When the flood waters receded, where did they go ?

EdgeCoral reefs pronouncements have been reversed my mainstreamers. Ditto eolian. A complete data analysis stil points to flood IMO. I have conceeded the flowering plant issue a dozen times. I ahve also explained the implications of surges as well.Lyell is fine for studies of the last 4500 years - just not for the flood deposits.I will add bits of new info as they come to hand but if you don't currently think that the YEC flood is plausible that's fine with me. I'm not going to force it on you.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]I think I understand why we're missing each other here. All of the Palezoic/Mesozoic is flood strata in our opinions - marine, non-marine and mixed.[/QUOTE][/b]I understand this part. What I don't understand is how you can get marine and non-marine strata from a flood, or series of floods within the given timeframe. I have read many of your and TC's post regarding this-- read far more than only the one I have commented upon-- and I can't see how it would work.

quote:

---

Layering under rapid flow. I have posted refs from several mainstream texts such as Pettijohn and Blatt et al deomsntrating that mainstreamers admit neat layering under rapid flow.

---

This much is reasonable enough, but rapid flow is not a particularly good model for a global flood. There is just too much coming and going. Too many hills and trees and what not in the way.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

JohnOur marine innundations come in surges (presumably becasue of plate slipping events). In between we have non-marine deposition due tothe 40 days of rain (due to tectonically heated steam). There is not much more to it than that if you want to explain alternting marine and non-marine layers is there? It really is near identical to the mainstream explanation of the alternating beds.Your trees etc are not going to effect layering. We are talking thousands of feet of sediment so hills are not going to effect it later on either. During rapid currents there will be layering of conglmerates and sandstones. During inbetween calms there will be silts and shales. Mt St Helen's is the closest model system for this we have so far and demonstrates rapid layering, rapid canyon formation and floating mats of vegetation.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-10-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]Our marine innundations come in surges (presumably becasue of plate slipping events). In between we have non-marine deposition due tothe 40 days of rain (due to tectonically heated steam). There is not much more to it than that if you want to explain alternting marine and non-marine layers is there?[/QUOTE][/b]hmmmm..... well, actually there is. But you are aware of and ignore the objections, so why bother?

quote:

---

Your trees etc are not going to effect layering. We are talking thousands of feet of sediment so hills are not going to effect it later on either. During rapid currents there will be layering of conglmerates and sandstones. During inbetween calms there will be silts and shales. Mt St Helen's is the closest model system for this we have so far and demonstrates rapid layering, rapid canyon formation and floating mats of vegetation.

---

Again, why bother? This forum is full of objection to your theories and you do nothing but ignore them.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Coral reefs pronouncements have been reversed my mainstreamers.

---

Good. Then you have documentation as to how large coral reefs form in less than one year and several times at one location.

quote:

---

Ditto eolian.

---

I am looking forward to your explanation (and documentation) of how thick eolian deposits such as the Navajo Sandstone and the Entrada Formation formed in less than a year, during a flood and in the same place.

quote:

---

A complete data analysis stil points to flood IMO.

---

Good then you have the documentation. Let's see it. What mainstream scientist says that deserts, dinosaur nests, footprints and evaporite beds form during a one year flood.

quote:

---

I have conceeded the flowering plant issue a dozen times.

---

So, this is not significant for you? Don't you think this is a bit of a stumbling block for your theory? I thought you said, "A complete data analysis stil points to flood IMO." Sure doesn't appear that way.

quote:

---

I ahve also explained the implications of surges as well.

---

Yes, the implications are that it cannot have happened on one year, since you need to grow forests in between the surges. You also have to allow dinosaurs time to repopulate the devastated area, build nests and have young all in one year. Pretty amazing stuff.

quote:

---

Lyell is fine for studies of the last 4500 years - just not for the flood deposits.

---

LOL! So Lyell was incompetent for anything before 4500 years?

quote:

---

I will add bits of new info as they come to hand but if you don't currently think that the YEC flood is plausible that's fine with me.

---

You have been saying this for months. You have brought nothing new to the table that has not been refuted to the point that you should be embarassed.

quote:

---

I'm not going to force it on you.

---

Don't worry, I have a high sales resistance. I don't buy things that don't pass the giggle test.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Mt St Helen's is the closest model system for this we have so far and demonstrates rapid layering, rapid canyon formation and floating mats of vegetation.

---

LOL! Your best model for epeiric seas is a stratovolcano! You're killing me, TB.

JohnWhat's really happening is that we're chatting on the web and you can't go on the record as stating that what we are saying is a good starting point for trying to justify the Biblical flood. Of course it's a good starting point! I refuse to talk details when people can't agree on gross issues. That is the first point at which there is no point.You haven't agreed with our empirical, qualitative starting point so let's not bother with the details. You already proved me wrong in your eyes. No point going on.When I do talk details with numerous people here we simply have to agree to disagree. Some points favour gradualism, some points favour flood. Some points we can't talk details becasue we don't have all of the data sitting in front of us.Tryin to paint me as ignoring your and others comments here is not helpful. It is simply not true - I have modified my synthesis on the basis of comments here on numerous occasions. I have conceeded numerous point here too. I've learned a lot here. In the end we have to base what we are say on total data.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-11-2002]

We've had this discussion Edge and you know my answer.

EdgeSome phenomena will just never have perfect model systems. The global flood kind of fits this scenario.

Thanks ... and hey my thesis made it through without
a single correction ....... there were like tonnes

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
/B]

---

Chalk is a very fine grained and almost pure limestone, composed of coccoliths: skeletal elements of planktonic foraminifera.
The mean size of a coccolith is about 100 microns, and it has been estimated that it could take 100.000 years to form 1 meter of chalk. Now consider the 500 meters of Dover cliffs.

​

[This message has been edited by Andor, 07-11-2002]

"Chalk is a very fine grained and almost pure limestone, composed of coccoliths: skeletal elements of plantonik foraminifera.
The mean size of a coccolith is about 100 microns, and it has been estimated that it could take 100.000 years to form 1 meter of chalk. Now consider the 500 meters of Dover cliffs."
--Yes I did take a couple seconds to look at some books on chalk deposits after my H. Simpson episode . There are some things you've missed, however. What are your environmental conditions for deposition and nutrient availability for your 100,000 year depositional rate? IT is also interesting to note that some deposits of chalk are almost devoid of organic material. The bulk of its composition is a matrix of finely crystalline calcite. Something interesting about the precipitation of calcite is that it is highly favored by increased temperature. Most especially when there is a surplus of calcite and thus, solubility would be minute.Also, I highly doubt that this is solid chalk in any of the known deposits. Sandstone is a usual constituent in such deposits. The chalk deposits encircling paris are characteristic of such as well as crowded potato-shaped nodules of black flint. In between the black flit layers there is, however, 15-20 feet thick chalk beds containing no flint. The lower chalk deposits cheifly contain glauconite rich sandstone and upper chalk layers are dominated by the flint nodule inclusions. The upper chalk beds, which spand across the english channel as the white cliffs of Dover. [after Gilluly et al. Principles of Geology]------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-11-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
What's really happening is that we're chatting on the web and you can't go on the record as stating that what we are saying is a good starting point for trying to justify the Biblical flood.

---

Well... yes. It isn't a good starting point. That is a large part of the problem. A good starting point would not require radically modifying, or outright ditching, the major theories of all the relevant sciences.

quote:

---

I refuse to talk details when people can't agree on gross issues.

---

Interesting. It seems to me that the logical starting point for an analysis is an investigation of the premises-- the gross issues, as you say. This is not OK?

quote:

---

You haven't agreed with our empirical, qualitative starting point so let's not bother with the details. You already proved me wrong in your eyes. No point going on.

---

You could always demonstrate the validity of your starting point.

quote:

---

Tryin to paint me as ignoring your and others comments here is not helpful. It is simply not true - I have modified my synthesis on the basis of comments here on numerous occasions.

---

Do you want me to list objections?------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Chalk is a very fine grained and almost pure limestone, composed of coccoliths: skeletal elements of plantonik foraminifera.
The mean size of a coccolith is about 100 microns, and it has been estimated that it could take 100.000 years to form 1 meter of chalk. Now consider the 500 meters of Dover cliffs."

​

--Yes I did take a couple seconds to look at some books on chalk deposits after my H. Simpson episode . There are some things you've missed, however. What are your environmental conditions for deposition and nutrient availability for your 100,000 year depositional rate?

---

The environment of deposition is on a continental shelf, remote from terrigenous sources of sediment. Deposition appears to be related to transgression of the Cretaceous seas across western Europe. As such, the base of the chalk in Dover is older than the base of the chalk in Paris. These are really quiet waters covering flat land without a lot of local mountain building. According to my text, the absolute ages are derived by fossil correlation, and radiometic data.

I must rectify my previous post. Coccolitophores are not foraminifera, but golden-brown, single-celled algae (Prymnesiophyta).
Actually the intention of my first post was only to emphasize that a very fine grained sediment need a very slow and quite water to deposit, hardly compatible with the Flood.
But now I'm going to quote D.R. Prothero (Bringing fossils to life):
"...These algae form spherical cells about 15 to 100 microns in diameter, enclosed in a ball of calcareous plates called coccoliths, which are about 2 to 25 microns in diameter. Are so tiny that can fit into the pores of the foraminifera...
...Are also subject to significant post-morten transport, since they sink in the water column at a rate of only about 1 to 2 microns per second. At this rate, an individual coccolith would take 50 to 150 years to reach the bottom at 5000 m...However most coccoliths sink inside fecal pellets of zooplankton, and sinks to 5000 m in 22 to 100 days, while protecting the coccoliths from dissolution..."