Uniformitarianism or catastrophism?

[Mr-Vaquero]

Hello,
Uniformitarianism and catastrophism are 2 ways to look at Earth's geologic history.

Uniformitarianism suggests for example that surface features we see on Earth are caused by long term uniform processes such as weathering or plate tectonics.

Catastrophism suggests that features on Earth can be explained by sudden, short events. Such as Noah's flood or a meteorite impact.

So, what theory do you like best and why?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #0]

Man you creationists really need new arguments.

https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH581.html

http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Nr42Response.pdf

Why in the world would we need to? You have not answered these arguments yet.

I am assuming that the first article is your attempt to explain how the Grand Canyon could have formed. In the article you cited they make this statement. "The Colorado Plateau started rising gradually about seventy million years ago. As it rose, existing rivers deepened, carving through the previous sediments (Harris and Kiver 1985, 273-282)." Basalts are found on the north rim of the grand canyon that is dated to be 6 million years old according to deep time theory. The problem is these same basalts are also found on the north rim of the canyon. So the canyon can be no more than 6 million years old according to deep time theory. This would make it impossible for the Colorado river to cut through this basalt layer unless water found a way through time and chance to flow uphill. Because the headwaters of Colorado are lower than the North or South rim. (K.E. Karlstrom et al., “40Ar/39Ar and Field Studies of Quaternary Basalts in Grand Canyon and Model for Carving Grand Canyon: Quantifying the Interaction of River Incision and Normal Faulting Across the Western Edge of the Colorado Plateau,” Geological Society of America Bulletin 119 (2007): 1283–1312; K.E. Karlstrom et al., “Model for Tectonically Driven Incision of the Younger than 6 Ma Grand Canyon,” Geology 36 (2008): 835–838.)

The second article did not address the issue I cited either the purity of the chalk layer.

For white chalk to form it has to be composed of almost entirely calcium carbonate. When limestone has impurities the color changes to yellow or grey.

You are supporting the view that these chalk deposits in Dover are around 97% pure. Where deposited over 11 million years.
How in the world could it stay that pure? No mud? No other sediments. I really do not think that is possible. Seeing how you are a uniformitarian. Kind of.

Then you do not believe in uniformitarianism, you believe in catastrophism.
Already been covered in this thread. Keep up.

I have been you did not make your case. Uniformitarianism and catastrophism are opposite sides of the spectrum. So are you saying that the so-called asteroid that Dr. no Gods was talking about was not a worldwide event? Do you even know what you are defending? Because catastrophism is where it is at man no matter what you believe. Everyone believes in catastrophism.

[Jose Fly]

Why in the world would we need to?

Because all you're doing is rehashing very old talking points that have been done to death. But if you want to keep regurgitating the same old nonsense, I won't stop you.

I am assuming that the first article is your attempt to explain how the Grand Canyon could have formed.

It's a response to the ancient creationist argument that the GC was the result of Noah's flood. It contains several lines of evidence showing how it couldn't have been, 99% of which you ignored.

In the article you cited they make this statement. "The Colorado Plateau started rising gradually about seventy million years ago. As it rose, existing rivers deepened, carving through the previous sediments (Harris and Kiver 1985, 273-282)." Basalts are found on the north rim of the grand canyon that is dated to be 6 million years old according to deep time theory. The problem is these same basalts are also found on the north rim of the canyon. So the canyon can be no more than 6 million years old according to deep time theory. This would make it impossible for the Colorado river to cut through this basalt layer unless water found a way through time and chance to flow uphill. Because the headwaters of Colorado are lower than the North or South rim. (K.E. Karlstrom et al., “40Ar/39Ar and Field Studies of Quaternary Basalts in Grand Canyon and Model for Carving Grand Canyon: Quantifying the Interaction of River Incision and Normal Faulting Across the Western Edge of the Colorado Plateau,” Geological Society of America Bulletin 119 (2007): 1283–1312; K.E. Karlstrom et al., “Model for Tectonically Driven Incision of the Younger than 6 Ma Grand Canyon,” Geology 36 (2008): 835–838.)

Interesting to see you cite those papers. Do you agree with them?

The second article did not address the issue I cited either the purity of the chalk layer.

You mean like the lines of black flint in the cliffs?

You are supporting the view that these chalk deposits in Dover are around 97% pure. Where deposited over 11 million years.
How in the world could it stay that pure? No mud? No other sediments. I really do not think that is possible. Seeing how you are a uniformitarian. Kind of.

Oops.

I have been you did not make your case. Uniformitarianism and catastrophism are opposite sides of the spectrum. So are you saying that the so-called asteroid that Dr. no Gods was talking about was not a worldwide event? Do you even know what you are defending? Because catastrophism is where it is at man no matter what you believe. Everyone believes in catastrophism.

Again, you're over 100 years behind. Do some reading on Actualism.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #20]

Flood geology? What is that? Geology is geology. If a creationist assumes the biblical flood story is true and then tries to find some evidence to support it, while ignoring the mountains of evidence that show it could never have happened as the bible describes (and when), that can be discarded as wishful thinking.

Well then call it catastrophism geology.

You have already conceded to the fact that there is a mountain of evidence for a worldwide catastrophe. Any worldwide catastrophe would have to change the topography of the Earth, along with the subsequent after-effects of such a catastrophe. We can also observe that most if not all fossils found have been the result of moving water.

You may like to believe it happened millions of years ago but the sides of the canyon would never be as straight as they are if that were the case. We have soft tissue in dinosaur fossils which indicates it could not have happened millions of years ago.

Diamonds also were found to have carbon-14 along with graphite.

R.E. Taylor of the Department of Anthropology at the University of California–Riverside and of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at the University of California–Los Angeles teamed with J. Southon at the Keck Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Laboratory of the Department of Earth System Science at the University of California–Irvine to analyze nine natural diamonds from Brazil. All nine diamonds are conventionally regarded as being at least of early Paleozoic age, that is, at least several hundred million years old. So, if they really are that old they should not have any intrinsic carbon-14 in them. Eight of the diamonds yielded radiocarbon “ages” of 64,900 years to 80,000 years. The ninth diamond was cut into six equal fragments, which were each analyzed. They yield essentially identical radiocarbon “ages” ranging from 69,400 years to 70,600 years. This suggests the carbon-14 was evenly distributed through this diamond, which is consistent with it being intrinsic carbon-14, and not contamination. Interestingly, samples of Ceylon graphite from Precambrian metamorphic rock (conventionally around 1 billion years old) were analyzed at the same time and yielded radiocarbon “ages” of from 58,400 years to 70,100 years.

These results, from a different radiocarbon laboratory to that used by the RATE group, confirm that there is intrinsic carbon-14 in natural diamonds. Therefore, they cannot be hundreds of millions or billions of years old, as there is no other current credible explanation for the presence of this carbon-14. Less carbon-14 was found in the diamonds in this study reported in the conventional literature. That was because the diamonds were mounted directly in the beam within the analytical instrument, whereas in the RATE study the diamonds were combusted to convert the carbon to carbon dioxide, which was then converted to graphite that was analyzed in the instrument. That process may have introduced some more carbon-14 to the analyses. https://answersingenesis.org/geology/ca ... confirmed/

Notice the different amounts of carbon -14 found in the samples. If this were a machine background then the amounts should not change, otherwise, the machine background would be affecting all dates.

That one again? Here's a simple description that is actually supported by the geologic evidence. A great deal is known about how the Grand Canyon formed, and geology isn't static (uplift, erosion, etc.).

https://earthathome.org/quick-faqs/how- ... nyon-form/

And yet secular geologists cannot decide on whether the canyon is 70 million or 6 million years old. In fact, right now they are leaning more toward the 6 million because of the basalt layer on top of the canyon. The problem with that theory is that the uplift would have had to occur before that.

Not the one described in Genesis (global flood covering the highest mountains, while humans existed). That is debunked from nearly every discipline of science. For starters ... there's no source for that much liquid water on Earth or its atmosphere ... not even close.

There is more water in the Earth's mantle than in all of the oceans on the Earth combined. There is water under all of the major mountain ranges. How did that water get there? The deep-time planet formation would have to be revised if it were there at the formation of the Earth. Because when the earth was in its molten state it should have boiled out of the rock. You know that density thing.



But this flood myth has been debated countless times here before. With a YEC scenario, it is even more obviously wrong because of when it was supposed to have happened.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #22]

It's a response to the ancient creationist argument that the GC was the result of Noah's flood. It contains several lines of evidence showing how it couldn't have been, 99% of which you ignored.

The Grand Canyon cannot be 70 million years old because of the basalt layer. The canyon cannot be 6 million years old because of the uplift. Problem.

Interesting to see you cite those papers. Do you agree with them?

I would probably agree with their observations but not their conclusions because I am working with a different set of starting assumptions than they are.

Do you mean like the lines of black flint in the cliffs?

Exactly! That flint line is made from fossilized marine fauna that had to be trapped and compressed very quickly to form the flint because the flint has to form in an adiabatic environment. Flint is also pure chert which means that this layer had to be mostly marine fauna and little else. So this line of flint is actually more evidence of how this limestone had to form very quickly so that it would not be contaminated by other particles.

A large mat of marine fauna was probably washed in and caught in the formation of the limestone.

Again, you're over 100 years behind. Do some reading on Actualism.

Oh, actualism that is funny. Yea, they had to make up a new name because of the failure of uniformitarianism and the overwhelming abundance of evidence for catastrophism. Just more evidence of a global flood.

[Jose Fly]

The Grand Canyon cannot be 70 million years old because of the basalt layer. The canyon cannot be 6 million years old because of the uplift. Problem.

Sorry, I'm not about to go with your say-so, nor am I naive enough to think disagreement = musta been a global flood.

I would probably agree with their observations but not their conclusions because I am working with a different set of starting assumptions than they are.

So you cite papers that you don't agree with. Noted.

Exactly! That flint line is made from fossilized marine fauna that had to be trapped and compressed very quickly to form the flint because the flint has to form in an adiabatic environment. Flint is also pure chert which means that this layer had to be mostly marine fauna and little else. So this line of flint is actually more evidence of how this limestone had to form very quickly so that it would not be contaminated by other particles.

A large mat of marine fauna was probably washed in and caught in the formation of the limestone.

Now you're doing the creationist two-step. First it was all about how the white cliffs being "pure" = global flood, but now that it's been shown that they're not pure, that = global flood.

Heads = global flood, tails = global flood. Hilarious.

Oh, actualism that is funny. Yea, they had to make up a new name because of the failure of uniformitarianism and the overwhelming abundance of evidence for catastrophism. Just more evidence of a global flood.

Nope, not going with your baseless say-so.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #25]

Sorry, I'm not about to go with your say-so, nor am I naive enough to think disagreement = musta been a global flood.

A few more words, please. What are you saying? Are you saying that there is not a basalt layer that is both on the north rim and the south rim?

I actually did not say that was evidence of a global flood. But there is plenty of evidence for a worldwide catastrophe. Now the nature of that catastrophe is up for debate, asteroid, flood. Water did have to be involved in the catastrophe.

So you cite papers that you don't agree with. Noted.

All the time. Do you not know that there is a difference between observations and conclusions?

Now you're doing the creationist two-step. First it was all about how the white cliffs being "pure" = global flood, but now that it's been shown that they're not pure, that = global flood.

You did not show any evidence that the limestone was not pure. The fact the limestone is white and it is ninety percent or more calcium carbonate is why it is said to be pure. Are you saying that the limestone is not 90 percent pure or more? Flint is also a pure rock so it could not have been setting on the bottom of the ocean for millions of years or even 100s of years without being covered by limestone. Both types of rock are evidence of the speed at which these layers of rock needed to be laid down.

Nope, not going with your baseless say-so.

Again what are you saying? Are you saying that the dinosaurs were not killed by an asteroid? How was the dinosaur killed? Was it in a worldwide event or gradually?

[Jose Fly]

A few more words, please. What are you saying? Are you saying that there is not a basalt layer that is both on the north rim and the south rim?

I actually did not say that was evidence of a global flood.

Then it's irrelevant to your argument.

But there is plenty of evidence for a worldwide catastrophe. Now the nature of that catastrophe is up for debate, asteroid, flood. Water did have to be involved in the catastrophe.

There is no scientific debate about the Biblical flood. That was settled two centuries ago (ironically by Christian geologists).

You did not show any evidence that the limestone was not pure. The fact the limestone is white and it is ninety percent or more calcium carbonate is why it is said to be pure. Are you saying that the limestone is not 90 percent pure or more? Flint is also a pure rock so it could not have been setting on the bottom of the ocean for millions of years or even 100s of years without being covered by limestone. Both types of rock are evidence of the speed at which these layers of rock needed to be laid down.

So you're actually arguing that in the midst of a global flood, with tectonic plates jetting around the planet and such, pure, alternating layers of limestone and flint were deposited?

This is a good example of why I usually don't bother arguing about Noah's flood. It's barely, and I mean just barely, above flat-earth geocentrism on the absurdity scale.

Again what are you saying? Are you saying that the dinosaurs were not killed by an asteroid? How was the dinosaur killed? Was it in a worldwide event or gradually?

Again, you're about 100 years behind. I've posted the info for you twice now and you've just waved it away, and apparently haven't even bothered to incorporate it into your arguments. If you want to try and argue against geology as it existed a century ago, go right ahead. But I'm not sure what you think that will accomplish.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #27]

Then it's irrelevant to your argument.

Maybe, but it does make your argument of 70 million or 6 million years impossible.

But there is plenty of evidence for a worldwide catastrophe. Now the nature of that catastrophe is up for debate, asteroid, flood. Water did have to be involved in the catastrophe.

There is no scientific debate about the Biblical flood. That was settled two centuries ago (ironically by Christian geologists).

Ok, fine if that is what you want to believe. Is there evidence of a worldwide catastrophe?

So you're actually arguing that in the midst of a global flood, with tectonic plates jetting around the planet and such, pure, alternating layers of limestone and flint were deposited?

This is a good example of why I usually don't bother arguing about Noah's flood. It's barely, and I mean just barely, above flat-earth geocentrism on the absurdity scale.

I am saying that is what is observed at the Dover Cliffs in England. Is there any place today that is depositing limestone that pure? If today is the key to the past, or whatever it is you believe. Or is this one of those times when uniformitarianism doesn't work? One of the many times.

Again what are you saying? Are you saying that the dinosaurs were not killed by an asteroid? How was the dinosaur killed? Was it in a worldwide event or gradually?

Again, you're about 100 years behind. I've posted the info for you twice now and you've just waved it away, and apparently haven't even bothered to incorporate it into your arguments. If you want to try and argue against geology as it existed a century ago, go right ahead. But I'm not sure what you think that will accomplish.

This is what someone would call a question. I am not arguing anything, I can't until you make some type of definitive statement about what you believe. Actualism lets you believe whatever it is that you want to believe so do you believe the dinosaurs died in a worldwide event?

[Jose Fly]

Maybe, but it does make your argument of 70 million or 6 million years impossible.

That's not an argument I've made.

Is there evidence of a worldwide catastrophe?

As I understand it the last one was about 65 MYA, if I remember correctly.

I am saying that is what is observed at the Dover Cliffs in England.

Gee, that's......something.

Is there any place today that is depositing limestone that pure?

I've no idea.

If today is the key to the past, or whatever it is you believe. Or is this one of those times when uniformitarianism doesn't work? One of the many times.

Again, you're about 100 years behind.

I am not arguing anything, I can't until you make some type of definitive statement about what you believe.

If you're not advocating any specific position here, then this is rather pointless.

Actualism lets you believe whatever it is that you want to believe

No it doesn't. That you think it does is pretty funny though.

so do you believe the dinosaurs died in a worldwide event?

It's not something I've really looked into in-depth.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #26]

Are you saying that the dinosaurs were not killed by an asteroid? How was the dinosaur killed? Was it in a worldwide event or gradually?

Not directed at me, but the dinosaur-killing asteroid event (or events ... the Dekkan Trap eruptions may also played a role) did not just wipe out all the dinosaurs instantly. Various studies of the time it took range from 1-2 years due to extended darkness (eg. Here), to >30,000 years (Here). In any case it wasn't an instantaneous event. An asteroid impact of the size of the one at Chicxulub was a catastrophic event to be sure, but just one of many similar impacts during Earth's history. It doesn't say anything about uniformitarionism ... which doesn't rule out periodic catastrophic events like this.