Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9035 total)
87 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 86 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,622 Year: 3,268/14,102 Month: 209/724 Week: 58/93 Day: 15/3 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood II
Admin
Director
Posts: 12719
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 1 of 234 (22061)
11-09-2002 10:18 PM


This is the successor thread to the original Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood thread, which was closed only because it had become so long. Long threads have high overhead when rebuilding the HTML pages. Here is a link to the last page.

------------------

--EvC Forum Administrator


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by edge, posted 11-10-2002 12:14 AM Admin has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 601 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 2 of 234 (22072)
11-10-2002 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Admin
11-09-2002 10:18 PM


quote:
You have been pretty cryptic about this but OK, so let me see if I have got this straight now, you are referring to the Entrada Formation which is a 166 million year old Jurassic sandstone formation in eastern Utah and western Colorado?

Yes, but I mistakenly thought that a well-read geologist such as yourself would be quite familiar with this unit.

quote:
You are really reaching deep into the past, couldn't you find a more recent example? And why are you bothering with the Entrada Formation when the there are far larger sandstone formations such as the Morrison Formation?

Well, it was the first one that came to mind since I took a field trip across the Colorado Plateau last year. You know, a field trip is one that you actually go out and see the rocks. They used to be an important part of a geological education. And no, I didn't use the Morrison Fm. because it has no eolian sands that I know of.

quote:
I gather, based on the line of argument you have been pursuing, that you are stating that the location and extent of this sandstone deposit is evidence of wind lofting of very large sand grains far larger than what we see today? That would be a unique view point.

Not at all. The grain size is not unusual for eolian sands, but they are visible grains (fine sand) so I assume that they are at least 75 microns, which is being conservative due to my less than perfect eyesight. As I remember you said something like wind is not an effective transporter of sand grains greater than 57 microns. And yet here is the Slick Rock member covering probably over a ten thousand square miles and up to a couple of hundred miles from its source in the Uncompahgre uplift.

And, as you have indicated, the Entrada is not exactly one of the largest formations containing eolian sands. It shouldn't be hard to come up with other larger, modern or ancient examples. For one the Sahara might come to mind. You have mentioned below that most transport of Entrada sands actually being carried out by streams (which I disagree with, but that is of no import)... So where are the stream deposits that are the source of the Saharan sand dunes?

quote:
...
Normal accepted means of transporting sand and sediment are adequate to explain the size and extent of the deposit.

Yes, including wind.

quote:
... It sounds like most of the sand was carried to the area by water, not wind and was locally reworked by wind to create the dunes.

Not the Slick Rock.

quote:
I fail to see why you believe large scale transport of large sand particles by wind lofting was required, it is certainly not a mainstream view, remember I am suppose to be the one here that is off the wall.

I don't know what you mean by this. The Entrada includes sands of grain size greater than you say are impossible, carried significant distances by wind alone.

quote:
...
You stated that you disagreed with the 57 micron limit on wind lofting, why and for what reasons and what evidence do you base this on?

That is what I have just given you. I am sorry that I assumed you knew about all of this before.

quote:
From what I have been able to find, 40 microns is a more reasonable limit based on the maximum size found in wind lofted deposits. I have seen nothing to support a much larger lofting limit size.

Now you do. Fine sands are effectively transported by wind. Diatoms should be even easier to transport.

quote:
Density of diatoms and forams? Well they sink in water, which is why I used the reference to water droplet sizes, so figure a density a bit heavier than water.

Yes, and quite a bit less dense than quartz grains. Why would you compare the aerodynamics of diatoms diredtly to those quartz grains? Just guessing, but an equivalent dimension of diatoms to quarts grains of 57 microns might even be double that and resulting in effectively easier transport.

By the way, not to be distracted too far from the main subject, when are you going to get us some actual evidence for a global flood? Ultimately, all this to-do over eolian transport is just so much fluff. Let's get into some real data supporting a global flood.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Admin, posted 11-09-2002 10:18 PM Admin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by wmscott, posted 11-11-2002 4:49 PM edge has responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1659 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 3 of 234 (22151)
11-10-2002 8:40 PM


Hey Guys,

Here's a paper by a Christian Geologist who points out that the Garden of Eden sat on top of sedimentary rock six miles deep. She knows her case is devastating to "Flood Geology" but has chosen to go with the evidence. Imagine that.

Garden of Eden - http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2000/PSCF3-00Hill.html

db


Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Percy, posted 11-11-2002 3:18 PM doctrbill has not yet responded
 Message 8 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-11-2002 6:17 PM doctrbill has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20105
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 4 of 234 (22270)
11-11-2002 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by doctrbill
11-10-2002 8:40 PM


That's a great article, but this may be the wrong thread for it because wmscott is an OEC. I'd sure like to see TB's reaction to it - maybe you could post the link in one of the threads where he's active.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by doctrbill, posted 11-10-2002 8:40 PM doctrbill has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by wmscott, posted 11-11-2002 4:57 PM Percy has responded

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 5 of 234 (22276)
11-11-2002 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by edge
11-10-2002 12:14 AM


Dear Edge;

Hey, I maybe well read, but as I have stated before I am not a degreed geologist and I doubt that even top class geologists have memorized all the world's formations. I don't know everything and I don't pretend that I do. One of the reasons I post here is to learn from the feed back.

Looking over our debate here, it seems you and I are having a problem with terms. Let's clear up some misconceptions, the term eolian includes particles that have been moved both by lofting and saltation. Lofting of sand is limited to about 40 microns, saltation is not and can and does move larger grains. Trying to use eolian deposits that contain saltated material to try to support a larger size limit for lofting, doesn't work. If you are to try to support a larger size limit for lofting, you will first have to show that lofting was the only way the deposit could have been made. But so far all of the dune deposits you have referred to, saltation has been involved, which defeats your argument. So as I see your position, you can either attempt to prove a much larger size limit on lofted particles or try to prove the material I have found was transported here by saltation. So which line of arguing do you wish to pursue?

On side points, the Morrison Fm. has eolian sand dunes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by edge, posted 11-10-2002 12:14 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by edge, posted 11-11-2002 11:41 PM wmscott has responded

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 6 of 234 (22277)
11-11-2002 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Percy
11-11-2002 3:18 PM


Dear Percipient;

Yes you are right I have no problem with it. I will respond to your earlier post here since the first part of this thread is closed.

Ah, the belief that the majority is always right, having the reassurance of being part of the herd, one's peer group, having everyone agree with your opinion. I would rather be right than popular. Proving a point of scientific debate is not dependent on how many believe it, if it was, the YECs would unfortunately probably win by being the majority here in the USA. As for improving my batting average, this board is only my sounding board, my next step is publishing some scientific papers. Which is why I have cut back on posting here to focus more time on that endeavor. I don't really expect my views to gain wide support, most people already have made up their minds on this issue one way or the other. But I do hope to provide an alternative viewpoint for those who are looking for one. Hopefully if I manage to get some papers published, I will have succeed in putting on the world stage a theory of the deluge that can be examined scientifically.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Percy, posted 11-11-2002 3:18 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-11-2002 5:54 PM wmscott has responded
 Message 17 by Percy, posted 11-14-2002 2:01 PM wmscott has responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 234 (22283)
11-11-2002 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by wmscott
11-11-2002 4:57 PM


WmScott

I am reading your book. However, can you please for everyones sake, write a pararagraph or two for semi-layman that explains your thesis simply? Not just a hint of what's to come if they read your book - how about a summary of what your theory is, how it works, what the key evidence is and what it means?

Here's an example for 'standard' flood geology:

Many creationist flood geologists believe that much of the fossil-bearing rocks were deposted during the flood year by a catastrophic event that caused the inundaiton of the continents due to sea-level rises and catastrophic rain. Mainstream geologists agree that the rocks tell the story of inundations of the land by sea. Most of the sedimentary trocks on land are seawater deposits. Creationists argue that it occurred recently via catastrophic tectonic processes. The same processes of sea-floor spreading and continental drift that mainstream science attributes the major sea-level increases to are implicated by flood geologists.

Of course mainstream science doesn't agree that the entire surface of the planet was ever covered. However, the highlands would have been significantly lower during the earlier stages of the continental movements which built many of the mountain chains. The highlands would also be the last, and most briefly covered, and would only have received a light sprinkling of sediment. Highlands also preferntially erode more quickly. There are many reasons to not expect to find evidence for a complete covering of the earth.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by wmscott, posted 11-11-2002 4:57 PM wmscott has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by wmscott, posted 11-13-2002 5:55 PM Tranquility Base has responded
 Message 154 by Buzsaw, posted 03-14-2003 11:46 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 234 (22287)
11-11-2002 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by doctrbill
11-10-2002 8:40 PM


I had a quick look at it. Of course every flood geologist knows about this! I'm just a simple genomics researcher and I've thought about it.

I would presume that the modern day rivers were named after the Eden ones!! Ever heard of New York? I've got a suspicion it wasn't the first 'York'.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by doctrbill, posted 11-10-2002 8:40 PM doctrbill has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by John, posted 11-11-2002 7:58 PM Tranquility Base has responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 234 (22297)
11-11-2002 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Tranquility Base
11-11-2002 6:17 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I had a quick look at it. Of course every flood geologist knows about this! I'm just a simple genomics researcher and I've thought about it.

I would presume that the modern day rivers were named after the Eden ones!! Ever heard of New York? I've got a suspicion it wasn't the first 'York'.


TB, you are smarter than this. The point of the article is that the Bible accurately describes the region as it existed a few thousand years ago and AFTER the flood-- not to mention it rest on top of six miles of sediment. Yet Eden existed before the flood and thus should have been wiped out by it.

Logically, the Bible should describe an area that no longer exists.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-11-2002 6:17 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-11-2002 9:46 PM John has responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 234 (22303)
11-11-2002 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by John
11-11-2002 7:58 PM


^ I guess I dispute that the Bible accurately describes that terrain (firt time for everything hey?). I'll have a more careful read and get abck to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by John, posted 11-11-2002 7:58 PM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by John, posted 11-13-2002 11:03 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 601 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 11 of 234 (22309)
11-11-2002 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by wmscott
11-11-2002 4:49 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
Hey, I maybe well read, but as I have stated before I am not a degreed geologist and I doubt that even top class geologists have memorized all the world's formations. I don't know everything and I don't pretend that I do. One of the reasons I post here is to learn from the feed back.

Somehow, I seriously doubt your last statement. It does not appear to anyone here that you are willing to learn, but would rather take up your soapbox and sell your book. And your willingness to tilt at the windmills of mainstream geology suggests a degree of hubris that I can hardly imagine taking on without formal training.

quote:
Looking over our debate here, it seems you and I are having a problem with terms. Let's clear up some misconceptions, the term eolian includes particles that have been moved both by lofting and saltation. Lofting of sand is limited to about 40 microns, saltation is not and can and does move larger grains. Trying to use eolian deposits that contain saltated material to try to support a larger size limit for lofting, doesn't work. If you are to try to support a larger size limit for lofting, you will first have to show that lofting was the only way the deposit could have been made. But so far all of the dune deposits you have referred to, saltation has been involved, which defeats your argument. So as I see your position, you can either attempt to prove a much larger size limit on lofted particles or try to prove the material I have found was transported here by saltation. So which line of arguing do you wish to pursue?

Please document your statement that grains over 40 microns cannot be lofted. I actually have little problem with larger particles including drops of sea water containing diatoms being carried to heights that would make them transportable by stong winds. Since I am not a sedimentologist, I do not have supporting evidence at this time, but will make an effort to find it.

Other than this, you entirely miss my point that you are comparing quartz grains with diatoms... very different in their aerodynamic and transportability properties. If you do not address this you cannot be taken seriously.

Thirdly, you have yet to explain how diatoms got into ice formations at the south pole.

These are simple facts that you have decided to conveniently ignore. I do not intend to argue the finer points here, just show you that, logically, you must consider these things. I am not trying to 'prove' anything. That is for the absolutists. However, to jump from the limited evidence that you have to the inference of a global flood that left no obvious evidence, is sheer folly. Particularly since you are not as well-versed in geology as you occasionally imply in your dismissal of professional geologists on this board.

[quote]On side points, the Morrison Fm. has eolian sand dunes. [/B][/QUOTE]

Very likely, as they are common in near marine environments. However, I do not believe that the dunes cover large time-stratigraphic horizons.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by wmscott, posted 11-11-2002 4:49 PM wmscott has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by wmscott, posted 11-13-2002 5:58 PM edge has responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 234 (22482)
11-13-2002 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Tranquility Base
11-11-2002 9:46 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ I guess I dispute that the Bible accurately describes that terrain (firt time for everything hey?). I'll have a more careful read and get abck to you.

bump.....

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-11-2002 9:46 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 13 of 234 (22545)
11-13-2002 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Tranquility Base
11-11-2002 5:54 PM


Dear Tranquility Base;

The highest complement you can give a writer is to read their book, thank you very much TB! I would like to hear what you think of it, what you like and what you don't like as well, detailed negative criticism is usually the most informative feed back a writer can get. I was impressed with your two paragraph sum up of YEC flood geology, I will attempt to do the same for my book.

The book "Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood" is written from a biblical literal old earth prospective. The theory put forth is that the biblical flood occurred at the end of the Wisconsin Ice Age as the result of comet impacts on the continental ice sheets triggering a large scale release of water and ice into the seas, which resulted in a global rise in sea level that flooded the earth until the isostatic shift in water on the crust caused the land to reemerge. It was the comet impacts that resulted in the reported 40 days of rain and not water from 'above the heavens' as so many have thought. Many difficult to explain loose pieces of evidence from different fields are tied together to form a logical cohesive picture that not only answers how the deluge happened, but also explains other mysteries, such as the Pleistocene extinction event, the disappearance of ice age peoples and culture, and the genetic mismatch between ice age remains and modern populations. Evidence of super floods, the sudden release of very large amounts of melt water and ice are used to help support this theorized chain of events. The pattern of animal extinction and recolonization is used to support that the Pleistocene extinction was caused by a sudden rise in sea level, as is the pattern seen in human migration as well. Glacial erratics found in places where only floating ice could deposit them, and marine animals living in land locked bodies of water are also used to support a recent flood along with a host of other evidence from around the world.

A fair amount of time is also spent on what the flood was not; an old earth is established, YEC flood theories are disproved, a global canopy is shown to be physically impossible and the preflood greenhouse theory is discredited. Once the red herrings are disposed of, the book then proceeds to logically plug together the pieces of real evidence to reveal what happened, the ice age is explained, impact events and their effects are discussed and the Pleistocene extinctions are tied in with the flood. The pieces are assembled in a step by step description of the deluge with supporting evidence for each step, and the geology of the flood is discussed in detail. There is even a fictionalized account about how Noah built the ark and what the flood was like for him and his family. Also presented is the author's research on finding marine diatoms in the Midwest in association with recent glacial deposits. The situation regarding the debate over the flood is summed up and in last chapter the author shows how it is possible to shift fact from fallacy in religious doctrines using the Bible.

There is too much evidence cited in the book to refer to it all in such a short format. Plus I have since found much more, and there are some things in the book I would now change. I hope to write some scientific papers on some of my findings and then write a second edition which would include the corrections and the additional evidence. For example, my recent findings of microtektites in glacial till is solid evidence of recent comet impacts. So as you read my book please bare in mind that not everything is in the first edition.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-11-2002 5:54 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-13-2002 6:43 PM wmscott has responded

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 14 of 234 (22546)
11-13-2002 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by edge
11-11-2002 11:41 PM


Dear Edge;

quote:
Please document your statement that grains over 40 microns cannot be lofted. I actually have little problem with larger particles including drops of sea water containing diatoms being carried to heights that would make them transportable by strong winds.

The actual accepted range for the maximum size of particles that can be lofted or carried in suspension by the wind for great distances is about 40 to perhaps as much as 60 microns.

"Windblown particles on both Earth and Mars include material transported in suspension ("dust," or material <~60 microns in diameter), saltation ("sand," or material ~60–2000 microns in diameter), and creep or reptation (material >2000 microns in diameter)." http://www.agu.org/pubs/toc2002/sp/2000JE001481/2.shtml

"There are three primary modes of grain transport: surface creep, saltation and suspension. Initial motion is achieved when induced aerodynamic forces exerted on a grain become instantly greater than the adhesive forces attaching them to the surface. Grains that are able to be lifted by the air stream but which fall back to the surface after a 'short' distance are traveling in saltation. Soil aggregates and particles larger than ~1000 microns cannot be picked up by the wind but tend to roll along the surface due to wind forces and impacting grains. These grains are moving by creep. Grains less than 20-30 microns are small enough to respond to turbulent fluctuations in the air stream and their motion is defined by turbulent diffusion. These grains are traveling by suspension and may remain airborne until rain washes them out of the air, often being deposited many kilometers downwind." http://www.bsyse.wsu.edu/saxton/cp3/WindErosion.htm

According to both these web sites, long distance lofting or suspension by the wind is only possible for particles less than about 60 microns. Diatoms and forams are less dense and may possibly have a larger maximum size that can be lofted by the wind. I have been unable to locate a listing of the maximum sizes found in ice cores far inland. So far the best information I have found is still the following quote.

" These diatomaceous sediment microclasts range in size from 25 to 40 microns, however, and do not preclude eolian transport." http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1997/nsf97160/ch9.htm#fig1

Indicating that for diatoms found in Antarctica inland ice cores, 40 microns is accepted as a limit for wind lofted transport. Due to the characteristics of diatoms and foram I would be willing to accept a some what larger maximum size for long distance wind lofting, but so far I have failed to find any evidence to support that conclusion. Additionally many of the micromarine fossils I have found are well above the maximum for wind lofting by a very wide margin which defeats arguing about the extract lofting size limit anyway since they would still be above even a generous higher limit.

quote:
Thirdly, you have yet to explain how diatoms got into ice formations at the south pole.

The last link above is from a web site on diatoms in ice cores in Antarctica, check it out, as they stated in the above quote, the diatoms they found were less than 40 microns which is small enough for suspension in the wind which allows for long distance transport. I would be interested if you can find any information on diatoms of much larger sizes found in inland ice cores that are viewed as wind lofted material. HINT! HINT! (This would a good way for you to prove me wrong on this point. Go for it Edge!)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by edge, posted 11-11-2002 11:41 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by edge, posted 11-13-2002 10:43 PM wmscott has responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 234 (22552)
11-13-2002 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by wmscott
11-13-2002 5:55 PM


Thanks wm.

I'll continue reading your book and comment when I've finished.

So far I don't find your evidence sufficently compelling to abandon a young earth. Catastrophic tectonics, flood surges, helium retention and a creationist cosmology IMO is the answer to your problems with YEC. In short, some bizaree things but completely compatible with 2 Pet 3 and its prophetic description of uniformitarianism. I hope that some of your iceage/comet stuff will help YE-creationists nevertheless.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-13-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by wmscott, posted 11-13-2002 5:55 PM wmscott has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by wmscott, posted 11-27-2002 5:14 PM Tranquility Base has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021