So what about SILT and dating????

Unfortunately, I strongly suspect this would only "find" the "Proposed New Topics" version of the topic, which has been deleted after archiving. This locations version would not show. This situation is a part of the reason, outside of the PNT situation, we do not delete the previous location topic after it's copied to a new location.Adminnemooseus

This would be a serious bug. When I click on "techristian" anywhere that it appears as a link, I get an accurate list of messages from him. The member message lists are updated when threads are moved.Let me know if you're really seeing something different. If you provide enough detail so I can reproduce it I'll add it to the bug list.{Note from Adminnemooseus - OK, my "suspicions" seem to be flat out wrong. Maybe it was an old situation that you long ago fixed. }{Note from Admin - But you have to deal with more bugs than you should, which contributes to this kind of confusion. I'm trying to put some more rigorous testing procedures in place.}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-12-2004 12:15 PMThis message has been edited by Admin, 11-14-2004 09:44 AM

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Percy,You asked: I'm not sure if this is the type response you are seeking for your question, but here are some of my thoughts on the matter.I think it quite possible that the rate of deposition may have had a short period (at some point after the Flood) of tremendous deposition.Of course, I believe that the oceans are a result of the Flood waters shearing the basement rocks (forming the abyss), the remaining water on the continents would have rushed off at that time and perhaps later as natural dams (i.e., the mountain range at the Grand Canyon) broke.I am certainly no expert, but the Mississippi River/Delta system does not appear to have been a broken dam situation. So, I would figure the initial delta to have been formed from run-off after the shear event and, possibly, a corresponding continental tilting to make the water flow even faster. Also, if this was indeed, one of the "end" events of the Flood, then the water was likely muddy (i.e., full of material to deposit).At any rate, what's the guarantee that the deposition rate is constant through the ages? Are you sure there were no catastrophic events (even just local ones) that caused a much higher rate of deposition for a period, thus making it APPEAR some 160,000+ years old when Joe the Dating Guy comes along and pulls out his Constant- Deposition-Rate yardstick?If you are familiar with Dalrymple's work, do you know how he arrived at his deposition rate? Did he use a constant rate? What was that rate based on ~ present deposition rates?Edited to add:
Also, (as I am not an expert in deltas and such) is Dalrymple or others able (or claim to be able) to figure out deposition rates for various levels (e.g., higher and lower levels) of deltas?Just some thoughts.P.S. ~ Sorry for barging in. I realize you were asking TechChristian (sp?), so I hope neither you nor he mind me also responding to your question.This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 12-01-2004 06:06 PM

The problem there is in the nature of the sediments out in the abyssal plains of the oceans - a kilometer's worth of sediment made from either 1) particles so fine that they take months to settle from the surface, with no coarse stuff mixed in or 2) skeletons of shelled microorganisms that grow only in the lighted top 100 meters of ocean - perhaps a centimeter's worth of sediment could grow in a year under the most wildly favorable conditions possible. And those conditions would most certainly exclude the murky, turbulent waters of The Big Flud - no sunlight gets through that muddy water.

Are these diatoms, by any chance?Also, are we certain that the Mississippi Delta sediments are upon this kilometer of abyssal sediments of fine materials and shelled organisms?Not saying this utterly changes everything, just asking.Also,
Do we know what is under the kilometer of fine sediments?This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 12-01-2004 06:14 PM

Percy,Thanks for this tip: It's very handy.

Sometimes - more usually coccolithophores or other calcium carbonate-shelled organisms. I don't know what's immediately underneath the Delta, and I don't even know if it's ever been drilled that deep. There are salt deposits, indicating shallow seas, way down there along lots of the Gulf coast, though. Bill Birkeland, are you around? In the Atlantic, it's basalt that was erupted at the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. It has "stripes" of remanent magnetism in that basalt that show that it was emplaced over tens of millions of years.

Coragyps, Now, here is a bit of thought on this point.The pre-Flood world was, from a biblical account, much different than the post-Flood world is. In particular, it was more hospitable to life (which one would expect). So, assuming the Biblical account to be true (which I am not expecting you to do, of course), one might conclude that even what we might consider "wildly favorable conditions" might not even come close to the original environment in which these little guys lived at the time.Fossilized insects are, in some cases, enormous compared to today's insects of similar species, suggesting higher air pressure and/or oxygen levels (or some such environmental difference). Perhaps the pre-Flood sea (remember, I'm assuming the biblical account to be true) was so much more richly oygenated or the "waters above the firmament" filtered out the UV radiation much more effectively (or some other significant difference in environmental variables, perhaps a combination of some of these). At any rate, I think one gets the point here...there was some major difference between the pre-Flood and post-Flood environments.Now with that in mind, perhaps there were LOTS of these diatoms and coccolitho-thingies...perhaps even the pre-Flood sea was saturated with them (my own musings there ~ please don't hold this thought against other literalists). Now along comes the Flood and KILLS most all of these in various points in the flood(for instance, through releasing heated subterranean water or some other catastrophic event). Then these little fellas make a huge, deep layer during the Flood and probably continue settling out for some time after the Flood (plus whatever level has accrued in the millenia between the Flood and today). Jump ahead a few thousand years and Joe the Dating Guy sees the kilometer of abyssal plain sediments and pulls out his Constant-Rate-of-Deposition yard stick...Just some musing there, for what it's worth, on the little skeletal creatures in the sediments. Now the fine sediments...I don't know.Edited to remove a sentence intended to be funny but that could be taken wrong. Hope no one who read it did take it as anything but jest.Edited again for clarity (as though I could somehow make myself clear).This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 12-01-2004 10:28 PM

Pink Sasquatch,So, I went to your link. Not too far into it, I came across the following: There are terrible misunderstanding of Creationists' claims here. I wanted to clear them up a bit. I'm sure the author will be interested and will want to quickly correct these glaring errors. Apparently, this Talk Origins' author thinks that Creationists might make one of TWO arguments for the Mississippi delta.

• The Magical Hole Theory
• The Amazing Sediment Theory

When misstated as above, the Creationists' argument does look foolish. Most people, and rightly so, would be a bit suspicious of the Magical Hole Theory. And no one with a moderate understanding of the physical world would think the Mississippi is going to deposit any sediments any significant height above sea level, much less 7 miles above sea-level (as in the Amazing Sediment Theory).So, what do Creationists teach about the Mississippi delta...here is my attempt at stating the Creationists claims on the matter:Creationists teach that what is now the ocean floor was sheared by the weight of the Flood waters (supposedly the oceanic crustal areas are thinner than continental crustal areas) creating the abyss areas of the oceans. Melting of the polar ice caps, which are thought to be of Flood origin also (in the Creationists' view), over the millenia since the Flood are thought to have raised the ocean level significantly making the continental shelf areas of the oceans. (My own musings lead me to think that, perhaps, the initial run-off may also have had somewhat to do with the formation of the continental shelf areas as well).At any rate, the Gulf of Mexico is proposed to be part of that sheared area. There is no imaginary hole proposed, the Gulf of Mexico is the hole. And since there is a giant hole (the Gulf of Mexico), there is no need for Amazing Sediments to pile up 7 miles above sea level or "sink down" (as the hole ~ the Gulf of Mexico) is already there.The Creationists also think that corresponding continental uplifting occurred during the shear event increasing the run-off potential, to a large degree in many cases as some mountain ranges, particularly those parallel to the shores, are thought to have been formed mostly during this shear event.Certainly Creationists have not proposed magical holes in front of the world's major rivers. However, many major river mouths are indeed presumed to have been affected by this shear event(s), as the Flood and the shear event(s) are obviously thought to have occurred globally. I think the major rivers (as far as the paths they follow are concerned) and their mouths (as far as location is concerned) are actually presumed to have been created, or at least largely influenced, by this shear-uplift-runoff event(s). I have heard that many major river mouths have corresponding diagonal canyons in the ocean (I assume it is meant they run diagonally down the abyss, but am not certain), which apparently adds some credence to the shear event idea.Thanks for the link. Hopefully, such outrageous misstatements of Creationists' views are not the norm at Talk Origins.This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 12-01-2004 10:15 PM

But the sediments of the delta ARE in a hole of sorts - the underlying rocks are warped down very severly - 7 miles' worth - relative to the same strata east or west of the river. The delta itself is flea-sized against the whole Gulf of Mexico, anyway. You may be representing current creationist "theory" on the subject accurately, but, if so, it shows once again just how ad hoc and lame their typical arguments are.

Which Creationists? You talk about "Creationists" as if they have a single, agreed-upon set of explanations for natural phenomenon, which is clearly not the case.The TalkOrigins article was specifically countering specific claims made by Hovind, a creationist. Perhaps you should reread the article, since that is NOT what the author was stating.The author was stating that, in order for one of Hovind's claim to be true, one of those two, outlandish cases would have to be true. The author is countering Hovind's claim by the absurd conditions that it would require - the author never claims that these conditions are put forward by Creationists.In regards to your "Shearing Theory", unless you provide evidence instead of speculation, it likely has as much going for it as the "The Magical Hole Theory".

You've raised more questions than you've answered.

1. What is a "shear event"? I have a guess, but I'd rather have a concrete understanding of what you're proposing.
   ​
2. If my guess about what you mean by "shear events" is correct, there is no physical evidence of shear events. You're proposing a mechanism for which you have no evidence.
   ​
3. The Gulf of Mexico is not the hole, because the 7 miles of layers of river sediment are near the outlet of the Mississippi River, and are not distributed all about the Gulf of Mexico. The sediment depression is far, far deeper than the Gulf itself.
   ​
4. There is no physical evidence of dramatic uplift of the continents 5,000 or so years ago. You're again proposing a mechanism for which you have no evidence.
   ​
5. Dating of river mouth sediments gives ages in the hundreds of thousands of years, not mere thousands.
   ​
6. The canyons on off-shore continental shelves were eroded there by the river when ocean levels were lower and the continental shelves were above sea level.

Your proposal has the same quality as the magical hole and amazing sediment proposals: no evidence. When theories are derived from books of revelation rather than evidence, it's called religion, not science.--Percy

Wow...You must excuse me a bit then.I had no idea that the delta had caused the Gulf Floor to sink in SEVEN MILES!I was under the impression that the delta was seven miles high from Gulf floor to sea level.But how is this a problem? Some 4000 to 5000 years are proposed to have past since that event. Is it impossible for this warping to have occurred (if not in the final events of Flood, which I would tend to think) during that 4000 - 5000 years with the non-Flood geologic processes we see at work today (assuming, under the Flood model of course, that an initial, massive amount of sediment was deposited quickly)?So, then, as far as my saying he was misstating Creationists' view points: I appear to be wrong...apparently, it is I who misunderstood what he meant by "hole."My apologies, then, to the author Dave E. Matson on that point.He did however make it appear we propose "magical" holes in front of major rivers. Creationists simply don't do that. Hazarding a guess, and I've never read about this subject before, I would imagine the entire earth, undergoing a similar trauma worldwide, would produce similar results at places where major river mouths formed (in the Creationists' view ~ but that's my musing on the matter).

Yes they do, because apparently you just did a few sentences before:

Could you describe the state of the earth's crust and the continents before the flood, please?The continents, you understand, float in the underlying crust. The aren't uplifted (that is held or pushed up), you'd have to push them down somehow like a cork floating in a bathtub. Could you describe how that was done?