[_ Old Earth _] Columnar Basalt/Lava Flows vs The Flood

[jwu]

Why did it 'have' to cool slowly, and how slowly do you think it had to cool and why?

Because otherwise it wouldn't form this structure of columns; that's a crystallization process.

However, since we've seen references of columnar basalt which formed in sills, that's beside the point meanwhile anyway.

Also I don't say physics laws worked differently, I simply point out they did not exist then, and will not again in the future. The laws beyond the present governed more than physical only mass.

Working differently or not existing is pretty much identical in effect for the purpose of this debate.
You use it as ad-hoc rationalizations for just about everything that contradicts your position, and that positition is about as unfalsifiable as "Goddidit", hence no-one takes you serious anymore.

I also pointed out that I saw no reason layers you claimed 'could not' be pre flood actually were not pre flood.
Obviously you want to preach, rather than discuss. Fine.

The discussion about that already happened, you're too late...now the topic is a different one.
If you have some good idea how the tuff formations which i mentioned recently could form during a worldwide flood, let me hear it.

 

[dad]

Why did it 'have' to cool slowly, and how slowly do you think it had to cool and why?

Because otherwise it wouldn't form this structure of columns; that's a crystallization process.

Well, what I was driving at is that the atomic level past differences meant that it cooled faster, but still left columns in some cases. The rates were simply not the same.
" A magma's resistance to flow is a function of its "internal friction" derived from the generation of chemical bonds within the liquid. Chemical bonds are created between negatively charged and positively charged ions (anions and cations, respectively). "

A small silicon atom bonds with four larger oxygen atoms to create a single tetrahedron (A and B). These chemical compounds (radicals) are electrically charged and can bond (covalently) with other tetrahedra (C). The linked tetrahedra can form a variety of different shapes, which include single chains of tetrahedra, double chains, and complex networks of interlinked tetrahedra. The bonding will increase polymerization as temperature falls and crystallization proceeds.
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcano ... _page.html

http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcano ... trols.html

So, in a past where the state of matter wwas different, to the point even of no radioactive decay universally, we can see that the viscosity, and overall cooling rates of magma could be far different! What you have done is simply tell us how it now works. If you want to talk the present that is fine and dandy, however you seek to impose this present reality on our wonderful past. You simply may not do that on a whim, and an assumption, any more than we can impose this present reality on the coming new heavens.

[quote:ba687] Also I don't say physics laws worked differently, I simply point out they did not exist then, and will not again in the future. The laws beyond the present governed more than physical only mass.

Working differently or not existing is pretty much identical in effect for the purpose of this debate.[/quote:ba687]
OK, but if I don't qualify it, some take it to mean things like saying I claim our light speed slowed, rather than came to be. Yes, everything was different down to the very fabric of the universe, and space time. I can't see any other way.

You use it as ad-hoc rationalizations for just about everything that contradicts your position,

Not subjeacting the future and past with no evidence whatsoever to the limitations of our temporary physical only present state of the universe is not ad hoc. It is questioning the unsupported underlying assumptions behind the claims old agers make.

I also pointed out that I saw no reason layers you claimed 'could not' be pre flood actually were not pre flood.
Obviously you want to preach, rather than discuss. Fine.

The discussion about that already happened, you're too late...now the topic is a different one.[/quote]
I responded to the OP, in this thread, and the reply you gave in this thread. I consider the majority of the geologic column to be pre flood. That is why I questioned your claim that it 'couldn't be' pre flood stuff under some columns. It could, and likely is, in many cases.

If you have some good idea how the tuff formations which i mentioned recently could form during a worldwide flood, let me hear it.

What about tuffs do you need to know? I think any tuffs you can come up with will be easys.

 

[jwu]

So, in a past where the state of matter wwas different, to the point even of no radioactive decay universally, we can see that the viscosity, and overall cooling rates of magma could be far different! What you have done is simply tell us how it now works. If you want to talk the present that is fine and dandy, however you seek to impose this present reality on our wonderful past. You simply may not do that on a whim, and an assumption, any more than we can impose this present reality on the coming new heavens.

And that still doesn't address the issue...in addition to there being no evidence whatsoever of such a change of the physical properties.

I responded to the OP, in this thread, and the reply you gave in this thread. I consider the majority of the geologic column to be pre flood. That is why I questioned your claim that it 'couldn't be' pre flood stuff under some columns. It could, and likely is, in many cases.

Actually i didn't say they couldn't be "pre flood", i was working with the information about what Charlie considers to be "mid-flood" strata.

Either way, the columnar basalt thing is outdated as Charlie could find a reference of it forming underground.

What about tuffs do you need to know? I think any tuffs you can come up with will be easys.

How the Brisbane and the Hector tuff formed in the middle of a worldwide flood (they're triassic strata).
Read the past page of the thread for a description of what kind of problem they pose for a global flood which is supposed to have laid down the strate from the cambrian to the miocene (that was the upper limit, wasn't it? Either way, the triassic falls clearly within the range)

 

[dad]

And that still doesn't address the issue...in addition to there being no evidence whatsoever of such a change of the physical properties.

I can't think of an issue it doesn't address, as elusive as yours might be. But if you talk evidence, there is none either way, so don't throw stones.

Actually i didn't say they couldn't be "pre flood", i was working with the information about what Charlie considers to be "mid-flood" strata.

You said, "it's clearly above anything that can be called pre flood: " Remember? Just check the OP.

Either way, the columnar basalt thing is outdated as Charlie could find a reference of it forming underground.

So the OP is outdated, fine.

How the Brisbane and the Hector tuff formed in the middle of a worldwide flood (they're triassic strata).

Oh, well I consider most stuff pre flood anyhow. Sorry Charlie.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Oh, well I consider most stuff pre flood anyhow. Sorry Charlie.

O.K., your dating yourself, as well am I.

:P

I think it's a continuum. I've got a response, to the whole general question at hand, inwork.

 

[jwu]

I can't think of an issue it doesn't address, as elusive as yours might be. But if you talk evidence, there is none either way, so don't throw stones.

Actually there are many things which indicate that the physical properties of the universe didn't change in the past, unless many of them changed in some freak way which obscures the changes.

You said, "it's clearly above anything that can be called pre flood: " Remember? Just check the OP.

So what? Being above something that can be called pre-flood doesn't mean that it can't be pre-flood itself. If they formed right before the flood on top of the pe-flood strata as the last pre-flood strata, then that condition is fulfilled.

However, it was to be taken in the context of the supposed flood strata beginning at the cambrian by Charlie - and they are all clearly above the Cambrian.

So the OP is outdated, fine.

The part about the columnar basalt, yes...which you would have noticed, had you read the thread.

Oh, well I consider most stuff pre flood anyhow. Sorry Charlie.

And where is the threshold and how do you account for all those strata then, which would have to have formed in just about a thousand years?

 

[dad]

Oh, well I consider most stuff pre flood anyhow. Sorry Charlie.

O.K., your dating yourself, as well am I.
.

I guess you are refering to the sorry Charlie thing. Kind of like so long Charlie.
Or was it that we were older than the flood, therefore pre flood?
Or perhaps something else?
I suppose you are a flood geology believer. I used to use that to try to explain the record we see. Upon putting it's feet to the fire of very educated people, and scientists, cosmo whizs, and geologists, and geologist wanna bes, and theoretical physics old timers, and the like, it seemed to me they had some strong points.
For example, about Walt Brown's hydroplate theory, and the heat it would, they say, actually cause.
So now I have dug a lot deeper, into the heart and basis of where the old age claims really come from. And in that place I have seen that it is based on nothing.
Cheers

 

[dad]

Actually there are many things which indicate that the physical properties of the universe didn't change in the past, unless many of them changed in some freak way which obscures the changes.
Don't think so. Not the one.

You said, "it's clearly above anything that can be called pre flood: " Remember? Just check the OP.

So what? Being above something that can be called pre-flood doesn't mean that it can't be pre-flood itself. If they formed right before the flood on top of the pe-flood strata as the last pre-flood strata, then that condition is fulfilled.

[quote:be220]However, it was to be taken in the context of the supposed flood strata beginning at the cambrian by Charlie - and they are all clearly above the Cambrian.

OK in the context that it is thought that the flood layer started at the cambrian, yes, it is probably not pre flood.

The part about the columnar basalt, yes...which you would have noticed, had you read the thread.

Reminds me of a few Japaneese and Jewish friends that opened a retaraunt together, they called it, "So sue me"

And where is the threshold and how do you account for all those strata then, which would have to have formed in just about a thousand years?

[/quote:be220]
In my humble estimation, the flood layer may be the KT layer, or up somewhere near the Cenozoic.

The new planet in that different state past had not yet been weighed down with a world of water. Also, the state of matter was different, and even gravity as we now know it, was not in existance. As a result the subteranean waters of the time came up to water the earth, possibly carrying some things like salts with them. With the super fast plant growth, and warm climate, this all helped layers to accumulate quickly. (Since the continents slid apart fast, with the subsequent mountain building, and uppiling in many areas, it is sometimes not readily apparent)
-Very quickly. So much so that in a mere 1600 years or so that existed pre flood, we had the great depths we see.
That is the short answer.

 

[jwu]

The new planet in that different state past had not yet been weighed down with a world of water. Also, the state of matter was different, and even gravity as we now know it, was not in existance. As a result the subteranean waters of the time came up to water the earth, possibly carrying some things like salts with them. With the super fast plant growth, and warm climate, this all helped layers to accumulate quickly. (Since the continents slid apart fast, with the subsequent mountain building, and uppiling in many areas, it is sometimes not readily apparent)
-Very quickly. So much so that in a mere 1600 years or so that existed pre flood, we had the great depths we see.

Then why are the fossils which we find in these strata so different from very most what is alive today? And what held the sun together when there was no gravity, and all the things on the surface of the earth? Little invisible fairies pushing them down? Why can we see from fossil skeletons that they have legs which re supposed to support some significant weight?

In my humble estimation, the flood layer may be the KT layer, or up somewhere near the Cenozoic.

Umm...the cenozoic began with the K/T layer (T stands for tertiary, which is part of the cenozoic) and it continues up to this date. So...could you be a bit more precise?

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

I guess you are refering to the sorry Charlie thing. Kind of like so long Charlie.Or was it that we were older than the flood, therefore pre flood?

I like the preFlood option, but I was actually referring to the old Starkist tuna ads... :P

 

[dad]

I guess you are refering to the sorry Charlie thing. Kind of like so long Charlie.Or was it that we were older than the flood, therefore pre flood?

I like the preFlood option, but I was actually referring to the old Starkist tuna ads... :P

 

[dad]

..Then why are the fossils which we find in these strata so different from very most what is alive today?

Hyper evolution in the different past, and extictions.

And what held the sun together when there was no gravity, and all the things on the surface of the earth?

No gravity as we know it does not mean nothing. It simply means that there were a different set of forces to govern a universe that also had the spiritual as well as the physical. In heaven, we can fly, and our city as big as the moon comes down from heave to land forever here. Does that sound like our gravity as it is will be in place? Is gravity something that holds down spirits, or spiritual material? Or is it something in a physical universe we need?

Why can we see from fossil skeletons that they have legs which re supposed to support some significant weight?

We also walked, and had legs. But when it comes to fossils, which ones tell you that gravity was exactly as it now is? Got a ferinstance?

Umm...the cenozoic began with the K/T layer (T stands for tertiary, which is part of the cenozoic) and it continues up to this date. So...could you be a bit more precise?

Ha. well, I have not fully locked into a precise layer. But I threw out the KT on another forum, and did not receive any reason to reject it as of yet.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Hehe...here's an old phone replica of Charlie the Tuna...

http://www.ericofon.com/sale/novelty/charlie.htm

 

[dad]

Hehe...here's an old phone replica of Charlie the Tuna...

http://www.ericofon.com/sale/novelty/charlie.htm

Somehow, I think I missed that decade in spending much time watching TV. Sorry, Charlie.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

charlie:
It’s very possible the “air fall ignimbrites†were blasted through the water, high into the atmosphere, and settled back on the basin floor. But more likely, the Triassic and Jurassic , geologically, document the middle phases of a worldwide, catastrophic, tectonic and water inundation event.

O.K. Let’s back up and talk about my main point. Somehow we got sidetracked onto one of the secondary hypotheses.

charlie:
But more likely, the Triassic and Jurassic , geologically, document the middle phases of a worldwide, catastrophic, tectonic and water inundation event.

The various fossil assemblages represent, not evolutionary stages developing over many ages, but rather ecological habitats in various parts of the world in one age. Fossils of simple marine invertebrate animals are normally found at the lowest elevations in the geologic strata for the simple reason that they live at the lowest elevations. Fossils or birds and mammals are found only at the higher elevations because they live at higher elevations and also because they are more mobile and could escape burial longer. Human fossils are extremely rare because men would only very rarely be trapped and buried in flood sediments at all, because of their high mobility.

Dr. Henry Morris, Ph.D.

Hydraulic Engineering

http://www.icr.org/article/54/

1. Tertiary fossils include: large numbers of mammals including man and many birds.
2. Cretaceous fossils include: large dinosaurs and other reptiles, a few birds and a very few mammals (rare).
3. Jurassic fossils include: marine life, large and small dinosaurs, reptiles other than dinosaurs, a very few mammals (rare), and a very few now extinct birds.
4. Triassic fossils include: Fish, invertebrates, plants, salamanders, other reptiles, turtles, frogs, and very, very rarely, a mammal. Note, all these live at relatively low elevations.
5. The animal fossils in the Permian strata include:Trilobites, brachiopods, amphibians, and reptiles. Note, all these live at relatively low elevations.
6. The animal fossils in the Pennsylvanian strata include:Brachiopods, bivalves,cnidarians, echinoderms, and gastropods, again, all living predominantly at lower elevations
7. The Missippian is marked by all marine animal life, with the only vertebrate animals being the amphibians and fishes.
8. The Devonian is marked by all marine animal life, with the first amphibians showing up at the end of it’s chapter.
9. The Silurian period is marked by all marine life. No Amphibians are recorded.
10. The Ordovician again records all marine animal life.
11. The Cambrian, is, again, all marine animal life.


Note the digression from higher elevations to lower elevations. Also note the digression according to mobility. This is exactly how one would expect the fossil record to appear in a world wide flood. And note, each strata lies comformably upon the next, leaving no room for long ages. The only reason long ages were ever hypothesized is because ToE requires very, very long ages to even be considered remotely possible.

Alright, I'll catch up with you next week. Wifey has a long list of honey do's for me.

Cheers!! :D

 

[jwu]

Charlie, this has nothing to do with ignimbrites and fumaroles.

I'll make a different thread for discussion the distribution of fossils.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

jwu:

Charlie, this has nothing to do with ignimbrites and fumaroles.

I'll make a different thread for discussion the distribution of fossils.

This is the beginning of the debate.

jwu

So all these strata were exposed to air when the lava flows formed, i.e. not

they didn't form during a global flood.

Ha!. Your not getting off that easy. :D The issue was how are there

ignimbrites and fumaroles in flood strata. I just explained how. The strata

was not fully covered with water. Water didn't fully cover the earth until the

K/T boundary.

Nice try rascal! 8-)

 

[jwu]

Ha!. Your not getting off that easy. The issue was how are there

ignimbrites and fumaroles in flood strata. I just explained how. The strata

was not fully covered with water. Water didn't fully cover the earth until the

K/T boundary.

Nice try rascal!

Me trying to get off something? No, just me trying to stop you from throwing a red herring. The distribution of fossils has nothing to do with this thread, which is about non-fossil geological features and how they formed.

So you're now saying that the hector and brisbane tuffs formed at a time when the whole earth wasn't covered yet? (How was i supposed to read that from the fossil stuff, and what in Spock's name has the quote from my opening post to do with the current situation?)

(PS: Some minor edits occured when Charlie already was typing his reply)

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Me trying to get off something? No, just me trying to stop you from posting a red herring. The distribution of fossils has nothing to do with this thread, which is about non-fossil geological features.

So you're now saying that the hector and brisbane tuffs formed at a time when the whole earth wasn't covered yet? (how was i supposed to read that from the fossil stuff?)

So you're now saying that the hector and brisbane tuffs formed at a time when the whole earth wasn't covered yet?

It was my contention all along, you just picked up on a side issue and ran with it.

charlie:
It’s very possible the “air fall ignimbrites†were blasted through the water, high into the atmosphere, and settled back on the basin floor. But more likely, the Triassic and Jurassic , geologically, document the middle phases of a worldwide, catastrophic, tectonic and water inundation event.

jwu

So all these strata were exposed to air when the lava flows formed, i.e. not

they didn't form during a global flood.

Remember, this was the original issue, then we started dissecting the issue.

(how was i supposed to read that from the fossil stuff?)

Understood. Now you know what I was getting at. I can see why that might have been confusing.

Now, I have got to get off the computer before my wife strangles me. I love this stuff!!

 

[jwu]

Well, i guess we won't get anywhere if we now begin to argue in how far that point about not the whole earth being covered by that time was supposed to get clear with the earlier posts, so i'll leave it at that.

However...these tuffs are triassic. You previously said that the strata from the cambrian to the mesozoic or something like that (either way, way later than the triassic) were laid down by the noachian flood.

That leaves some questions: Where did the underlying strata come from? was it submerged at some time, rose above the waters, had the tuffs deposited, and then was submerged again?

What is the range of strata during which the earth was supposedly completely covered by water?