hydrologic sorting

A process to explain gelogical conformation to ToE predictions.(?)

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Ironclad, Onyx8

hydrologic sorting

#1  Postby sennekuyl » Nov 23, 2011 4:51 am

This has been called for but I couldn't find the thread others suggested be started. I'm only kicking it off, as no knowledge of the premise or its refutation has parsed this brain.

From Talk Origins
[The Noah's Flood proponents claim:]The order of fossils deposited by Noah's Flood, especially those of marine organisms, can be explained by hydrologic sorting. Fossils of the same size will be sorted together. Heavier and more streamlined forms will be found at lower levels.

Answers In Genesis didn't have much to say on the matter.
www.answersingenesis.org_search_q.hydrol.png
www.answersingenesis.org_search_q.hydrol.png (125.17 KiB) Viewed 902 times

(the pic takes you to the search for "hydrologic sorting" which is also blank.)*

Actually to be fair, it comes up in this feed-backquestion[s] and the response contains this:
...
As far as the “sorting” of fossils, yes, we have a lot of work left to fully explain the existing distribution of fossils. But just because we do not have a complete, immediate answer for this one does not mean the Flood did not do it. The problem is there is a huge amount of information to digest on this topic, and besides, no one really knows what the true fossil distribution is. Many fossil distributions that are vertical on paper are really horizontal on earth and are simply pigeon-holed into slots according to preconceived uniformitarian assumptions. Mr. C references hydrodynamic sorting, but there were many mechanisms that created the fossil record, and hydrodynamic sorting is just one of them (and probably a minor one). Why doesn’t he mention all the gaps in the fossil record, the problem of living fossils, anomalous fossils, out-of-order fossils, the extreme complexity of the trilobite eye, the Cambrian explosion, and other such arguments against uniformitarian interpretations of the fossil record?

...

So I don't know where they stand on hydrologic sorting

Creation Wiki
Hydrological sorting is the process by which objects settle in a fluid, often water based on factors such as size and density.


Most seem claims for seem ... vague .. to me. But then, so is my previous sentence. :D

EDIT: Great search. AIG don't really seem to reference much directly with hydrological sorting or hydrodynamic mixing unless I misunderstood what they were saying. They could be using another term for it too one might suppose.
Last edited by sennekuyl on Nov 23, 2011 5:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Defining Australians:
When returning home from overseas, you expect to be brutally strip-searched by Customs – just in case you're trying to sneak in fruit.
sennekuyl
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 2919
Age: 37
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: hydrologic sorting

#2  Postby Agrippina » Nov 23, 2011 4:58 am

Bookmarking.

But then I thought that fossils appeared in lower strata because they belong to an earlier time in history, and not because they "sank to the bottom" of the water that covered the earth during the flood. But then what do I know?
Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature.
Michael Faraday
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 33326
Age: 103
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: hydrologic sorting

#3  Postby Onyx8 » Nov 23, 2011 5:17 am

I seem to recall that they used to have quite a bit on hydrologic sorting that could be disproved with a garden hose and handfuls of dirt, perhaps they took that out?

rodcarty did say that he would be happy to contribute to such a thread as you suggest.

In other news it would seem that rodcarty has left the building.
The problem with fantasies is you can't really insist that everyone else believes in yours, the other problem with fantasies is that most believers of fantasies eventually get around to doing exactly that.
User avatar
Onyx8
Moderator
 
Posts: 13104
Age: 58
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: hydrologic sorting

#4  Postby Onyx8 » Nov 23, 2011 5:26 am

Agrippina wrote:Bookmarking.

But then I thought that fossils appeared in lower strata because they belong to an earlier time in history, and not because they "sank to the bottom" of the water that covered the earth during the flood. But then what do I know?



My favourite, which was peripherally mentioned by rodcarty, is that the smarter and swifter fossils had both the ability and the intelligence to run uphill from the encroaching water.

Which, of course explains perfectly why conifer trees are invariably found lower in the strata than deciduous trees: as we all know they can't run as fast.
The problem with fantasies is you can't really insist that everyone else believes in yours, the other problem with fantasies is that most believers of fantasies eventually get around to doing exactly that.
User avatar
Onyx8
Moderator
 
Posts: 13104
Age: 58
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: hydrologic sorting

#5  Postby Agrippina » Nov 23, 2011 5:27 am

:rofl:
Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature.
Michael Faraday
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 33326
Age: 103
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: hydrologic sorting

#6  Postby sennekuyl » Nov 23, 2011 5:29 am

That was my memory too, Onyx8, (when I was preaching it :oops:) It was surprising that none of the terms brought info remembered.
Defining Australians:
When returning home from overseas, you expect to be brutally strip-searched by Customs – just in case you're trying to sneak in fruit.
sennekuyl
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 2919
Age: 37
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: hydrologic sorting

#7  Postby pcCoder » Nov 23, 2011 5:38 am

If the hydrologic sorting argument is to be taken seriously, shouldn't it also affect the rocks and sediments as well then? Shouldn't the geological columns be one smooth gradient from more dense to less dense rock as the sediments that formed them should have also been affected by such sorting?
pcCoder
 
Posts: 512
Age: 32
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: hydrologic sorting

#8  Postby Onyx8 » Nov 23, 2011 5:43 am

Yes, but it isn't taken seriously even by people such as AIG. As so many have pointed out why are there fossil pollens at the bottom?
The problem with fantasies is you can't really insist that everyone else believes in yours, the other problem with fantasies is that most believers of fantasies eventually get around to doing exactly that.
User avatar
Onyx8
Moderator
 
Posts: 13104
Age: 58
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: hydrologic sorting

#9  Postby Agrippina » Nov 23, 2011 5:47 am

The thing is that YECs don't question the different appearance of rocks. They just accept that rocks are rocks placed there by "God" so the fossillised pollens they see, they brush aside as more rock. One of them told me that "leaves don't fossilize" and that patterns in rocks are just random patterns in rocks. The thinking is really at five-year-old level. Kids that age just accept rocks are rocks and not what they really are, which I can't explain in coherent terms, even though I understand it.
Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature.
Michael Faraday
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 33326
Age: 103
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: hydrologic sorting

#10  Postby Onyx8 » Nov 23, 2011 5:50 am

It's not quite that, it's deeper, my five year old was entirely capable of discerning the difference between a chunk of shale and the chunk of shale next to it which has a fossil clam in it (from our river just up the road).
The problem with fantasies is you can't really insist that everyone else believes in yours, the other problem with fantasies is that most believers of fantasies eventually get around to doing exactly that.
User avatar
Onyx8
Moderator
 
Posts: 13104
Age: 58
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: hydrologic sorting

#11  Postby Darwinsbulldog » Nov 23, 2011 6:21 am

Phil Senter did a lovely debunk of flud geology using creationist geology:-

Senter, P. (2011). "The Defeat of Flood Geology by Flood Geology." Reports of the National Center for Science Education 31(3).

PDF [free] here:-

http://reports.ncse.com/index.php/rncse ... /3/showToc

The National Center for Science Education has many resources for debunking creationist crap of all kinds. :)
DBD is a fun username. I do not imagine myself as a reincarnation of T.H. Huxley, and with respect, neither should you.
User avatar
Darwinsbulldog
 
Posts: 5885
Age: 59

Print view this post

Re: hydrologic sorting

#12  Postby Robert Byers » Nov 23, 2011 8:37 am

Organized creationism does struggle a bit. tHis because they don't see the continents breaking up in the flood year as the source for the great power and great segregated flows in the water which laid the different stratas below the k-t line.
THey also don't make the k-t the flood line and so struggle to explain the mammals always on top of the dinos.
In fact the strata column and fossils demand as most likely a instant event that did a unique thing.
Robert Byers
 
Name: Robert Byers
Posts: 325

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: hydrologic sorting

#13  Postby ScholasticSpastic » Nov 23, 2011 8:40 am

Robert Byers wrote:Organized creationism does struggle a bit. tHis because they don't see the continents breaking up in the flood year as the source for the great power and great segregated flows in the water which laid the different stratas below the k-t line.
THey also don't make the k-t the flood line and so struggle to explain the mammals always on top of the dinos.
In fact the strata column and fossils demand as most likely a instant event that did a unique thing.

Astounding! You actually managed an information density that's lower than your word density! :shock:
"You have to be a real asshole to quote yourself."
~ ScholasticSpastic
User avatar
ScholasticSpastic
 
Name: C. Dustin Clark
Posts: 839
Age: 39
Male

Country: United State of Apathy
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: hydrologic sorting

#14  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 23, 2011 8:46 am

Robert Byers wrote:Organized creationism does struggle a bit. tHis because they don't see the continents breaking up in the flood year as the source for the great power and great segregated flows in the water which laid the different stratas below the k-t line.
THey also don't make the k-t the flood line and so struggle to explain the mammals always on top of the dinos.
In fact the strata column and fossils demand as most likely a instant event that did a unique thing.



I highly recommend, dear Robert, that you permit a more competent Creationist to present this subject. While the adjective 'competent' isn't usually suited to modify the noun 'Creationist', it's all relative.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods.
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 17301
Age: 38
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: hydrologic sorting

#15  Postby Darwinsbulldog » Nov 23, 2011 9:09 am

Robert Byers wrote:Organized creationism does struggle a bit. tHis because they don't see the continents breaking up in the flood year as the source for the great power and great segregated flows in the water which laid the different stratas below the k-t line.
THey also don't make the k-t the flood line and so struggle to explain the mammals always on top of the dinos.
In fact the strata column and fossils demand as most likely a instant event that did a unique thing.


Try to keep up Robert, the K-T boundary is called the Cretaceous–Paleogene [K-Pg] boundary now. :doh:

And as the Senter paper explains, Creationist geology does not even make sense within it's own paradigm. :lol:
DBD is a fun username. I do not imagine myself as a reincarnation of T.H. Huxley, and with respect, neither should you.
User avatar
Darwinsbulldog
 
Posts: 5885
Age: 59

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: hydrologic sorting

#16  Postby rustynuts II » Nov 23, 2011 9:56 am

Onyx8 wrote:
Agrippina wrote:Bookmarking.

But then I thought that fossils appeared in lower strata because they belong to an earlier time in history, and not because they "sank to the bottom" of the water that covered the earth during the flood. But then what do I know?



My favourite, which was peripherally mentioned by rodcarty, is that the smarter and swifter fossils had both the ability and the intelligence to run uphill from the encroaching water.

Which, of course explains perfectly why conifer trees are invariably found lower in the strata than deciduous trees: as we all know they can't run as fast.


This "running up hill thing" is one that the famous (or infamous?) AFDave Hawkins spouted in the past so rodcarty isn't original on that one. In fact reading rod's stuff here I'm sure he's channeling AFDave: he has the same level of hubris, lack of any science knowledge to go with it and 'argument by link' to AiG, technique down to a tee. :roll:
rustynuts II
 
Name: Andy
Posts: 69

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: hydrologic sorting

#17  Postby Agrippina » Nov 23, 2011 12:19 pm

Something to remember about the flood story is that the people who wrote it, imagined that they were an isolated incident on a little piece of land floating under the sky. They met other people as their "world" grew bigger, but at the start, when they began to record their stories, it was as small to them as our town is to the woman who used to clean my house. When we went overseas, and I showed her a map of where we were going and that we'd be sleeping overnight on the plane, her reaction was "you lie!" She was concerned that I would disappear into the sky when I flew 600 miles away to visit my kids, she simply couldn't conceive of a place far enough for a plane to fly for that length of time.

I suppose a little like the first explorers going into the Atlantic felt when they tried to find the "east" or when we first sent people into space. So a torrential downpour that lasted a month and flooded their tiny little patch of the desert, it must've felt like the world was drowned!

That is of course if they ever experienced an actual month-long flood. The story could have come from someone who'd experienced a monsoon telling them about it and the audience then playing "broken telephone" embellishing the story.
Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature.
Michael Faraday
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 33326
Age: 103
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: hydrologic sorting

#18  Postby rustynuts II » Nov 23, 2011 12:42 pm

This is what gets me about creationists and ye olde Fludde story: they can't seem to grasp that humans didn't know about the rest of the planet, or even that it was round in some cases, until much later than Biblical times. They insist that The Fludde must have been the entire planet because The Bible says it was a flood over 'the earth'. If people like your cleaning lady, Agrippina, can't conceive of a larger world NOW, then the story tellers of those times would be even more ignorant of The World.
rustynuts II
 
Name: Andy
Posts: 69

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: hydrologic sorting

#19  Postby Agrippina » Nov 23, 2011 12:48 pm

Exactly. Rural Africans are a wonderful source for assessing reasoning ability in poorly educated people.
Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature.
Michael Faraday
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 33326
Age: 103
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: hydrologic sorting

#20  Postby sennekuyl » Nov 23, 2011 12:58 pm

So is rural Australia :whistle:
Defining Australians:
When returning home from overseas, you expect to be brutally strip-searched by Customs – just in case you're trying to sneak in fruit.
sennekuyl
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 2919
Age: 37
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Next

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest