tidal marks on sedimentary stone show that the Moon was once much closer to the Earth. This fits perfectly with the observed fact that the Moon is gradually increasing its orbital distance (radius) from the Earth - about an inch or two a year, IIRC.

And if a geographical pole shift has happened on Earth it would definitely have an effect on the moon and it's revolution arount the Earth,maybe the orbit of the moon has been altered or can be altered by a major event.No point in taking the moon as a reference in this speculation.

A pole shift such as you describe would completely wipe out practically every species on Earth.

See, there is energy stored in the rotation of the Earth (angular momentum.) This energy, along with the Moon's gravitational stabilizing effect, absolutely prevents the Earth from simply flipping over (think gyroscope.) If some outside force caused a pole shift, the energy involved would likely melt the entire surface of the Earth.

All of which means there would be nobody to "mistakenly assume" that the geological column was wrong.

Harte

[Harsh86_Patel]

In fact, not only is there a way to tell, they've already figured it out.

Tidal marks on sedimentary stone show that the Moon was once much closer to the Earth. This fits perfectly with the observed fact that the Moon is gradually increasing its orbital distance (radius) from the Earth - about an inch or two a year, IIRC.

A pole shift such as you describe would completely wipe out practically every species on Earth.

See, there is energy stored in the rotation of the Earth (angular momentum.) This energy, along with the Moon's gravitational stabilizing effect, absolutely prevents the Earth from simply flipping over (think gyroscope.) If some outside force caused a pole shift, the energy involved would likely melt the entire surface of the Earth.

All of which means there would be nobody to "mistakenly assume" that the geological column was wrong.

Harte

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.

Such an event 'could' not necessarily 'will' kill all known species (intervention can be possible).

[Oniomancer]

What if there is a global flood in the future and all the sedimentary layers are reaaranged and disturbed?I am just saying that no matter how great the credentials of a person 'assuming' something are,'assumptions' should only be stated as 'assumptions' and not 'fact'.

Also-Carbon Dating is only claimed to be accurate till a period of 80,000 years and what you probably mean in K-Ar dating.You should read up on the assumptions made in decideing the Geological column.

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.

[Oniomancer]

A Geographical Pole Shift; also known as a Geophysical Pole Shift. This is the process wherein the North Pole changes positions somewhere between 0 degrees to 180 degrees with the South Pole. In a total positional change, the globe literally flips over, such that the two poles change positions. There is much evidence this has occured numerous times in the past. This would be a Slate Wiper! Continents would sweep over continents. Some continents would fall to the sea floor. Mountains would be hurled into the oceans; and, in some cases, be hurled into other mountains. The geography would change quickly. Ocean basins would sweep over continents wiping out all living things. There would be felt an instant tingling and then burning of the skin as humans would undergo flash freezing. At the same time cold areas would become tropic areas and vice versa.

Winds would reach 300 or more miles per hour, knocking down anything in their way. Giant tsunamis 3 and 4 miles high would sweep across most of the world, bringing enormous energy and pressure against whatever they strike. This would erase small countries and islands forever, leaving no trace of what was there for later history. But still, life has always survived to generate great civilizations.

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.

[Harte]

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]

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]

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.creationmoments.com/content/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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.com/sites/alexknapp/2011/05/03/radioactive-decay-rates-may-not-be-constant-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]

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.

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

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.

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 September 28, 2012 by Oniomancer

[Oniomancer]

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.