The 3 catch cries of uniformitarian geology are equally well explained by the Flood

The top layers could also have dried by evaporation. Go do a quantitative calc if you need to. I've got bigger contradictions of creationism to worry about .

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The top layers could also have dried by evaporation. Go do a quantitative calc if you need to. I've got bigger contradictions of creationism to worry about .

---

Yes. Yes you do. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

No. We of course believe that the vast horizontal layers that cover sub-continental regons in sheets of sediment were layed down during high energy flows as revealed by paleocurrent data. Lower volume run-off carved features into these soft layers as the flow moved from a sheet to stream regime.

---

So are you saying that low volume run off carved the Redwall Limestones and Grand Wash Dolomites?

quote:

---

This explains all of your points. Because of the low volume during the second stage channeling occurs and carves out features rather than removing entire layers.

---

Actually you haven’t explained any of anyone’s points as far as I can see. Are Dolomites deposited by second stage channeling? Is that how limestone layers form?

quote:

---

Fast currents have been hsown to geernate neat layers by hydrodynamic sorting. You really should get Berthualt's video from AIG for something like $10. Unless they faked more photo realisitc footage than appears in Jurassic Park, the footage shows actual layers forming under fast currents in huge experimental channels.

---

I have seen pictures of his results. Did the layers alternate in appearance like varves? I don’t remember seeing that. Were there layers of limestone anywhere in his rapidly formed sediments? I don’t think so. How about salt deposits? Do you think geologists can't tell when layers have been deposited by rapid flow? Do you really think it is legit to extrapolate his results to deposition over thousand of square miles? I guess you do but I don’t think anyone who was not desperately trying to defend a myth that science has long rejected would think the same.

quote:

---

Salyt beds? In our scenario the salt beds may have been generated due to precipitaiton due to either volcanic heating or even accelerated radiodecay. I wont pretend this is proven. It is how we would account for it at this point.

---

Did you pay attention? You need to evaporate enormous quantities of water at least 11 separate times to get the salt in North Dakota alone.Salt won’t deposit until the solution is saturated. Raising the temperature raises the solubility so I think you have a big problem here. I don't have the whole phase diagram here but at 40C the solubiity is about 40%. You also need to evaporate a LOT of water to get this much salt, you need to do it over and over again and you need to do it fast.There are estimated to be 30 trillion tons of salt under Michigan alone and the deposits extend under Ohio and Ontario as wellhttp://www.geo.msu.edu/geo333/saltminingM.htmlThere are 11 different salt layers in the North Dakota sediments that Morton discusses. No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/geo.htmOne of them alone has at least 20 trillion tons of salt and the others probably total up to more and of course there are 8 other salt beds in the Western Hemisphere and many others around the world. Let’s be conservative and say that Michigan alone and this one layer in North Dakota are half the world’s buried salt so there is a total of about 100 trillion tons in your so-called flood deposits (This is probably low by a lot but I don’t have time to do all the research needed).You have to start with seawater no more than about 0.035% salt or fish couldn’t live. So 9x10^19 grams of salt requires 2.6 x 10^21 gram of water to evaporate. The only way you can Evaporate the water you need to evaporate rapidly enough to make several different salt layers in a year while all the other deposition is going on is to boil it and boil it fast. The latent heat of evaporation of water is 2259 J/g so it requires 5.85 x 10^24 J of heat to boil this much seawater and of course another 4.2 J/g/degree to heat it to boiling temperature.There are about 5x10^21 grams of air in the atmosphere and it takes about 1 Joule to heat a gram of air by 1 degree so boiling this much water will release more than 10 times the amount of heat into the air required to heat the air by over 100 C as the water condenses releasing its latent heat of evaporation. Even if you only need to boil half the water to get the salt to start depositing you will release far more than enough heat to cook the earth to death.Just boiling enough water to deposit the salt in Michigan releases moer that enough heat to heat the entire atmosphere by 100C. Or if the temperature does not go up the relative humidity will quickly reach 100% so the water will stop evaporating long before the salt is deposited. Either way your model is sunk.I am also trying to figure out how volcanic heating and accelerated radioactive decay boil water that has just surged over hundreds of thousands of square miles of previously deposited sediments, but the BFM (boiling flood model) just cooks the earth to death so it doesn’t help you rescue your myth.Randy

quote:

---

Ammonites? Sorting would be by ecolocy, morphology, mobility and survival characteristics in our model.

---

And how do any of these supposed factors result in sorting by the complexity of their shell sutures so that it appears they evolved over time? Your model is just plain nonsense.

quote:

---

Dinosaur/mammal seperations. I know I wouldn't have spent much time on the dinosaur plains. I personally know an Australian creationst who was present as new Paluxy River dino/human trackways were uncovered. They followed the trackway layer until it ended in a river bank. This was removed and there were new dinosuar and human imprints under that. As simple as that. This is a totally normal (but creationiost )Aussie archeologist (ie not a paleontologist) who in his spare time joined the Paluxy guys. He saw it uncovered with his own eyes.

---

Right and I bet Elvis was there with them as well.Randy

quote:

---

The freshwater Hermite layers of Grand Canyon have land plant material strwn through thousands of square miles with no evidence of a river delta. We have excellent eveidcnce of both catstrophic fresh and sea-water fooding. Just keep telling youself that somehow there is an envirnement that could do it today.

---

Just keep telling yourself that this catastrophic deposition could preserve animal tracks, salt crystals, raindrop impressions and mud cracks. The Hermit Shale which is not really shale can be explained by mainstream geology.Account SuspendedThere is no need to resort to a magic whirling, swirling, surging flood.Randy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:

​

Salyt beds? In our scenario the salt beds may have been generated due to precipitaiton due to either volcanic heating or even accelerated radiodecay. I wont pretend this is proven. It is how we would account for it at this point.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-01-2002]

---

This is not a tenable solution. Randy detailed the problems this presents with respect to the quantity of salt deposits present. Another problem is that we see precipitation of minerals (including salt) around volcanic vents today. The results look nothing like (in either apperance or chemistry) the salt deposits that are a part of the GC. Also salt deposits contain several lines of evidence that they were created subarially by evaporation (presence of pollen, dust, micrometeorites etc). I covered this in a post to TC some time back (see link below).http://EvC Forum: why creation "science" isn't science -->EvC Forum: why creation "science" isn't scienceJoe T.

Joe TYou can rule out the flood based on that, and dinosuar trackways, but instead I will look at the evidence that the bread and butter of the geo-col was rapidly generated. Most of the geo-col talks of rapidity and continuity.I take your points, they are very good. But do you really pretend that these issues have been carefully considered by mainstream scientists from a flood geology POV? Of course not. You quickly look for the beds that are obviously problematic for us. I can point out dozens of beds that are probnlematic for you too.Instead we point out that most of the geo-col is in favour of the flood and that the catch cries of uniformitarianism that led mainstream geology down the 'eons' path were always equally well explained by the flood.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-02-2002]

"The upper layers. The top layers are irrelevant because they are probably not with us any more. And I am not claiming to be an expert on this anyway! The layers hardened in the same way mainstream science accounts for them. It is quite likely that the time detials have never been properly worked out. When you've got millions of years, who cares?"
--I love your last sentence, I will certainly have to remember that one, simple though a much better worded expression of it than I have attempted in the past
--Also, me and edge tumbled on the issue of compaction, desiccation, and the rest of what comes with it in this thread starting here:http://EvC Forum: TEMPORARY: So how did the GC (Geological Column) get laid down from a mainstream POV?--You'll notice that the posts with the more valuable substance, of which I would direct you to, have the usual trend of having very brief responses. Also, I if anyone was interested in delving into something similar to this, [Diagenesis III, Wolf et al., 1992] has a section which is partially applicable entitled, "A volume and mass approach to carbonate diagenesis: The role of compaction and cementation".
--Of course it only deals with the process of lithification of a single type of sediment, carbonates. But this is only logical isn't it? I mean really, the rest of the geologic column has already fully lithified and there it would also be unlawful to think that an unconsolidated stratum were to sit atop one that is not lithified wouldn't it? -------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 12-02-2002][This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 12-02-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I take your points, they are very good. But do you really pretend that these issues have been carefully considered by mainstream scientists from a flood geology POV? Of course not. You quickly look for the beds that are obviously problematic for us. I can point out dozens of beds that are probnlematic for you too.

​

Instead we point out that most of the geo-col is in favour of the flood and that the catch cries of uniformitarianism that led mainstream geology down the 'eons' path were always equally well explained by the flood.

---

Hmm, more unsupported assertions. How about some data? And where are these problem beds for us?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Wet sediment lying around hardens through compression and chemical processes as you know. You show me the work that shows that the sediments couldn't have hardened since the flood.

---

Well, first of all, you have to show what supplied the compressive forces and where the time came from for the chemical processes. If you have ever seen wet, soft sediments erode you might understand why the GC could never form. The incised sediments would simply flow to reform banks at an angle of repose consistent with a material having no cohesive strength.

quote:

---

Like I have posted earlier today, some fractures are post-flood times. The Grand Canyon edge has been undermined for 4500 years and of course has caused hard wall collapse.

---

So, you are saying that the soft sediments were deposited, then eroded, all in one year; then the walls lithified, then the walls were fractured, then the fractures were eroded to form the side canyons. Pardon my incredulity, but this sounds more far-fetched than any evolution or abiogenesis scenario.You have to remember also that you don’t even have 4500 years to do this. There is no evidence of any such observed deposition and erosion for over thousands of years.

quote:

---

All we are saying is that you have found a certain level of consistency in gradualism and have gone out on a limb on everything.

---

Not at all. We accept that some processes are rapid and others are slow. You, on the other hand, must have virtually all unrealistically rapid processes or you start falling outside your biblical myth.

quote:

---

We have done the same for flood geology.

---

You have ignored numerous fatal flaws, however. Thos have been enumerated frequently here on these pages.

quote:

---

Once you go flood or no flood most of the interpreaiton is
ideology-based which you guys rarely admitt.

---

Again, incorrect. We do not disavow interpretation. However, we have abandoned the flood concept as of, oh, about 200 years ago.

quote:

---

The non-marine component was still catastrophic. Whatever 'the windows of heaven opened' means did something that has not occurred since.

---

Hmm, that’s convenient for you!

quote:

---

The freshwater Hermite layers of Grand Canyon have land plant material strwn through thousands of square miles with no evidence of a river delta.

---

Why do you limit yourself to river deltas for an appropriate land plan environment? Besides, do you know what a paleodelta looks like?

quote:

---

We have excellent eveidcnce of both catstrophic fresh and sea-water fooding. Just keep telling youself that somehow there is an envirnement that could do it today.

---

Just what is that evidence? We have discussed that some sand laminations can occur quickly, but nothing else.

quote:

---

e: In case you didn't notice, the deposition usually occurs in a place different from erosion. I point this out simply to show that you have no clue as to what your are talking about, and that all of the in-depth reading that you have done is gone to waste because you do not understand the most basic principles of science. How do you expect to be taken seriously?

​

You are completely incorrect Edge.

---

Really? I think we have ample evidence at this point that you really are out of your depth on this subject.

quote:

---

I simply assume that the reader is aware that erosion in one place generates sediment in another.

---

Then why do you discuss erosion, saying that it produces layers. It does not. Perhaps you assume too much, and trick yourself. And, by the way, don’t you know that assumptions are bad for you?

quote:

---

You may think it reuires a PhD in geology to know that but guess what: I knew that before I ever picked up my first geology book.

---

No, I don’t think so. But it does take a modicum of training and experience. Your words belie your ignorance of geological processes.

EdgeLithification
What supplied the compressive forces? You're kidding right? Thousands of feet of sedmient on top and you ask for a source of compression.And could you explain the following in English:

quote:

---

The incised sediments would simply flow to reform banks at an angle of repose consistent with a material having no cohesive strength.

---

Grand Canyon historyYou find what I said difficult to stomach? It is exactly what one would expect. Soft sediment. Channeling. Lithificaiton. 4500 years of Colorado river. Regular hard-sediment fracturing due to undermining.There is no other possible expectaiton!

quote:

---

You have to remember also that you don’t even have 4500 years to do this. There is no evidence of any such observed deposition and erosion for over thousands of years.

---

Says who? You'll be pretty famous if you have some flood survivor who was there to not record these events. The depositon occurred during the flood, the erosion occurred at the end of the flood.InterpretationEdge, you show me the discussion during the 18th century that points out things even as clearly as this dunderhead biophysicsist does. I have read multiple volumes inlcuding 'Great Geological Controversies'. No-one at that time really looked at the flood scientifically including those who beleived it for various reasons including the fact that no-one was aware layers could and did form rapidly.

quote:

---

You can rule out the flood based on that, and dinosuar trackways, but instead I will look at the evidence that the bread and butter of the geo-col was rapidly generated. Most of the geo-col talks of rapidity and continuity.

---

Yes one can rule out the flood based on extensive salt deposits and rule it out again based on trace fossils. You can also rule out the flood based on
Sorting of the fossil record
Paleosols
Eolian sandstones
Biogeography
Biodiversity of land vertebrates, plants and insects
Millions of Lamina in places like the Green River
Millions of Varves in Lake Baikal
Hundreds of thousand of annual layers in Antarctic Ice cores
I suspect that this list is incomplete and other can come up with other falsifications of the flood myth.There is absolutely no evidence of any layers that were deposited by a worldwide flood no matter how rapidly some of them may have formed. The fact that there are layers between your supposedly rapidly deposited layers that could not have been deposited rapidly or by a flood falsifies the claim that the geologic column was deposited by a worldwide flood and this is only one of many falsifications of the flood myth. Most ideas need only one falsification to be falsified but it seems the flood will live on in the minds of YECs no matter how many times it is falsified.Randy

quote:

---

Lithification
What supplied the compressive forces? You're kidding right? Thousands of feet of sedmient on top and you ask for a source of compression.

---

You’re the one who must be kidding. Where there thousands of feet of sediments compressing the bedrock in the Middle East? People have been living there continuously since right after the flood according to your myth. You would think they would have noticed thousands of feet of sediments disappearing. Of course the Egyptians lived right through the flood without even noticing it so I suppose that’s not so surprising after all.There are hard rocks near the surface or on the surface all over the world. I wonder how these thousands of feet of sediment that compressed and hardened all the surface rock layers all over the world disappeared without much trace in a few thousand years and managed to leave any topsoil behind. They must have disappeared before people built any civilizations anywhere or we wouldn't have continous archeological records in so many places. Did God just poof them out of existence after the rocks hardened and poof some topsoil in place over the remaining rock.You just make up one ad hoc rationalization after another leaving any semblance of science further and further behind as you desperately attempt to defend the myth of a worldwide flood.Randy

quote:

---

Lithification : What supplied the compressive forces? You're kidding right? Thousands of feet of sedmient on top and you ask for a source of compression.

---

But you won’t have thousands of feet of sediment. Because they have no cohesive strength, they will a flow toward the stream until an angle of repose is accomplished. I think you will find that such an angle would place the north ‘rim’ somewhere up around Escalante. Try cutting a canyon in wet cement sometime. You can’t do it. The process of flow will also disrupt the bedding such that your stratigraphic column is scrambled. Then you have to explain the presence of rock fragments farther down the stream channel and in the Gulf of California, etc.

quote:

---

And could you explain the following in English:

​

quote:

---

: The incised sediments would simply flow to reform banks at an angle of repose consistent with a material having no cohesive strength.

---

---

See above. Water saturated sediments will yield under an unbalanced load.

quote:

---

Grand Canyon history: You find what I said difficult to stomach? It is exactly what one would expect. Soft sediment. Channeling. Lithificaiton. 4500 years of Colorado river. Regular hard-sediment fracturing due to undermining.

​

There is no other possible expectaiton!

---

Sure there is. Long periods of deposition, dewatering, lithification, followed by uplift and erosion.

quote:

---

e: You have to remember also that you don’t even have 4500 years to do this. There is no evidence of any such observed deposition and erosion for over thousands of years.

​

Says who? You'll be pretty famous if you have some flood survivor who was there to not record these events. The depositon occurred during the flood, the erosion occurred at the end of the flood.

---

Well, we don’t have any record over the last 1000 years of human habitation of major changes in the topography. So you time scenario has to be reduced by at least that much.

quote:

---

Interpretation: Edge, you show me the discussion during the 18th century that points out things even as clearly as this dunderhead biophysicsist does. I have read multiple volumes inlcuding 'Great Geological Controversies'. No-one at that time really looked at the flood scientifically including those who beleived it for various reasons including the fact that no-one was aware layers could and did form rapidly.

---

No, it was accepted a priori by creation era scientists. However, scientific investigation showed that this story defied the facts and it was abandoned. Now the question is, why is the a priori acceptance of evolution so much stronger than the a priori acceptance of creationism 200 years ago? The answer is that it isn’t. Modern acceptance of evolution is based on evidence.

RandyI think you need to go on an excursion to Mt St Helens and tread the water laid sediments there. And it's only been 20 years.And why should those in the middle east hav noticed sediments 'disappearing'?! They were drying not disappearing.