So what about SILT and dating????

Hi Lam,I kinda brushed off your link to Answers in Genesis regarding arguments Creationists' shouldn't use. I have, however, just skimmed through it. It is very enlightening.I had been cautious about using several arguments I've heard. The AIG article solidifies my thinking on using caution. Some arguments AIG has presented strong evidence against and challenge creationists to either support the amazing claims or quit using the arguments.In one case, they correct a widely misrepresented quote from Darwin's book (ha ha...they say it "pains" them to defend Darwin, but in this issue, they felt integrity required them to ~ and I agree.)Many arguments, they say, are usually worded in such a way by creationists that the argument becomes ineffective. Other arguments are weak one (not necessarily false ones) that detract from much stronger arguments available.It is worth noting that not all the arguments are said, by Answers in Genesis, to be wrong, but that they are weak or irrelevant and therefore are inefficient when having discussions with evolutionists (if I understood correctly).Quite a few arguments I didn't realize were considered as "weak"; so. perhaps, I shall have to re-evaluate my "criteria" for which arguments I choose to put forth.Some arguments I instinctively stayed away from as they sounded so amazing (like that pseudopleiseosaur caught by the Japanese trawler). Even when I thought it really was a pleiseosaur carcass, I tended not to mention it, because I figured it would get whatever discussion I was in off-track (and it would have, too). Now, I am convinced it was a rotting basking shark and wouldn't dream of mentioning it (besides ~ if a live pleiseosaur were found it would have, presumably, the same effect on the evolutionary community that finding the coelacanth had ~ that is, none).It doesn't mention the delta argument on which this thread is based. I don't know what AIG's opinion is of the delta argument posited by techristian in the OP. I would be very interested in learning AIG's position on it, though (if they even have a position on it).I think AIG is tentatively supporting a hypothesis called catastrophic plate tectonics (which theory I only skimmed enough to barely remember the name of); so, that theory would have to, I think, be able to account for the seven-mile-deep depression which we are presently discussing.Anyways, thanks for the link.

Right now, I see four steps:1) The events that initiate the Flood
2) The rising of the water
3) The period of maximum coverage
4) The lowering of the water levelsThat is a slight technical difference, though. I doubt it will affect the conclusions you hope to help me see.

Okay.Now I hope to keep this focused on the silt issue. Is that also your intent?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yes.

sounds good.I think there are two issues we need to also cover, how we get the silt initially and where it will end up.Still together?This message has been edited by jar, 12-15-2004 11:16 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I think so.

Okay.The first phase is the water rising. According to the account it's a fast and furious event, world wide. This would be the phase where the silt is created.The only way to make silt is through erosion. That will require water flow over some material that can be broken down and suspended to make silt.Still together?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

It would certainly seem logical that at least some amount of silt was created in this event.

Well, we're talking a lot of silt, when else could it be created?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I think it *would* make a lot of silt. However, I believe that "the period of maximum coverage" and "the lowering of the waters" would also have silt making abilities (regardless of how the waters lowered).Even if you disagree with that (not saying you do disagree), it probably wouldn't affect whatever you next step is going to be (I wouldn't think).

Well, I do want to make sure we are both fully convinced for each step in the process before we go on. Let's see if we can deal with creating silt.To get silt we need to grind up rock until it's pretty fine. To do that you need running water and lots of it. It has to be running down hill and that seems to be the kind of thing we'll get during the great rain.If we are going to redeposite that silt we have to first make it and get it into suspension. The only time and place I see we can get that under the Flood scenario is in the initial phase.Before we go further, please correct that assumption if needed.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, I do have an issue or two.The first one is: does the water have to run downhill?The reason I ask is at least one Flood model has the event where the fountains of the deep are broke up as being an extremely violent event where the water rushes out vertically upwards and erodes a lot of rock and land very quickly. This would presumably grind up a lot of rock pretty fine. But this is not water running downhill. Does that cause any problems?Also the amount of silt present in the pre-Flood world (if any) would be unknown. Of course, if there were any, it would still need a means to get into suspension.The period of maximum coverage would tend, I think, to be a period where mostly settling of sediments occurred, but I would think underwater cataclysms and currents could still produce silt.Finally, the lowering of the waters (lots of water running downhill?) would seem like it would have a great ability to produce silt.So, so far I see the initial phase as able to create silt. I see the middle phase as mostly a time of deposition but possibly also creating silt. I see the lowering waters as not only starting off in a "silty" condition but also creating/re-suspending silt as they lower only to re-deposit it elsewhere.I'm not trying to be difficult, btw, (in case it sounds like it), but I am simply stating things as I see them right now. Does that help?

I want to stay away from the Fountains of the deep and all since that opens yet another area where there's no evidence and lots of very wild assumptions. Let's hold off on the things like that. If necessary we can start another thread later, but for now I hope we can stick to the mechanisms we do understand.Well, let's go over them. Have you ever seen silty rain? If we get the water up into the atmosphere it pretty much leaves most particles behind. Then it comes down as pretty pure water.To get silt though we need mountains. We need to have the water run down the hills, grinding boulder against boulder, making smaller and smaller boulders until we get sand and then silt.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Could you continue your step by step (i do find it interesting) knowing that I consider the fountains of the deep to have produced perhaps most of the sediments that were suspended in the Flood waters and that I consider that the lowering of the waters to be, possibly, the second greatest erosional event (honestly don't feel like starting any more threads right now ~ I'm just about ready to apply for a government grant right now cuz I'm at EvC full-time already).You seem to be going with a more tranquil type Flood, but I am interested in hearing your line of reasoning. You've got me curious as to how you see the Flood happening and the silt forming (even if I disagree a bit). The 40 days of rain produces the silt by running down mountains. Well, I won't say it didn't happen like that (it seems too tame to me).I probably won't respond to your next post because I've got to get ready for bed and such.Thanks.

Well,if you really think there was some possibility of "Fountains of the Deep" then I think we need to stop and get that out of the way.When you get back, explain the "Fountains of the Deep"

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion