Global Flood explains Oil Deposits and Geological layers

a reply to: cooperton

I thought people were screwing up again.. and I screwed up. Probably deserved.

You need rapid erosion, subsidence, and then periodically layering. Basically what Wikipedia said for me. A certain set of circumstances make them rare.

The craziest looking ones are these:

Geologists have also found that some of the larger upright fossil trees found within Carboniferous coal-bearing strata show evidence of regeneration after being partially buried by sediments. In these cases, the trees were clearly alive when they were partially buried by sediments. The accumulated sediment was insufficient to kill the trees immediately because of their size. As a result, some of them developed a new set of roots from their trunks just below the new ground surface.

a reply to: Degradation33

But back to the premise, which i critiqued wrong. I got too distracted by just assuming it was something out of context to explain creationism again.

There's just so much misused here, I took too sarcastic of an approach..

I want a do-over that doesn't backfire.

*** Reset ***

Upright fossils aren't a product of global floods. They are just found in sedimentary environments. Like River deltas and stratovolcanos. But the existence of upright fossils and dykes, even rapidly formed ones, does not lend to a global flood as caused.

Like petroleum deposits. These are created by millions of years of pressure, tectonic motion, and crust replacement.

There is nothing suggesting a global flood in the East Texas Oil Field, unless the flood means East Texas was an underwater continental shelf that looked like this:

The primary productive geologic unit is the Cretaceous-age Woodbine Formation, a regional petroleum-bearing unit which had been known since the early part of the 20th century. This sandstone unit was deposited during a period when East Texas was a shallow sea, approximately 100 million years ago. During a subsequent period it was uplifted with the Sabine Uplift, eroded, and then covered again by the sea, which this time unconformably deposited a layer of impermeable chalk, the Austin Chalk, creating a stratigraphic trap – a situation where oil, which is lighter than water and migrates upwards, reaches a point where it can move no farther, and pools. The source rock for the oil in East Texas is the overlying Eagle Ford Shale.

Late edit:

So if mud can turn to stone so quickly, why are the geological layers believed to be so old?

False dilemma. They ARE old.

Radiometric dating not based on organic material is how they know The granite of The Canadian Shield is the oldest rock in North America.

Much of the granitic rock belongs to the distinctive tonalite–trondhjemite–granodiorite family of rocks, which are characteristic of Archean continental crust. Many of Canada's major ore deposits are associated with greenstone belts.

We know The order of composition..

In California we know the order. Continental slab. Conveyer subduction of the Farralon Plates, Uplift of Sierra Nevada via a volcanic arc, northward motion of pacific relative to north American plate, transverse ranges, sea level drops 400 feet eroding coastal features. They can date all these occurances. Go east into basin and range and we can date the ancient Yellowstone hotspots. All really really old. Last one 600 MYA.

And they date it thusly (one of several isotope methods)

One of its great advantages is that any sample provides two clocks, one based on uranium-235's decay to lead-207 with a half-life of about 700 million years, and one based on uranium-238's decay to lead-206 with a half-life of about 4.5 billion years, providing a built-in crosscheck that allows accurate determination of the age of the sample even if some of the lead has been lost.

a reply to: cooperton

So cars do not run solely on dead Dinosaur-juice, but possibly also dead human juice?

I like that thought. To be sent into a -preferably- turbocharged inline six cylinder and ignited after I turned to oil, refined to 102 octane, after the next extinction event, when they reinvent the ICE again.

Makes me want to reconsider getting burned to ashes, I rather burn in an engine.

originally posted by: cooperton
The evidence for this comes from the way that sedimentary rock is formed.

NOPE. Read up and learn -
21 Reasons In ROCKS that Noahs Worldwide Flood Never Happened

originally posted by: Ohanka
What happened to all the flood water then?

We know for sure the flood never happened. Not enough water on/in Earth for it to happen.


Live Science - Did Noahs Flood Really Happen

The one thing we know for sure from geology is that a global flood never happened," said David Montgomery, a professor of geomorphology at the University of Washington in Seattle and author of "The Rocks Don't Lie: A Geologist Investigates Noah's Flood" (W. W. Norton & Company, 2012). "If you look at it as literally a global flood that covered the world's highest mountains, I'm sorry, there's just not enough water on Earth to do that," he told Live Science.

If the "heavens" opened and all of the water in the atmosphere came down at once as rain, the planet would be submerged — but only to a depth of about 1 inch (2.5 centimeters), according to the U.S. Geological Survey. That's not enough water to justify a canoe, let alone a massive ark.

But what if more than the water in the "heavens" were considered? If all the world's glaciers and ice sheets were to melt, then sea levels would rise by more than 195 feet (60 meters), according to NASA, which would add a bit more water. Moreover, a 2016 study published in the journal Nature Geoscience estimated that there's 5.4 million cubic miles (22.6 million cubic kilometers) of groundwater stored in the upper 1.2 miles (2 km) of Earth's crust, which is enough to cover the land to a depth of 590 feet (180 m). That's a lot of water, but there are cities thousands of feet above sea level, and Mount Everest, the highest mountain on Earth, is more than 29,000 feet (8,849 m) above sea level. On top of that, geologists don't see evidence for a global flood in the rock record.

a reply to: FlyersFan

You are ignoring the possibility of continental plates rising or sinking. The water could have been inside Earth, pushed out and caves breaking in etc, too.

In fact we really do not have a clue what is under our feet, it's unproven theories. Unproven because the deepest we to see with our own eyes, is around 4km into Earth. Beyond that, we really don't know for sure. We can take measurements and interpret them, but beyond that we have no idea.

Even the deepest bore holes that are around 10km is just a scratch on the surface.

originally posted by: ThatDamnDuckAgain
The water could have been inside Earth, pushed out ....

There is not enough underground water to come up and cover the earth over the top of the highest mountains. I gave the link.

And then there is all this - There would be no way for the water to drain so it would have to evaporate, which would have taken 12.1 million years ....

"That's not even considering how long it would have taken the waters to recede. Because the entire planet is now water, the floodwater can't drain anywhere, and can only be removed with evaporation. Based on the 2mm/day evaporation rate of water, it would have taken *4 billion and 420 million* days for the floodwaters to all evaporate. If the earth is covered in water for 12.1 million years, everything we know and love as an animal is most definitely dead, including Noah."

Post Flood Animal Survival

After the flood, the animals on the ark would have faced extreme difficulties. Populations of less than 20 members are almost certainly doomed to extinction.[36] After the ark, there would have been 2 of most animals and 7[note 3] of a few select mammals plus 14 of all birds.[37] These animals would have faced some of the harshest conditions the world has ever known. A flood of 376 days[38] would have killed all plant life, while ocean currents between 40 to 80 meters per second would have swept everything away and buried the earth under a layer of sediment.[35] That's not even considering how long it would have taken the waters to recede. Because the entire planet is now water, the floodwater can't drain anywhere, and can only be removed with evaporation. Based on the 2mm/day evaporation rate of water, it would have taken *4 billion and 420 million* days for the floodwaters to all evaporate. If the earth is covered in water for 12.1 million years, everything we know and love as an animal is most definitely dead, including Noah.[39]

The post-flood herbivores would have had absolutely nothing to eat; most of them would have starved to death. Creationists claim that the great flood deposited meters of sediment all over the earth.[40] Seeds heavier than silt particles would have been the first to settle, buried far deeper than the few inches of depth that seeds need to sprout.[20] The few seeds that did get buried close enough to the surface to sprout would not provide nearly enough vegetation to sustain every herbivore on the ark. Many animals feed on large trees or their fruit, so these would have to fast a long time after the flood ended.[note 4]

The carnivores and omnivores on Noah's Ark would have a viable source of food, for a while at least: the other animals on the ark. The carnivores and the omnivores would have quickly eaten all the herbivores and then within a couple of months would turned on each other (The carnage!) and also eventually have starved to death. The creationist explanations for this make no sense; they claim that carnivores ate corpses, fungi, and even vegetables! Animals will rarely eat corpses more than a month old. The claim that these animals would have gladly eaten corpses that were over a year old and most likely buried under meters of sediment is beyond reason. Most carnivores are unable to eat vegetables (if it were then it would already be a part of their natural diet and thus they wouldn't be carnivores in the first place), and fungi do not grow too prolifically in the Middle East.

After the floodwaters subsided, the animals would have had severe trouble finding fresh water and would have died of dehydration. The flood would have salinated the soil, so all water runoff would have had high concentrations of salt. Most animals, unless they are specially adapted, cannot and will not drink salt water.[41]

The survivors of the ark would also have faced extreme difficulties breeding. The flood would have destroyed the structures necessary for reproduction. Avian species like the eagle require high trees to make their nests in.[42] These would not exist for many years after the flood, by which time the reproductive fitness of the birds would have deteriorated, leading to the extinction of that kind.

a reply to: FlyersFan

What I said, it's theories.

You can't be sure there is no water underground. In fact there is plenty of it but it's inside porous rock. Squeeze that rock and what happens?

Then of course when some local community writes about the highest mountains almost covered, that could be 1mile high mountain or 2mile, 3mile. People back then were not linked like we are.

There are just too many flood myths and a lot of other things not adding up. It's the epitome of human ignorance to think we got it all figured out, because, surprise, we don't.

There are clear signs of a huge cataclysm in our past. Several ones in fact. We were not around that time, we are just living in a very tiny timeframe in relation to how old Earth is supposed to be. No matter how, things do not add up with the current theories. And we discover more theories that are out of alignment daily, especially with space.

It also just needs a big meteor to hit Earth and you would end up with tsunami all over the world. That's still a flood.

a reply to: cooperton

www.worldatlas.com...

There have been no mass extinction events that come close to our time on Earth. None.

The majority of flood myths like Atrahasis, Utanapishtim and Noah are a story heard and passed on through cultural adoption by groups over generations from the Sumerians, Babyalonians to eventually the Isrealites, changing the 'Hero' chosen by God to their cultrual identity.

The idea of a world wide flood has been shown to be wrong on ATS dozens of times.

originally posted by: Kurokage

There have been no mass extinction events that come close to our time on Earth. None.

Tell me how they can date these extinction events with certainty then. I'll save you some time, they rely on vast speculation and you're not going to be able to find an unambiguous answer. You know they consistently find soft tissue in dinosaur bones? That alone ruins the million year old hypothesis.

originally posted by: Kurokage
The majority of flood myths like Atrahasis, Utanapishtim and Noah are a story heard and passed on through cultural adoption by groups over generations from the Sumerians, Babyalonians to eventually the Isrealites, changing the 'Hero' chosen by God to their cultrual identity.

But that wouldn't explain how natives in the Americas recorded a global flood story. Imagine, the only communication to the Americas during this time was: "copy and paste this flood myth"

originally posted by: ThatDamnDuckAgain
a reply to: cooperton

You are ignoring the possibility of continental plates rising or sinking. The water could have been inside Earth, pushed out and caves breaking in etc, too.

In fact we really do not have a clue what is under our feet, it's unproven theories. Unproven because the deepest we to see with our own eyes, is around 4km into Earth. Beyond that, we really don't know for sure. We can take measurements and interpret them, but beyond that we have no idea.

Even the deepest bore holes that are around 10km is just a scratch on the surface.

Yeah you beat me to it. At the end of the day, It is easier for water to rise than whole mountains to rise for explaining the presence of fish fossils on mountains. None of us in this forum know for sure, but I wanted to present that a global flood would explain many of these geological phenomenon. Not to mention most of the cultures throughout history reference it.

So cars do not run solely on dead Dinosaur-juice, but possibly also dead human juice?

I like that thought. To be sent into a -preferably- turbocharged inline six cylinder and ignited after I turned to oil, refined to 102 octane, after the next extinction event, when they reinvent the ICE again.

Makes me want to reconsider getting burned to ashes, I rather burn in an engine.

You might be on to something with this one. There might even be some nephilim blood in the gas at the pump

a reply to: cooperton

Yes, despite that it could have been a world wide tsunami, or even just local one, in the small world back then. This would sufficient explain why water came so fast, lingered around for a while but eventually drained off to the oceans again and some evaporation, too.

Earth is constantly changing, we just don't notice it as much, because of our relative small lifespan and we are just developing methods to look into the past since the last century.

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: Degradation33

But back to the premise, which i critiqued wrong. I got too distracted by just assuming it was something out of context to explain creationism again.

There's just so much misused here, I took too sarcastic of an approach..

I want a do-over that doesn't backfire.

*** Reset ***


Like petroleum deposits. These are created by millions of years of pressure, tectonic motion, and crust replacement.

There is nothing suggesting a global flood in the East Texas Oil Field, unless the flood means East Texas was an underwater continental shelf that looked like this:

"The primary productive geologic unit is the Cretaceous-age Woodbine Formation, a regional petroleum-bearing unit which had been known since the early part of the 20th century. This sandstone unit was deposited during a period when East Texas was a shallow sea, approximately 100 million years ago. During a subsequent period it was uplifted with the Sabine Uplift, eroded, and then covered again by the sea, which this time unconformably deposited a layer of impermeable chalk, the Austin Chalk, creating a stratigraphic trap – a situation where oil, which is lighter than water and migrates upwards, reaches a point where it can move no farther, and pools. The source rock for the oil in East Texas is the overlying Eagle Ford Shale."

geological layers ARE old.

Radiometric dating not based on organic material is how they know The granite of The Canadian Shield is the oldest rock in North America.

The unfortunate thing with a lot of geological claims like this is that they simply have no way of certainly knowing these dates. They can't even properly date fresh volcanic rock, let alone rock that is 100 million years old.

he main thing that tricks people into supposing rocks are millions of years old is radioactive dating of rocks. The lay-person trusts that the experts have a fool-proof method to date these rocks, but that is not the case. Take for example fresh volcanic rock being dated from 250,000-3,200,000 years old despite being known to be 25-50 years old:


source

These results came from the Geochron laboratory, a well-respected radiometric dating lab. The error comes from geologists assuming that there is no daughter isotope in the initial formation of the igneous rock. This greatly skews the data as being wayyyy older than it actually is. The truth is, you could essentially set the initial isotopic ratio to anything lower than the present day concentrations to yield whatever result you would like. Geologists usually calibrate it to the oldest possible date. Even when trying to match two different dating methods, the same error remains. If you don't know the initial concentration of the isotope, it is pure guess work.

This experiment on fresh lava rock shows that their old assumptions are very wrong.

Upright fossils aren't a product of global floods. They are just found in sedimentary environments. Like River deltas and stratovolcanos. But the existence of upright fossils and dykes, even rapidly formed ones, does not lend to a global flood as caused.

They permeate through multiple strata of geological layers though, if that layered effect we see in areas like the Appalachian mountain has a tree sticking through it then it is very obvious that the layer formed quickly. There's no good reason to support the millions of years hypothesis, these formations can occur quickly after a cataclysm.

a reply to: cooperton

Tell me how they can date these extinction events with certainty then. I'll save you some time, they rely on vast speculation and you're not going to be able to find an unambiguous answer.

Something called the fossil record....

evolution.berkeley.edu...

Mass extinctions were first identified by the obvious traces they left in the fossil record. In the strata corresponding to these time periods, the lower, older rock layer contains a great diversity of fossil life forms, while the younger layer immediately above is depauperate in comparison. Often, the rock layers bookending the mass extinction are noticeably different in their compositions. These changes in the rocks show the effects of environmental disturbances that triggered the mass extinction and sometimes hint at the catastrophic cause of the extinction.

Such dramatic changes in adjacent rock layers make it clear that mass extinctions were geologically rapid and suggest that they were caused by catastrophic events (e.g., a period of intense volcanic activity).

bio.libretexts.org...

The fossil record of the mass extinctions was the basis for defining periods of geological history, so they typically occur at the transition point between geological periods. The transition in fossils from one period to another reflects the dramatic loss of species and the gradual origin of new species. These transitions can be seen in the rock layers.

Flood Myths are easy to understand when you're not closed minded. Early human settlers lived close to shore lines to take advantage of the eviroment. There's plenty of evidence of this, Doggerland is perfect example. Sea level rises after the last ice age and local but large flooding for the people living in those areas.

originally posted by: ThatDamnDuckAgain
a reply to: cooperton

Yes, despite that it could have been a world wide tsunami, or even just local one, in the small world back then. This would sufficient explain why water came so fast, lingered around for a while but eventually drained off to the oceans again and some evaporation, too.

Earth is constantly changing, we just don't notice it as much, because of our relative small lifespan and we are just developing methods to look into the past since the last century.

Yeah it is funny how water is the most taboo topic to consider for the cause of these cataclysms. Graham Hancock though has been huge in at least bringing it into discussion to the mainstream.

Another interesting thing I found was the rate of stalactite deposition is wayyyyy faster than we were told. Thanks to empirical science conducted by independent researchers around the world, we can get a more accurate timescale for how long it takes stalactites to form.



The above video is a home experiment conducted that shows that limestone stalactites can form rather quickly. In the experiment above he found that the limestone stalactite will grow about 1ft every 10 years. That means 1,000 years can generate a 100ft stalactite. The record for the longest stalacatite every found is only 92ft long, in Brazil:



According to the experimental rate on limestone stalactite formation rate, this record-breaking stalactite could have formed in less than 1000 years. The confusion comes from random articles online making unbased claims, such as this article which arbitrarily claims that stalactites only grow about 4 inches every thousand years. Far different from the scientific experiment that showed 1000 years could generate a 100ft stalactite.

originally posted by: Kurokage


Something called the fossil record....

evolution.berkeley.edu...

Mass extinctions were first identified by the obvious traces they left in the fossil record. In the strata corresponding to these time periods, the lower, older rock layer contains a great diversity of fossil life forms, while the younger layer immediately above is depauperate in comparison. Often, the rock layers bookending the mass extinction are noticeably different in their compositions. These changes in the rocks show the effects of environmental disturbances that triggered the mass extinction and sometimes hint at the catastrophic cause of the extinction.

Such dramatic changes in adjacent rock layers make it clear that mass extinctions were geologically rapid and suggest that they were caused by catastrophic events (e.g., a period of intense volcanic activity).

But that's all vastly wrong if dinosaurs are only thousands of years old. Not only have our ancestors depicted dinosaurs throughout history, but now scientists consistently finds soft tissue in dinosaur remains, and they are found in conditions that would not allow extraordinarily unusual preservation.




This was the first hallmark discovery of soft tissue in a T-rex fossil. Since then it has become normal to find soft tissue in dinosaur bones now that they know where to look. Yeah you'll be able to google and they'll be someone coping that somehow soft tissue can last millions of years, but why would we turn the entirety of preservation science on its head to accommodate a theory that does not stand empirical scrutiny?

Soft tissue in dinosaur bones also means that you can carbon-date the material - since soft tissue is made of carbon. Surely enough, the date range was between 4,000-45,000 years old, here's two examples from Georgia University:



The lab stood by their results, until it was leaked that they actually were dating dinosaur bones lol. Then they had a panic attack and revoked their results to maintain their fantasy:



More carbon-dating has been done at other labs on these samples:
carbon-dating dinosaur soft tissue

a reply to: cooperton

Graham Hancock though has been huge in at least bringing it into discussion to the mainstream.

Graham Hancock has very few scientific credentials other an undergraduate degree in sociology, with no education in astronomy, geology, history, archaeology, or religion and mythology.

a reply to: cooperton

But that's all vastly wrong if dinosaurs are only thousands of years old.

What? Dino's are millions of years old, not thousands? Posting a report from religious nutjobs is not science....

originally posted by: Kurokage

What? Dino's are millions of years old, not thousands? Posting a report from religious nutjobs is not science....

The university of Georgia is not a religious nut job. They were the ones who generated the empirical data regarding the age of the dinosaur sample. You just hate the results so you resort to attacking people's character. It's classic science denial

originally posted by: Kurokage

Graham Hancock has very few scientific credentials other an undergraduate degree in sociology, with no education in astronomy, geology, history, archaeology, or religion and mythology.

I care about empirical evidence, I do not blindly trust 'experts'.

When a researcher says something is 100s of millions of years old, if they don't explain why, then there's no reason I should trust them... If they do explain why, then I will parse the data and see if it is a reliable method they used. Like I said in another post, fresh volcanic rock was dated to millions of years old lol, it's not a reliable method because they don't know the initial concentration of isotopic ratios (which is necessary to solve for 'time elapsed' in the half-life equation).

a reply to: cooperton

The report is from newgeology.us which is a religious wesite pretending to be scientific and failing...

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: cooperton

The report is from newgeology.us which is a religious wesite pretending to be scientific and failing...

The researchers themselves didn't do the actual carbon-dating. The AMS data was from the University of Georgia, an accredited lab:



Do you have any evidence to support your assertion besides appeals to authority and character assassination? We should be excited at new results that change paradigms! The same spirit that persecuted Galileo is the same dogma that is currently defending the mutant ape theory.