Global Flood explains Oil Deposits and Geological layers

a reply to: cooperton

Lol look you couldn't do it, shocker.

Oh, really?? This isn't one of your pretending to be science websites!!!
agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

t is has been known for over two decades that the paleomagnetism of volcanics may yield emplacement age clues, once the paleomagnetic directions retrieved from loosely dated flows are compared to an independently obtained reference curve of the paleosecular variation (PSV) of the geomagnetic field. This approach was attempted at Etna almost a century ago [Chevallier, 1925] and was successfully applied more recently to lavas from Vesuvio [Hoye, 1981] and Etna [Tanguy et al., 1985; Rolph and Shaw, 1986]. This “paleomagnetic dating” method may represent in principle the most powerful dating tool for recent (i.e., up to few thousand years ago) volcanics, where soils (datable by 14C methods) hardly develop if the eruption rate is high. Furthermore, detailing the eruption ages for the last few centuries or millennia is fundamental to constrain the future hazard, as eruptions are often framed into repetitive “volcanic cycles,” displaying similar characteristics both in terms of types and timing of eruptions.

link.springer.com...

Paleomagnetism provides data that are important in the interpretation of geological processes. For paleomagnetic results to be reliable for this purpose, several stringent conditions must be fulfilled. First, a rock under investigation must be able to record accurately the direction and intensity of the weak geomagnetic field during its formation or later alteration. This requires an understanding of the magnetic properties of rocks and minerals. Second, the age of acquisition of the rock’s magnetization, or its subsequent alteration, must be well known. Field tests based on the local and regional geology of a sampling site are valuable in this respect. Third, the remanent magnetization of the rock must possess outstanding stability in order to be able to persist...

www.nature.com...

This approach is demonstrated on a stalagmite collected from the Soprador do Carvalho cave in the Central Region of Portugal. A radioisotopic age model, built using four U-series ages and three 14C, suggests relatively steady carbonate precipitation from ~ 5760 BCE until ~ 1920 CE. Forty-five 6 mm-thick subsamples were analyzed using alternating field and thermal demagnetization protocols, providing well-defined, primary magnetic directions. An age model of the stalagmite was obtained by fitting its paleomagnetic record with the reference paleosecular variation curves obtained by previous paleo-reconstruction models, applying statistical bootstrapping analysis to define their best fit. The resulting age models fit closely with the radioisotopic age model but provide a significantly higher time resolution. We reach the same conclusion when applying this approach to another stalagmite from the Algarve region of Portugal. Our approach thus appears a promising alternative to date young speleothems with high detrital contents.

interestingengineering.com...

There's plenty of evidence other than 'God did it'

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: andy06shake
D'oh!

Firmament done it.

"water did it", makes more sense than "the ocean floor raised 5 miles above sea level". Imagine the absurdity of supposing those marine fossils would have remained on the surface all throughout those hundreds of millions of years that it theoretically took Everest to emerge out of the ocean.

Where did the water go or come from a global flood would mean that there is more water underground then on the surface . Somehow it would have had to be pushed from underground , Did our core swell or was there a underground earthquake that opened a crack to the core and the vast underground ocean was turned into steam and released into the air -

a reply to: cooperton



Aye, but my thinking being, the upper seas and "water" above the Firmament if she somewhat sprung a leak.

And, and, Libyan desert glass and all that jazz.

On a more serious note, while there are many flood myths in various cultures, that feature throughout recorded history, the general scientific consensus does not support the occurrence of a global flood as a singular catastrophic event.

Moreover, the laws of physics and the principles of hydrodynamics make it challenging for a global flood to have occurred as described in certain ""religious texts"".

Anyhoo need to go play in the real world for a spell.

It's been a pleasure peeps, hope you are all getting ready for Christmas or thereabouts.

a reply to: Kurokage

Nice copy and paste, so where does it show in that paper that this method is reliable and consistent? You're presenting the data, it is your job to show why this supposedly shows that paleomagnetism is absolutely reliable. The thing is, acolytes vastly over-estimate the reliability of these methods. When in actuality, it is well known they are not reliable for various reasons:

Geological Complexity: Rock formations and geological processes can introduce complexities. Rocks might have undergone alterations, or other disturbances, affecting the preservation and orientation of magnetic minerals, which can lead to inaccurate readings.

Secondary Magnetization: Rocks can acquire magnetization at different times due to multiple geological events, resulting in the presence of multiple magnetization components. Distinguishing between primary (original) and secondary (later acquired) magnetizations can be challenging, leading to inconsistencies.

Rock Alteration: Alteration processes such as heating, metamorphism, or weathering can modify the magnetic minerals or their alignment, affecting the reliability of paleomagnetic data.

Sampling and Laboratory Procedures: Inadequate sampling or improper laboratory handling can introduce errors. Contamination, mislabeling of samples, or improper demagnetization techniques can lead to inconsistent or misleading results.

Complex Magnetic Behavior: Some minerals can exhibit complex magnetic behavior, such as magnetic hysteresis, which might not follow a simple linear relationship between magnetic field strength and magnetization. This complexity can lead to difficulties in interpretation.

Ambiguity in Interpretation: Interpreting paleomagnetic data involves making assumptions about the behavior of the Earth's magnetic field and the geological history of the sampled rocks. Assumptions based on limited data or incomplete understanding can introduce inconsistencies in interpretations.

Inherent Methodological Limitations: Certain paleomagnetic techniques have inherent limitations. For instance, some dating methods used in conjunction with paleomagnetism may have uncertainties or limitations, contributing to inconsistencies in establishing accurate timelines.



So as much as you want to believe this is some infallible method, you are wrong. And that paper you cited that you didn't read doesn't circumnavigate the abundant difficulties in making this a sure-fire science.

originally posted by: Ravenwatcher

Where did the water go or come from a global flood would mean that there is more water underground then on the surface . Somehow it would have had to be pushed from underground , Did our core swell or was there a underground earthquake that opened a crack to the core and the vast underground ocean was turned into steam and released into the air -

Yeah I am thinking the core swelled, but there could be a whole host of reasons. There's already underwater vents all throughout the ocean,I imagine some sort of added pressure (swelling of the core) would be able to bring the water to the surface. Someone had also mentioned cosmic gravitational influence but that sounds more difficult to hit that sort of goldi-locks zone where it wouldn't also destroy the earth.

a reply to: cooperton

Nice copy and paste

Thats all you've done. Copy and paste from religious websites trying to pass themselves off as scientific. Yet you complain when some does the same to prove you wrong?
And now your just copying and pasting the same over and over to try and prove your incorrect point. Talk about hipocrite

a reply to: cooperton

Please tell me where the 813,875,076 miles³ of rain water came from considering there's only about 332,500,000 miles³ on and in the Earth.

Did God pee it out and then suck it back up??

Obviously this didn't get read or the discussion would have been finished on page 2.

Since this thread is supposedly about rock evidence -

READ AND LEARN -
21 Reasons In ROCKS that Noahs Worldwide Flood Never Happened

originally posted by: Kurokage

Thats all you've done. Copy and paste from religious websites trying to pass themselves off as scientific. Yet you complain when some does the same to prove you wrong?
And now your just copying and pasting the same over and over to try and prove your incorrect point.

What did I copy and paste from a religious website? I even cite peer-reviewed research to make my point. Mostly all of this is my own research, besides some of the flood accounts that I found from other researchers. You can do a google search with the text from my posts, you will not find it on any other website (besides maybe reddit, I also post there)

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: cooperton

Please tell me where the 813,875,076 miles³ of rain water came from considering there's only about 332,500,000 miles³ on and in the Earth.

Did God pee it out and then suck it back up??

It is apparent you're not even reading my posts. Here it is again:

Bro I've posted this so many times now. The water also came from underground vents, not just rainfall. I'll include this part again because you keep saying I am claiming the water magically appeared... A recent study in 2014 (link) found massive reservoirs of water deep beneath the earth's crust. This reservoir is holding enough water to fill the volume of the earth's oceans 3x over.






One researcher was quoted saying:

"We should be grateful for this deep reservoir... If it wasn't there, it would be on the surface of the Earth, and mountain tops would be the only land poking out."

This is exactly what was said to have happened to cause the global flood. Not only rain from the sky, but also the reservoirs of the deep were opened and water gushed out onto the surface of the earth:

originally posted by: Kurokage
Please tell me where the 813,875,076 miles³ of rain water came from considering there's only about 332,500,000 miles³ on and in the Earth.:

Yeah ... not enough water on the Earth or in the Earth. As I posted

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.

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 ....

Post Flood Animal Survival

"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."

a reply to: cooperton

Bro....
There isn't enough water on/in the planet.

It would take 813,875,076 miles³ of water to be above Everest, there's only about 332,500,000 miles³ on/in the Earth.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
Obviously this didn't get read or the discussion would have been finished on page 2.

Since this thread is supposedly about rock evidence -

READ AND LEARN -
21 Reasons In ROCKS that Noahs Worldwide Flood Never Happened

Go through one at a time and tell me what is the evidence for the age ranges they claim throughout this article. I can do #1 and then it's your responsibility form there. Their claim that Grand Canyon could not have formed quickly is based on the erroneous supposition that it takes mud millions of years to turn to stone. This is absurd, because we use bricks in construction every day that were formed in a day. It's the same with geological layers - if a region because dry / arid then the regions that were once watered and muddy will relatively quickly dry, lithify, and become stone. There's no reason to believe mud takes millions of years to turn into a brick in the sun!

And I'm sure they'll pull the radiometric dating card too. In all of these studies, go and look for where they assume the initial isotopic ratio of the sample. Without the initial isotopic ratio you cannot solve for time (t) in the half-life equation.



You would be shocked that they literally calibrate it to whatever best fits their narrative. This is not science, you are being duped by dogma that refuses to disconsider it's own narrative.

a reply to: FlyersFan

I can't understand how the people who believe in imaginary friends think they can magic 3 times the amount of water needed to cover the Earth.

originally posted by: Kurokage
It would take 813,875,076 miles³ of water to be above Everest, there's only about 332,500,000 miles³ on/in the Earth.

AND ... all that water couldn't drain anywhere, it could only disappear by evaporation which would have taken 12 million years to do.

Post Flood Animal Survival

"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."

originally posted by: Kurokage
I can't understand how the people who believe in imaginary friends think they can magic 3 times the amout of water needed to cover the Earth.

Because of personal experience, I believe in a God ... but that doesn't mean I have to turn my brain off and believe that the Noahs Ark story is literal truth. It obviously isn't. The evidence against it is overwhelming. Since this thread is only supposed to be about the rocks, I have refrained from posting the mountains of other evidence that prove beyond any doubt that Noahs Flood didn't happen. I'm itching to though ...

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Kurokage
It would take 813,875,076 miles³ of water to be above Everest, there's only about 332,500,000 miles³ on/in the Earth.

AND ... all that water couldn't drain anywhere, it could only disappear by evaporation which would have taken 12 million years to do.

Post Flood Animal Survival

"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."

Even then, evaporation only moves it around. What goes up...

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: cooperton

Bro....
There isn't enough water on/in the planet.

It would take 813,875,076 miles³ of water to be above Everest, there's only about 332,500,000 miles³ on/in the Earth.

332,500,000 miles³ in the ocean. There is 3x more water than that in the mantle of the earth (likely even more that has not been detected yet). 3 x 332,500,000 miles³ = 997,500,000 miles³ of water in the mantle, plenty to reach Everest and beyond.

originally posted by: BrucellaOrchitis

AND ... all that water couldn't drain anywhere, it could only disappear by evaporation which would have taken 12 million years to do.

Post Flood Animal Survival

No it would go back underground where most of it came from

originally posted by: FlyersFan

Because of personal experience, I believe in a God ... but that doesn't mean I have to turn my brain off and believe that the Noahs Ark story is literal truth. It obviously isn't. The evidence against it is overwhelming. Since this thread is only supposed to be about the rocks, I have refrained from posting the mountains of other evidence that prove beyond any doubt that Noahs Flood didn't happen. I'm itching to though ...

You are blindly posting other people's research. You don't know the depth of it, and you are easily fooled

a reply to: cooperton

813,875,076 miles³ of water to be above Everest, your clutching at straws now....