The predictions of Walt Brown

deleted: duplicated previous thread by mistake.This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 08-03-2004 02:27 PM

quote:

---

17: One should never find marine fossils, layered strata, oil, coal seams, or limestone directly beneath undisturbed rock ice or frozen mammoth carcasses. (Although I think it might be possible for oil to be found beneath since it migrates, though I'm not sure)

---

Alaska and Siberia are both oil-producing areas. And without layered strata how are you going to get oil reserves ? You need permeable rock where the oil collects with a cap of impermeable rock to keep the oil trapped.I don't see much hope for this one.And BTW if the mammoths died at the start of the flood shouldn't se find their remains deeply buried rather than relatively near the surface ?

The prediction says "directly beneath undisturbed rock ice or frozen mammoth carcasses." I would imagine this means within a square mile of these features.This was also one reason I started the thread about oil, as I was wondering if anyone else ascribes to Gold's idea that oil is formed deeper (5-20) miles down in the earth's crust partially from methane gas and then rises through faults into the resevoirs we find now. If this were the case oil could form not entirely from biogenic material and seep into different locations. Northern Siberia being far from the most active edges of the hydroplates was inundated with muddy hail and rain and recieved less alluvian stratified deposits than other parts of the hydroplate. The depth of the muck near pre-flood mountains in some areas may only be a couple hundred feet. Brown cites an article that says miners in Siberia sometimes encounter frozen mammoths buried under several hundred feet of muck.

I can't hold out much hope that none of the mammoths is above oil fields - they're just to widely distributed.And although Brown doesn't seem to clear on where there is hydroplate activity, why doesn't the oceanic ridge running south of Alaska and Eastern Siberia indicate such activity ?And looking at the geological map of Alaska that cn be downloaded at http://wwwdggs.dnr.state.ak.us/akgeomap.html I'd say that there's not a hope that Brown is correct on that prediction.

quote:

---

The prediction says "directly beneath undisturbed rock ice or frozen mammoth carcasses." I would imagine this means within a square mile of these features.

---

Given that mammoths are the Alaskan state fossil, I also hold out little hope that mammoths and oil reserves are found separately. There are MASSIVE oil reserves underneath Alaska. Barrow, Alaska is very close to Prudhoe Bay (the largest oil reserve in America). This is what one person had to say on their trip up there: So we have stratified earth, mammoths above marine deposits, and all of this very close to the largest oil reserve in N. America.reference: Page Not Found | Guillemot Kayaks

Well, there are many geologic areas where in a few miles of lateral movement you can go from pre-cambrian to quaternary rock. In Alaska there is a lot of geologic upheaval, so this may be the case.Also, (purely my speculation) some remains may have been preserved and transported in glacial ice. Of course they would have to somehow not be ground to bits, so I don't know if this is possible.The prediction should hold true directly beneath the undisturbed specimens. To know for sure, you would have to investigate the specific local area where these undisturbed frozen features are found. The prediction might not hold true in other areas. I'm looking at a map of the ocean floor, and I see a ridge running from southern Alaska down the Eastern side of the Pacific ocean. The Asian hydroplate would have extended almost all the way East to this ridge until part of it sunk forming the Western Pacific ocean floor and the arc and cusp shaped trenches near the end of the water jetting activity.

just as a point of order Dawg - you would agree that your speculations are neither here or there in regards to the claims of Walt Brown?This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-03-2004 05:43 PM

I don't know what you mean. Walt Brown predicted what should NOT be found DIRECTLY beneath UNDISTURBED rock-ice or mammoth specimens. I am trying to explain why the "undisturbed" and "directly below" requirements are necessary.There are obviously areas of great geologic upheavals in Alaska that would change things.

Lots of Creationist believers like to use the example of "Mammoths in Siberia" that were "still eating food" while they were suddenly englaciated in the frigit flood waters of antediluvium.Kent Hovind talks about this in his seminars...He also talks about 90-foot plumb trees unearthed in Siberia, etc. etc... evidence of the great flood.

---

Corpus Maritanius 1964 -

If there is so much variation in Alaskan geology that knocks down the idea that frozen mammoths weren't deeply buried because of a lack of hydroplate activity. There must have been plenty of opportunities for the mammoths to have gotten buried and fossilised under rock.So why isn't that a prediction ? THat we should find mammoth remains in deep, early, sedimentary rock

Charles Knight wrote:"On another thread, Hangdawg13 offered those predictions
as "proof" that Walt Brown was right in some respect (the
numbering is that used by Hangdawg13):"One prediction that he offered was:"13: Muck on Siberian plateaus should have a wide range
of thicknesses. The greatest thickness will be in former
valleys. Preflood hilltops will have the thinnest layers
of muck. Drilling or seismic reflection techniques
should confirm this."This prediction is readily refuted because the Siberian "muck" as described by Walt Brown, Like the Alaskan "muck", exists in only the imaginations of Native American creationists, i.e. Vine Deloria; Young Earth creationists; supporters of catastrophists such as Charles Hapgood and Velikovsky; and netloons like Ted Holden.In case of the Siberian muck, a review of the primary literature describing either surface geology of Siberia or the occurrence of mummified mammoths in Siberia, a person finds that the so-called "muck" as decsribed by Walt Brown doesn't exist. For example, Figure 38 and descriptions and pages 112-119 of Budel (1982) of sediments containing the mummified mamoths demonstrate this clearly. The information provided by both Budel (1982) and Ukraintseva (1993) show that the mummified mammoths occur found in well-stratified, and often cross-bedded, river sediments that underlie narrow strips of ancient floodplains exhibiting relict channels, natural levees, and other fluvial landforms. These sediments are typically only 10 to 15 m (30 to 45 ft) thick. These deposits are restricted to narrow valleys cut into Tertiary or older bedrock.The "muck" described by older reports consists of a thin surficial layer of churned sediments locally created by landslides, debris flows, and solifluction (gelifluction) lobes. This layers forms when the permafrost that has formed in either these riverine sediments or on within hillslopes thaw causing either the local development of landslides, debris flows, solifluction lobes, or slumping river banks. When the permafrost melts, the water-saturated sands, silts, and clay liquefy. Once they liquefy, the water-saturated sediments move downslope either as landslides, debris flows, or solifluction lobes over the underlying permafrost. This movement churns everything, including modern plants, artifacts, subfossil bones and trees in the sediments, and sediments into a thin surficial layer of twisted trees, bones, and sediments that was called "muck" This process is documented within pages 112-119 of Budel (1982). The "muck" that Walt Brown talks about is only a thin 1 meter (3 foot), to at most 2 meter (6 foot), thick surficial layer of sediment created by periglacial processes that can be observed happening today and is well documented in the scientific literature.The thinness of solifluction (gelifluction) deposits, "muck", deposits refute Walt Brown's prediction by being typically thin, a meter (3 feet) of less in thickness; best developed on hillslopes; and virtually completely absent in valley fills where Walt Brown predicted it should be thickest. Also, as noted above, a person can either directly observe it formation within the modern Arctic Circle or find numerous published papers that document how it is formed by periglacial processes.References Cited:Budel, J., 1982, Climatic Geomorphology. Princeton
University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.Ukraintseva, V. V., 1993, Vegetation Cover and Environment of
the " Mammoth Epoch" in Siberia. The Mammoth Site of Hot
Springs of South Dakota, 1800 Highway 18-Truck Route, Hot
Springs, SD. 57747-0606, 309 pp.Related articles are "A Frozen Ninety Foot Tall Plum Tree with Ripe Fruit and Green Leaves Found North of the Arctic Circle?", which can be found at:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part3.htmland "Remains of Warm Weather Hippos Have Been Found in the Tundra's Frozen Muck?" at:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part4.htmlYours,Bill

Thank you for your reply. Brown's model does not forbid stratification of the "muck" or loess material. Some stratification would have occured where the soil was not immediately frozen. However, undisturbed mammoth specimens frozen into this muck should lie directly above, as you said: bedrock.This does not make mention of the Yedomas. Many remains of mammoths and other animals and plants have been found in Yedomas.To quote from Brown: Now this sounds like the results of a massive EXTREMELY icy landslide. But it does not explain the similar sites found in hills called Yedomas, nor does it explain the relationship between Yedomas, loess, and the salty ice, nor does it explain temperatures of -150 necessary to freeze such specimens so quickly, nor does it explain the unique characteristics of "rock ice" found near or at mammoth burial sites. I don't think the landslide explanation accounts for all of these facts.BTW what are your beliefs on the origin of Loess?

Thank you for your reply. I guess "lack of hydroplate activity" was an incorrect term. I meant that areas where undisturbed frozen mammoths are found would have mostly been covered with loess from hail and from erosive material by rainwater rather than erosive material from the incoming water from the edges of the hydroplates. Alaska was on the leading edge of a hydroplate and was drastically effected by the "compression event" Parts of Siberia on the other hand were in the center of a vast hydroplate and experienced less coverage by sandy material and little compression. I'm still thinking about reasons why certain fossils have specific localities. And I can't answer that right now.I do think that it is incorrect to make simplistic assumptions about such a unique and complex event as a worldwide flood.This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 08-04-2004 12:40 PM

Well I don't think we want to get onto a big assumption like a world-wide flood.

But I'm not making assumptions about what the hydroplates would do - I am looking at the geology. There are sedimentary strata over significant parts of Alaska and to suggest that this material simply missed all the mammoths by chance is not very plausible. There's nothing in the distribution of the rock or the mammoth remains to suggest any mechanism that would prevent mammoth remains being buried under rock that conventional geology would say is far older than the mammoths.