Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists

You have not made any arguments. Only assertions that 'the fludde did it'.Give us something to work with... If you can't present a cogent argument with some kind of support, your argument is worthless.

That is the problem Faith, you rely on fantasy, what you can imagine.Test those fantasies Faith. Test them again and again and again to see if they reflect reality or are just fantasies.

Why don't they all look the same age? Oh good grief. There are different kinds of mountains, now, aren't there edgey wedgey? There are the kind that were thrust up in blocks of strata like the Rockies, which are highly compacted rock and less subject to erosion than others, and there are the kind that were more gently compressed accordion-style like the Appalachians, which are more easily eroded where the softer sediments are exposed, and there are mountains produced by volcanoes. Of course there's a difference in erosion and therefore in how old they look.

So, you admit that there were some rocks prior to the flood. Okay, now we're getting someplace. Okay, where did those rocks come from? Can we see their source after the rest of the earth slid into the ocean?

I've presented plenty of cogent arguments elsewhere. Believe it or not I'm trying NOT to stay on this thread. I'm simply being forced to answer some of the more egregious accusations and misrepresentations. I don't regard this as a thread for discussing the Flood and really don't want to be here. I just have to answer some of the craziness you are all throwing at me. If you would just back off and let the thread resume its original purpose of bashing creationists and trying to develop some kind of anti-creationist curriculum, as long as it didn't impinge on my own favorite issues I would be very happy to stay off it.

I don't know if there were rocks before the Flood or how many or where, and I never made any claims about that. I assume there was "bedrock" beneath the land mass. Beyond that I've never speculated about pre-Flood rocks.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What your link says:

quote:

---

Silt is very generally confounded with Sand, and chemically speaking they are very nearly the same, but in their physical properties Sand and Silt have but little resemblance. Sand, as is well known, becomes firm and hard under a covering of water; not so Silt; it flows nearly as readily as water itself. Sand is heavy and sinks rapidly in water, leaving it clean; whilst Silt floats in running water and it is deposited but slowly; the water continuing turbid for a long time.

---

Note that your reference refers to silt floating IN water -- the proper terminology today is that silt is easily suspended in water -- causing turbidity that lasts a long time. This is what I was discussing in Message 279: Bold added.The velocities in question are related to particle size, and Stoke's Law can be used to estimate those velocities: Particle Size Analysis Lab

quote:

---

The connection between particle size and settling rate is expressed by Stoke's Law. This relationship shows that small particles, those exposing high specific surface area (m2 g-1), produce more resistance to settling through the surrounding solution than large particles and, hence, settle at slower velocities

​

Stoke's Law: V = (D^{^2}g(d₁-d₂)/(18n)

​

The formula shows that the settling velocity, V, is directly proportional to the square of the particle's effective diameter, D; the acceleration of gravity, g; and the difference between the density of the particle, d1, and density of the liquid, d2; but inversely proportional to the viscosity (resistance to flow) of the liquid, n. The density of water and its viscosity both change in a manner so that particles settle faster with increased temperature. Hence, it may be necessary to apply temperature correction factors as explained with the procedure.

​

Stoke's Law can be condensed to V=kD^{^2} by assuming constant values for all components except the effective diameter of soil particles. Then, for conditions at 30 degrees C, k=11241. For particles size values in centimeters, the formula yields settling velocity, V, in centimeters per second. Because soil particles do not meet the requirements of being smooth spheres, exact conformance to Stoke's Law is not realized.

---

Bold added.(Essentially this critical velocity goes up with the square of the particle diameter}Basically, if the water is moving faster than the settling rate then the particles don't settle -- and a corollary is that IF you have a layer of silt, THEN the water was not turbulent or moving fast when it was deposited ... for the length of time it takes for the thickness of the silt layer to deposit.In addition Stoke's Law makes several assumptions to simplify calculations (I won't bother you with the background math):

quote:

---

Stokes' law - Wikipedia

​

In 1851, George Gabriel Stokes derived an expression, now known as Stokes' law, for the frictional force — also called drag force — exerted on spherical objects with very small Reynolds numbers (e.g., very small particles) in a viscous fluid. Stokes' law is derived by solving the Stokes flow limit for small Reynolds numbers of the Navier—Stokes equations:[1]

​

Stokes' law makes the following assumptions for the behavior of a particle in a fluid:

​

• Laminar Flow
• Spherical particles
• Homogeneous (uniform in composition) material
• Smooth surfaces
• Particles do not interfere with each other.

---

Laminar flow means no turbulence, no eddies.This works fairly well for sand and most silt, but some silts and clay have ionic charges that affect their interaction with other particles and with water (and why you can sometimes see fine organic silt floating on the surface of still water).So let's run some numbers: we'll throw a hypothetical handful of rocks, gravels, sands and silts into still water, starting with a 1cm diameter rock 10m deep (about 30ft) and that it takes 1 second to reach the bottom (which is on the fast side - close to the fall time in air - so these calculated velocities will err on the fast side): (*): where d=days, h=hours, m=minutes, s=seconds)
(**): used for comparison of relative speed and time -- actual times and velocities would be higher.Note that the clay particle velocity is 0.04 millimeters/second or 2.4 mm/minute ... about 0.1 inch/minute, essentially tranquil water, and that would be if clay were spherical particles with no interaction with water or other particles. They aren't, the shape is more like a flake, so it would take longer to settle and even slower water to allow it to fall from suspension.Note further, because of these different velocities the particles will sort by size in deposition at the bottom, largest first and smallest last. If you disturb the water a little then you would delay the smaller particles more than the large particles.The ONLY way you get large particles deposited on top of small particles is with a gap in time of undisturbed water with no additional deposition, so that the fine particles reach the bottom before the next large particles are introduced ... and as we see above that means several days of tranquility between waves of deposition.This means the Green River Varves took a very long time to be deposited. Much longer than your purported flood.Enjoy ThinAirDesigns: this could be an interesting experiment for your students -- get a tall clear tube you can fill with water and then time how long it takes for various size (micrometer measured) particles. Also try diatomaceous earth - it has diatoms in it ... It's kind of like Galileo's experiment off the Piza tower, but done in water (which also demonstrates the effect of viscosity causing friction, which is negligible in air unless feathers -- and that gets into Reynolds Numbers)Edited by RAZD, : speeds relative

So, the Appalachians and the Alps, arguably the same type of mountains, being caused by continent-continent collision with folded sedimentary sequences, should look the same?

Well, I would hope so, since you have not presented any here. Ah, so you have no choice.

RAZD, I can't use all that information. I simply wanted to find out if silt could be carried on water to a place of deposition, and whether it is suspended or floats apparently it can be. Ocean water isn't "running" water but it is moving water and it would have been saturated with sediments and dead things as well.

Then I'm wondering why you said this:

They do look the same on cross section as far as their accordion structure goes, and Lyell has diagrams of the Alps that show valleys that formed where exposed layers eroded away. But the overall difference in their appearance of age I suppose would be related to the fact that the Alps were pushed into much steeper and higher folds than the Appalachians.

Could you please refer us to a deposit of a single silt bed that was distributed all over the earth by ocean currents?

Do I really have to say it would saturate the land and collapse it very speedily "except where there are rocks?"

There's no reason why silt would separate from sediment to be deposited separately is there? But asteroid powder would have a separate origin and be deposited separately. And as for stuff floating to its ultimate depositional resting place how about the uprooted plants that became coal seams?